Judge to Allow Videotape Evidence : Trials: The ruling is in direct contrast to a decision by another jurist in the same courthouse in a related money laundering case.

In direct contrast to a federal judge’s recent decision in the same courthouse on the same issue, another U.S. District Court judge Tuesday ruled that prosecutors could introduce video surveillance tapes of defendants in a multimillion-dollar money laundering case.

“There is no foundation for a claim that the (court) order permitting video surveillance was patently unconstitutional,” Judge William D. Keller said in a 27-page order which rejected the defendants’ motion to supress evidence crucial to the government’s case.

“The ruling is final,” Keller told lawyers for 10 defendants, adding that he was “quite confident” he would not be reversed on appeal.

A 30-count indictment, returned last year, charges the defendants in Keller’s court with participating in a conspiracy to launder approximately $350 million in drug proceeds through a downtown Los Angeles jewelry company.

In a nearby courtroom on March 28, U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall ruled the opposite way--that hundreds of hours of videotapes could not be used as evidence against 11 people indicted last year in a related case on charges of laundering $312 million through another downtown jewelry firm as part of an international drug ring.

Attorney Steve Cochran, representing the lead defendant in Marshall’s courtroom, successfully argued that video surveillance for domestic law enforcement purposes is prohibited by federal statute and that, additionally, it was plainly unconstitutional.

The money laundering cases, believed to be among the largest of their kind uncovered in the United States, are intertwined, but were divided to accommodate the number of defendants.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Jean Kawahara said after Keller’s ruling that “it’s possible” that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could decide the government’s appeal of Marshall’s decision even while Keller is conducting his trial.

Martin L. Schmukler, an attorney for a lead defendant in the matter before Keller, said such a situation “would throw the case into chaos.”

Keller estimated that the jury trial set for April 17 could last three to four months. No date has been set for the trial in Marshall’s court.

Defense lawyers were clearly dismayed by Keller’s decision in light of Marshall’s ruling.

“By the luck of the draw, one judge has one opinion of due process that isn’t shared by Judge Marshall,” said attorney Edward L. Masry. “So we have a dichotomy.”

The video surveillance was conducted by federal agents who tapped into the closed-circuit security systems at Ropex Corp., a jewelry firm with headquarters in the International Jewelry Center at 550 S. Hill St., and at company offices in New York and Houston. The case is before Marshall.

The same surveillance technique was used to monitor activities at Andonian Bros., 220 W. 5th St. That case is before Keller.

In his order, Keller noted that the 9th Circuit has yet to address the issue of video surveillance. But, he underscored, two other circuit courts and the Supreme Court upheld such techniques.

Keller concluded that while video surveillance “is more invasive, and reaches further beyond the perimeter of a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy than do other electronic monitoring devices, it can hardly be said to ‘shock the conscience,’ compelling a ban on its use.”