Mistrial Ends Swap-Meet Case Against Santa Ana : Litigation: Jury is dismissed on fourth day of trial. A preliminary ruling by Judge Franklin in Superior Court also throws out $1.8-million suit by Councilman Norton.

A Superior Court judge declared a mistrial on Monday in Councilman Richards L. Norton’s $1.8-million suit against the city, which alleged that Santa Ana officials improperly shut down his open-air swap meet in 1987.

After hearing arguments in his chambers that he had allowed the jury to hear inadmissible evidence, Judge Selim S. Franklin announced that, “by necessity, I’m going to have to declare a mistrial.” He then dismissed the jury on the fourth day of the trial.

He also made a preliminary ruling to dismiss the suit. The judge gave Norton’s lawyer until Thursday to present reasons why the case should not be dismissed.

“This is a tremendous victory for the city today, certainly a very deserved victory,” said Robert J. Wheeler, assistant city attorney. “We’re extremely pleased and very happy with the result. This is a $1.8-million victory.”

Norton’s suit alleged that the City Council, led by Mayor Daniel H. Young and Councilman Daniel E. Griset, plotted to terminate his lease at Santa Ana Stadium/Eddie West Field. The city filed a countersuit alleging that Norton, 41, owes the city about $60,000 in unpaid taxes.

Norton was not a council member at the time.

He declined comment after the decision Monday. However, his attorney, C. Robert Ferguson, said he will present arguments this week against dismissal of the case.

The judge’s decision to declare a mistrial followed City Atty. Ed Cooper’s arguments that the jury had been allowed to hear inadmissible evidence, including “horribly prejudicial” statements allegedly made by Young, Wheeler said.

The prejudicial testimony the jury heard included Norton’s allegation that Young said: “I have the votes to cancel the swap meet.”

But Wheeler argued: “The mayor doesn’t remember making such a statement, and even if he did, that’s inadmissible,” because the state Supreme Court has ruled that legislators cannot be questioned about their motives for making decisions.

Young, who was waiting to testify when the judge declared a mistrial, said: “There has been this allegation that there was some kind of meeting of the council members prior to this vote. That is simply not true. They couldn’t make any case on that so their case was thrown out, pure and simple.”

The judge’s preliminary ruling to dismiss the case follows a Sept. 15 appellate court ruling in a case similar to Norton’s. That judge ruled that the plaintiff should have sought a court order to force the council to reconsider its decision, rather than pursue a lawsuit and seek damages, Wheeler said.

The city’s countersuit goes to trial on Monday.