Court Clears Legislator on Forgery Charge

A state appeal court on Tuesday dismissed a felony forgery charge against Republican Assemblyman John R. Lewis of Orange, ruling that Lewis committed no crime even if he did order the mailing of hundreds of thousands of campaign letters bearing the phony signature of former President Ronald Reagan.

The court agreed with attorneys for Lewis, who have argued since the lawmaker was charged a year ago that he could not be guilty of forgery because he did not intend to defraud anyone of money or property.

The three-justice panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal, quoting from an earlier California Supreme Court decision, said its ruling ought not be construed as condoning what Lewis was alleged to have done.

But the justices added: “Whatever (his) misdeeds, he must not suffer for a crime which he has not committed.”

Lewis, in a statement released by his office, said he was “happy but not surprised” that the court had ruled in his favor. Lewis was the first sitting California legislator in 24 years to be indicted for a crime involving political misconduct.

“Too much time and taxpayer money has been spent by the attorney general in pursuing this case,” said Lewis, 35. “Although I am confident that I would have prevailed before a jury, I am pleased that the Court of Appeal has ordered the dismissal of this case.”

But Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Carson)--who was the target of one of the letters supposedly signed by Reagan that accused Floyd of “caving in to the powerful underworld drug industry”--said Lewis “ought to be thankful” for loopholes in the criminal justice system.

“He’s gotten away with it,” Floyd said. “He’s not the only criminal walking the streets on a technicality.”

Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, who prosecuted the case after the Los Angeles County and Sacramento County district attorneys declined, said in a statement that he had not decided whether to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

“We sought to halt this unfair conduct by criminal action, but the Court of Appeal has regrettably concluded that such cynical and misleading tactics are not prohibited by current law,” Van de Kamp said. If the decision stands, he added, “I will seek corrective legislation to prevent this conduct from further fouling our election process.”

1986 Campaign

The letters in question were mailed on behalf of Republican candidates in six Assembly districts during the final days of the 1986 legislative campaign. Lewis--who was then directing strategy for the party’s Assembly candidates--ordered the letters sent even though he knew that the White House had rejected drafts of the mailers, according to the grand jury testimony of former Republican aides involved in the decision.

The scheme might never have been detected but for the decision of a political consultant to place “The White House” as the return address on the campaign letters. Shortly after the election, undeliverable mailers began filtering back to the President’s offices marked “return to sender.”

So alerted, White House officials began investigating the matter. Then, according to testimony, Lewis concocted what he called an “Alphonse-Gaston” scheme to cover up his role, telling two staff members to lie to White House investigators and to blame the whole thing on a miscommunication.

If that sworn testimony is true, the court wrote, then Lewis was “guilty of misconduct which impinges on the public’s interest in the integrity of its governmental institutions.” But the court said bluntly that such misconduct is not the same as felony forgery.

“There is no suggestion of fraud relating to money or property,” the justices wrote. “No funds were solicited by the letters, nor was there any invasion of a legal right.”

If what Lewis did is to be considered a crime, the court said, then it should probably be addressed specifically in the state Elections Code, where other political crimes are defined.

“The conduct which (Lewis) is alleged to have engaged in may be properly placed in this ‘political offense’ category, which the Legislature has placed outside the (jurisdiction) of the Penal Code,” the court said. “This statutory pattern reinforces our view that the forging of President Reagan’s signature to these political campaign tools is not punishable under” the section of law chosen by the prosecution.

Dale A. Drozd, one of Lewis’s attorneys, said he would not make “any predictions” about how the ruling would fare if it is appealed to the Supreme Court.

But he added: “The law is on our side. There was never any allegation that monetary or property rights were involved. If there isn’t, you can’t charge forgery. It’s just not a crime. Whatever the facts are, it’s not forgery.”