Silberman Lawyer Claims Fair Trial Impossible : Courts: Attorney says judge is allowing prosecution, but not defense, to present evidence favorable to its side.

Amid speculation on the street that Richard T. Silberman’s defense team is desperate, the prominent financier’s lawyer charged in court Friday that prosecutors were getting the breaks in the money-laundering case and that a fair trial is impossible in San Diego.

Attorney James J. Brosnahan argued--unsuccessfully--that he should be able to tell jurors about an allegation he raised earlier in the week, that the key undercover FBI agent in the case threatened a witness in an unrelated prosecution.

It seemed, Brosnahan said, that prosecutors, but not defense lawyers, are being allowed by U.S. District Judge J. Lawrence Irving to present favorable evidence.

“My response is that we can’t get a fair trial in that kind of circumstance,” Brosnahan said.

Silberman, 61, is charged with laundering $300,000 in cash characterized by FBI Agent Pete Ahearn--who posed as Pete Carmassi, a front man for Colombian drug lords--as narcotics profits. He was arrested in April, 1989.

Silberman, who was a top aide to former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., could be sentenced to a maximum of 75 years in prison if convicted on all counts. His trial, in which testimony began last week, is expected to last six weeks.

Brosnahan’s charge--and another, separate incident, yet another bizarre episode in the unusual case--overshadowed hours of routine testimony. Most of the day was taken up with testimony from various bank officials and FBI experts about the movement of cash, checks and wire transfers.

The afternoon session, however, began when local lawyer Paul A. DiPaolo reported that he and another attorney, while chatting at a coffee stand across the street from the downtown courthouse, wondered aloud whether Silberman’s lawyers were “desperate.”

Only then, DiPaolo said, were they informed that a juror in the case was in line ahead of them--by the juror, who told them that they “had better shut up.” Speaking from the lectern, DiPaolo said he decided to come to court to tell Irving about the conversation before it somehow got back to the judge.

DiPaolo said he could not remember the name of the other lawyer, and Irving said he wanted more details before deciding whether anything had to be done about the conversation.

Brosnahan, meanwhile, argued strenuously that the judge should allow him to question Ahearn about an allegation the lawyer raised earlier in the week, that the FBI agent threatened a witness in an unrelated case in Pittsburgh in June, 1983.

Contending that Silberman was entitled to a “robust” defense, Brosnahan said, “Here we are at the heart of this trial, and (prosecutors) want to diminish and stop” questioning of Ahearn, whom he called at another point “the key witness in the case.”

“That’s not a trial,” Brosnahan said. “That’s not fair.”

Assistant U.S. Atty. Charles F. Gorder Jr., the lead prosecutor in the case, said there is no reason to allow further questioning of Ahearn because nothing improper occurred.

Irving ruled that it would be procedurally unfair to bring up an unrelated matter before the jury. The judge, however, invited the lawyers to file formal written briefs on the issue.

Testimony in the case is due to resume Wednesday.