Honig Lawyers Say Ruling Guts Defense’s Case

Attorneys representing school chief Bill Honig in his conflict-of-interest trial sought a recess in the criminal proceedings Wednesday, contending that a Superior Court Judge had cut the heart out of their defense.

Judge James L. Long barred Honig from telling a jury that he was acting on behalf of California’s schoolchildren when he OKd more than $337,000 in public funds to pay educators who were working for his wife’s nonprofit consulting firm.

“If I cannot present that,” chief defense attorney Patrick Hallinan said, “I have no defense.”

The attorney general’s office contended that such a defense would be irrelevant and Long agreed. Hallinan asked the judge to suspend the proceedings pending an appeal and Long said he would decide Monday.

Honig is charged with four counts of conflict of interest in connection with contracts awarded through his office to pay the salaries of educators in three school districts. The four educators performed services for the Quality Education Project, headed by Nancy Honig.

Prosecutors charge that the Honigs benefited personally from the contracts because Mrs. Honig was paid a salary of $108,000 in 1990 by QEP and the couple rented office space to the organization in their home.

Honig, a Democrat, has maintained that the case is politically motivated because of his clashes with conservatives over various issues.

Honig had hoped to tell jurors that QEP benefited California children by developing quality programs aimed at parent involvement in schools. The defense also hoped to present evidence showing that Nancy Honig, rather than benefiting personally from public contracts, raised millions of dollars that were used by QEP to aid schools.

But Dep. Atty. Gen. Cynthia Besemer and Chief Assistant Atty. Gen. George Williamson persuaded Judge Long to bar such contentions.

“Recognition of the organization’s social utility,” the prosecution argued, “has no bearing on the ultimate issue to be decided herein, that is, did defendant influence the making of contracts in which he had a financial interest in violation of the Government Code.”