U.S. Prosecutors Smeared Montoya, Lawyer Tells Jury

Sen. Joseph B. Montoya is the target of a smear campaign by federal prosecutors who have relied on “certified crooks” and disloyal former aides to attack the senator, his attorney charged Monday.

Defense lawyer Michael Sands, giving his closing arguments in Montoya’s corruption trial, attacked the credibility of half a dozen key prosecution witnesses. At one point he called Sen. Rose Ann Vuich (D-Dinuba) “a sick old lady” who had difficulty remembering events of 1988.

Speaking before a packed courtroom, Sands contended that the Whittier Democrat was the victim of a “setup” by undercover FBI agents and said Montoya never agreed to trade his vote for money.

“Joseph Montoya is a human being,” Sands told the jury. “As a human being, he has made mistakes. He has made several mistakes that have come out at this trial. But Joe Montoya has not committed a crime, and that’s the important fact here.”

But U.S. Atty. David Levi, in rebuttal, told the jury that Montoya was a powerful lawmaker who preyed on vulnerable individuals and who, when called to account for his actions, blamed those who testified against him.

“He’s telling you everyone else is a liar or some kind of a nut,” Levi said. “If you’re on trial for extortion and bribery, a little perjury doesn’t matter.”

Montoya, 50, is on trial on 10 counts of extortion, racketeering and money-laundering stemming from a four-year federal undercover investigation into alleged corruption in the state Capitol.

In his four-hour address to the jury, Sands put forth an explanation for Montoya’s behavior in eight separate incidents in which the senator is accused of attempting to extort money from citizens who were seeking legislative action.

In some cases, Montoya was misunderstood by individuals who wanted his vote, Sands told the jury. At other times, he was betrayed by disloyal aides who were acting on their own. But Montoya himself never solicited bribes or accepted payment in exchange for his vote, the attorney said.

Sands depicted Montoya as an advocate of ethical reform who contributed $20,000 from his campaign account to Proposition 73, a campaign finance initiative approved by voters in 1988. Sands said that the total was more than Montoya received from all his alleged extortion attempts.

The defense lawyer suggested that government prosecutors may have been motivated by racism in bringing Montoya to trial, citing the nickname “El Bandito” given to the senator by one lobbyist.

Another ‘Smear’

And Sands likened the government’s case to a political campaign that has degenerated into a series of negative, personal attacks. Repeatedly, he referred to elements of the prosecution case as “just one more little smear.”

“The more dirt you can hurl, maybe something will stick,” Sands told the jury. “The government has chosen to rely on . . . a mudslinging type of trial.”

Sands conceded that Montoya had erred in diverting $22,000 in campaign travel reimbursements to his own bank account for personal use. But the lawyer argued that the senator was simply paying himself back for earlier expenditures.

“There is no question in my mind that the method of reimbursement the senator used should never have been done,” Sands said. “But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t entitled to the money.”

Sands said Montoya also was legally entitled to the $3,000 check he received from a federal undercover agent as part of the FBI’s sting operation. Montoya was videotaped accepting the money from an agent who posed as a Southern businessman seeking help in passing legislation to aid his shrimp importing “company.”

“It was a setup,” Sands told the jury. “They wanted to get photos of Joe Montoya coming to talk to them and taking their money. . . . At no time did Sen. Montoya agree to do anything other than go to the meeting and talk to people.”

Sands said Montoya did nothing to help win approval of the shrimp legislation. And he disputed the testimony of Vuich that Montoya tried to move passage of the bill during a meeting of the Senate Banking and Commerce Committee she chaired.

“Mrs. Vuich appeared to be a sick old lady,” the attorney told the jury. “She had no memory of anything.”

In his rebuttal, Levi said Sands’ characterization of Vuich, 63, was “quite cruel,” and added: “She caught this man (Montoya) out in a blatant lie.”

Levi charged that Montoya did, in fact, take action to help the shrimp bill through the Legislature in exchange for his $3,000 payment. The fact that Montoya publicly disclosed his receipt of the money is irrelevant, the prosecutor said.

“No one said the defendant is stupid as well as corrupt,” Levi said. “By reporting the money, he covers up the underlying bribery.”

Sands sought to undermine other key witnesses against Montoya by pointing to contradictory testimony and suggesting that they had motives for lying on the stand.

John Shahabian, a federal undercover informant, was a “certified crook” who himself had been caught in the FBI sting, Sands said.

Karen Frick, a former staff member who testified that Montoya put a $5,000 price tag on one bill, was a disloyal aide who was fired because she leaked information to the media, Sands contended.

And Kathy Somerton, another former aide who testified that Montoya sought payments from several alleged victims, “was not telling you the truth,” Sands told the jury.

But in his hourlong response, Levi defended Frick and Somerton, saying they were well-qualified staff members who had been driven from the Legislature by Montoya’s “outrageous” practices.

The case is scheduled to go to the jury today.