New Details Emerge in Judges’ Alleged Effort to Thwart Inquiry of Peers : Courts: Newly released files reveal complaints from Newport Beach officials who alleged that some Harbor judges went too far in trying to defend their colleagues.

Previously private files were released Tuesday on a now-closed investigation of Harbor Court judges, providing new details of a meeting in which three judges allegedly tried to thwart the Newport Beach Police Department’s inquiry.

A two-foot stack of Orange County district attorney investigative records, made available to The Times’ Orange County Edition and the Orange County Register, show that prosecutors spent more than four years intermittently investigating Harbor judges Brian R. Carter and Calvin P. Schmidt.

The two were accused of using their positions on the bench to help their friends and to seek sexual favors from prostitutes. But the district attorney’s inquiry was eventually closed without charges being filed, and the case was turned over in 1988 to a state judicial inquiry commission.

“We tried to be as thorough as we could in either confirming or negating allegations made,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Wallace J. Wade, in charge of special assignments. “But after four or five years of looking at this, we just felt that we did not have a case against anyone.”

Schmidt received a public rebuke last year from the state Commission on Judicial Performance for helping the stepdaughter of a good friend who had appeared in his courtroom. He was cleared, however, of all other accusations against him, including one involving a prostitute.

Carter resigned from the bench in February, 1989, to avoid facing a similar state inquiry. Shortly before he stepped down, it was revealed that Carter--in a telephone conversation tape-recorded by investigators--had asked a prostitute to meet him for “love and friendship.”

Schmidt on Tuesday declined to discuss the newly released material. But one of his closest colleagues on the Harbor bench, Judge Selim S. Franklin, told The Times: “It’s all water over the damn for (Schmidt).”

Attempts to reach Carter were unsuccessful Tuesday.

The district attorney’s office released investigative files on Carter last year after his resignation. But the files released Tuesday cover all inquiries into any of the judges in Harbor Court and show that the bulk of the complaints were against Carter instead of Schmidt.

Much of the material--released after the newspapers filed a request under the California Public Records Act--was a repeat of the previously released Carter information.

One new memo from the file, however, described the frustration of trying to investigate the judges when many witnesses refused to cooperate.

Prosecutor Wade said Tuesday that while he did not want to comment on the quality of all of the witnesses his office had to deal with, “some of the witnesses we believed were being very truthful with us, particularly the people from the city of Newport Beach.”

The new material released Tuesday shows that prosecutors paid considerable attention to complaints from Newport Beach city officials who alleged that some of the Harbor judges went too far in trying to defend their two colleagues.

Three of the judges--Franklin, Christopher J. Strople and Russell A. Bostrom--met with Newport Beach Police Chief Art Campbell on May 4, 1987, to discuss the Police Department’s part in the investigation of Judge Carter, the files show.

Existence of the meeting had been made public before and the judicial performance commission reviewed the allegations and took no action against the three judges. But the district attorney files provide the most detailed account of what investigators were told.

According to the documents, Campbell told investigators that the judges were upset that a telephone conversation between Carter and a former client had been tape-recorded and that the incident was “hurting your relationship with the courts.”

Campbell also said that “one of the judges” wanted the department’s primary investigator, Sgt. Richard Long, pulled off the case, charging that he had a vendetta against the judges. The police chief said that “Bostrom indicated that the attorney general’s office might be called in to look at the propriety of investigating Judge Carter.”

Bostrom, who is no longer on the bench, refused comment when asked about the reports on Tuesday. Strople also declined to comment.

On May 29, 1987, Bostrom and Franklin met with Newport Beach City Manager Robert Wynn and two members of the City Council. Records show that Wynn told investigators that “Franklin stated that the investigation was hindering good relations between the court and the city and should be stopped or concluded.” Wynn added that Franklin complained that Sgt. Long “is too persistent in the investigation.”

Wynn reported that he told the judges it was highly inappropriate for elected council members to impose their judgment on the Police Department in a criminal investigation. Wynn said Franklin told him that he agreed, but that “for the sake of harmony, something should be done in this instance.”

Franklin, reached at his chambers, had a different recall of that meeting.

“We weren’t pressuring; we were stating our concerns,” the judge said.

Franklin said the judges met with the city officials only because the police chief did not seem responsive to their concerns.

“The thing that bothered us was that they would not come to our senior judges and let us know they had a problem,” Franklin said.

The district attorney reports also indicate that Carter complained to two members of the City Council about the police investigation.

One district attorney memo states: “It was (Councilwoman Evelyn R.) Hart’s understanding that Judge Carter wanted the city officials to apply some type of pressure on the Police Department.”

The reports released by the district attorney’s office Tuesday include one complaint by a former deputy district attorney about Bostrom’s conduct during a plea-bargaining session in chambers. The woman reported that Bostrom was trying to pressure her into agreeing to “a better deal” for a defendant. When the prosecutor retorted that such a deal would be “offensive and unethical,” Bostrom responded: “You and I know what goes on. Maybe you’re naive . . . but you know there are things that go on in this county that, ah, would really surprise you.”

Times staff writer Davan Maharaj contributed to this report.