LOCAL ELECTIONS : D.A. Capizzi, Rival Enright Facing Off Again

For years, their titles--and their status--within the Orange County district attorney’s office were an enigma to outsiders.

James G. Enright, 63, was chief deputy; Michael R. Capizzi, 50, was chief assistant.

Enright was the only deputy authorized to take over when Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks was absent. But Capizzi was Hicks’ choice to run the office day to day.

It was Enright who shared an office suite and a secretary with Hicks. But when Hicks became a judge in January, the County Board of Supervisors appointed Capizzi to fill out Hicks’ term. Their vote was unanimous, enthusiastic and came with Hicks’ blessing.

“When I came into the district attorney’s office back in the early ‘80s, I was told that--after Cecil--Mike Capizzi was the boss,” said one former prosecutor, now a judge. “It was that way the entire time I worked there. We all just accepted it.”

Enright never lets any feelings about Capizzi show in public; their professional relationship has always been cordial. But Enright’s friends know he has long been irritated by Capizzi’s rise to power. Now he has decided to try to do something about it.

Enright was an 11th-hour candidate last month to join two other prosecutors in running against Capizzi for district attorney on the June 5 ballot.

But Enright, like the other two candidates, Assistant Dist. Atty. Edgar A. Freeman and Deputy Dist. Atty. Thomas Avdeef, is probably just another dark horse.

Capizzi has the title now--a big plus on the ballot in nonpartisan races--and he also has most of the major endorsements and donations.

The Capizzi-Enright rivalry within the district attorney’s office has been gossiped about in courthouse corridors for years. But few will talk for the record.

They all have to work together after the campaign is over in June. And as one of the candidates, Freeman, has put it, “Whatever our differences, we all have the same goal: We want to do something about crime in this county.”

The question no one seems willing to talk about openly is, how could Enright, a chief deputy for over 20 years, end up the dark horse in the district attorney’s race?

Hicks has refused to be interviewed about it, citing the state judicial ethics code which restricts what he can say about non-judicial elections. Capizzi has chosen to discuss his record during the campaign and not his opponents. And Enright essentially maintains that it is useless to dredge up old news.

“I’m running because I think I’m the most qualified person for the job,” Enright said. “It’s as simple as that.”

Capizzi was just one of a handful of new faces in the office when Hicks was appointed by the supervisors to replace Kenneth Williams, who took a seat on the bench, in December, 1966. One of Hicks’ first acts was to appoint Enright as chief deputy.

But there had never been any question about Williams’ replacement. Hicks was Williams’ chief deputy; Hicks was his choice.

Those who know Hicks believe he was impressed with Enright’s energy and his enthusiasm for prosecuting cases. And throughout the years, even Capizzi supporters have given Enright strong marks as a courtroom lawyer.

But the relationship between Hicks and Enright changed as the structure of the office changed. What started as a group of 30 lawyers more than tripled in size in the next 10 years. Now the district attorney not only has to do well in court, he has to worry about a mammoth budget and an expanding caseload and hire and supervise a growing cadre of deputies in a variety of specialties.

But Enright, his critics say, preferred concentrating on what went on in court instead of running the office. He specialized in supervising homicide cases and took pride in the favorable reputation that the homicide panel, the group of prosecutors who handle murder cases, gained throughout the state.

Also, many say, Enright did not relish the role of spokesman for Hicks’ policies.

As demands on Hicks’ time grew, the district attorney apparently believed that he found someone among his courtroom lawyers who could fill the role he wanted. Capizzi was just 30 years old when Hicks appointed him one of three assistants under Enright in 1971.

One of those other two assistants, Edgar Freeman, doesn’t criticize Capizzi on the campaign trail. But he admits he got into the race only because it looked as if Enright would not--a clear signal that the anti-Capizzi camp thought someone should try to keep Capizzi from being elected district attorney.

The old saying “first among equals” quickly came to apply once Capizzi was part of management in the early 1970s. It was Capizzi to whom Hicks turned when Hicks wanted his policies carried out. And it was Capizzi who led the most controversial campaign of Hicks’ career: to ferret out and prosecute corrupt politicians. More than 40 political figures were indicted in the 1970s and early 1980s for laundering of campaign monies, misuse of public funds and other offenses. Those convicted included three county supervisors, a congressman and a top lobbyist.

It was Hicks who made the difficult decisions. But it was Capizzi who built the cases once those decisions to prosecute were made.

Capizzi has said he believes that Hicks’ confidence in him goes far beyond the political cases. Nevertheless, during those years, his star kept climbing and Enright’s kept sliding.

Several knowledgeable courthouse observers said Enright simply left a gap and Capizzi filled it.

“Jim just closed himself off,” said one associate of Enright who asked not to be named. “Cecil would call meetings, and Jim would just not show up. He was a great prosecutor, but he just didn’t care that much about the running of the office.”

Freeman, who expresses strong support for Enright despite his own candidacy, disagrees. “That’s all bull,” Freeman said. “Jim has great honesty and integrity, and over the years he’s proven he’s the best man to be district attorney.”

Whatever the reason, as early as 1980 Capizzi was seen within the office as Hicks’ heir apparent. Capizzi may have had Hicks’ ear and passed Enright in prestige, but it was Enright who made more money.

In early 1986, according to county personnel records, Enright’s salary was $91,062. Capizzi’s was $83,886. But in October, 1986, Hicks elevated Capizzi to the newly created title of chief assistant, and his salary rose to equal Enright’s.

Enright’s friends say he was hurt and upset about Hicks’ decision. Enright will only say: “It caught me by surprise.”

At the same time, the Board of Supervisors made a management change for county departments that was also an irritant to Enright. The board voted that all new executives had to sign a pledge that they served “at will,” which meant their supervisors did not have to prove cause to demote them. The supervisors eventually expanded the edict to include existing executives, too. As an inducement to get them to sign--essentially giving up what amounted to civil service status-- the supervisors gave executives a $500 car allowance.

Capizzi signed, without choice, when he became chief assistant. Enright refused to sign for nearly a year.

Many believe that Enright feared that without civil service-type protection, Hicks would cut him out of his job. Enright said that wasn’t the case. He said he waited only until he had assurance that with any demotion, he could be knocked down only to the level of assistant. The new executives, such as Capizzi, already had that guarantee.

It became a moot point. Hicks did not demote Enright, and Capizzi has left Enright alone.

Enright now has another sore point to deal with. Capizzi immediately appointed Maurice L. Evans to fill his old job as chief assistant. Evans is in charge of administration and support staff. Enright essentially is in charge of the trial work. But Evans is considered the boss under Capizzi, even by many whose responsibilities rest on Enright’s turf.

Capizzi steadfastly refuses to discuss any rivalry.

“I’m just trying to do the best job I can, and I’m trying to get the word out to the people about my record,” Capizzi said.

Enright finds discussion of the rivalry uncomfortable, too. But the problem of having both a chief assistant and a chief deputy is not lost on him. If he is elected, Enright said, “there will only be a chief deputy.”