D.A. Finds No Proof of Bryant Case Informants : Courts: Two employees remain under investigation for possibly giving information to figures in an alleged drug and murder ring.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, trying to block an effort to remove it from the prosecution of a ring of alleged murderers and drug dealers, revealed Monday that five of its employees have been investigated for possibly leaking confidential information to the ring.

One person was exonerated, two employees were fired for unrelated transgressions and two others remain under active investigation for possibly disseminating confidential information to the ring, court documents said.

In the current investigation, no evidence of any leak from the two employees--a deputy district attorney and a clerk--has been found, however, except for an account by an informant whose follow-up statements were called “the ravings of a lunatic” by prosecutors.

The internal investigations were revealed in documents filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court. In effect the documents were an explanation of a claim filed by the district attorney’s office last month alleging that members of the so-called “Bryant Family” may have insider’s access to the prosecutors office.

Authorities say the Bryant group has controlled the sale of cocaine in the northeastern San Fernando Valley for more than a decade. Seven alleged members of the group are awaiting trial on drug and murder charges in the slayings four years ago of four people at a Lake View Terrace house that was used to count drug sale proceeds.

The documents filed Monday are part of an effort by prosecutors to block a defense request that the district attorney’s office be removed from the case.

Defense attorneys made the request last month, arguing that if prosecutors’ claims that the Bryant Family had infiltrated their office and other agencies are true, then the district attorney’s office has a conflict of interest and prosecution of the case should be turned over to the state attorney general’s office.

In documents filed Monday opposing the defense request, Deputy Dist. Atty. Janice L. Maurizi said there was no conflict of interest because the employees who have been investigated have no part in the prosecution of the current case.

“The fact that current or former employees may have been involved with the defendants will not cause this office to treat these defendants any differently,” Maurizi wrote.

Outlining the investigations of current and former employees, Maurizi said allegations by defense lawyers that prosecutors have attempted to shield fellow employees are also unfounded.

Maurizi wrote that a deputy district attorney and a clerical employee “who may have been involved with the Bryant Family were terminated several years ago. Their participation could hardly be seen as prejudicing this office today. Another employee was investigated based on having the same last name. She was completely exonerated.

“One other clerical employee remains under investigation based upon information from a confidential informant, and recent information from the informant could possibly implicate” another deputy district attorney,” Maurizi said in the documents.

“However,” Maurizi wrote, “statements from the informant that can best be characterized as the ravings of a lunatic now cause this office to have serious doubts as to whether all of the information provided is reliable.”

The court documents did not contain the names of the employees involved or the informant. Maurizi declined during an interview to identify them or reveal what statements the informant made that could be called “the ravings of a lunatic.”

Judge J. D. Smith, who is hearing the case, is expected to rule on the request next week after meeting privately Wednesday with two high-ranking members of the prosecutor’s office: Richard W. Hecht, director of bureau and branch operations, and Alan B. Tomach, head of the internal affairs branch.

Smith will determine whether any information from the internal investigations should be provided to defense attorneys if the district attorney’s office remains in charge of the prosecution.

Brief statements by Hecht and Tomach in regard to the internal investigations, which were included in the documents, say that the two employees who were fired worked in the Van Nuys office. One was a clerical employee fired in 1990 for disseminating confidential information--apparently unrelated to the Bryant case--and the other was a deputy district attorney who was fired several years ago for a violation of drug laws.

The court documents say that investigations of the two fired employees were begun after the confidential informant and two witnesses in the case provided information that linked the former employees to the Bryant group. However, the district attorney’s office decided not to pursue the investigations because the employees had been fired and prosecuted for the unrelated transgressions. In the case of the deputy district attorney, the statute of limitations on prosecuting him for leaking information had expired anyway.

The third employee was investigated because her last name was Bryant and a witness in the case believed she was related to members of the group, but that allegation was unfounded, the court documents say.

The remaining two employees who are the focus of the current investigation were linked to the Bryant group solely by the informant whose credibility is now in question, the documents say.

Attorneys for defendant LeRoy Wheeler, who filed the motion seeking the removal of the district attorney’s office, could not be reached for comment.

In addition to Wheeler, 23, defendants in the case include Stanley Bryant, 34; Jon Settle, 31; Donald Smith, 33; Tannis Curry, 30; Antonio Johnson, 33, and Nash Newbil, 56.