Lawyers Clash at Opening of Honig Trial : Law: Prosecution objects as attorney for state schools chief tries to emphasize worth of education programs run by his wife. Honig is accused of wrongly approving contracts with her.

Opening arguments in the conflict-of-interest trial of public schools chief Bill Honig were made to a jury Monday, but the jurors were repeatedly ordered from the courtroom as opposing attorneys clashed over what defense lawyers would be allowed to say.

In apparent defiance of a ruling by Superior Court Judge James L. Long, chief defense attorney Patrick Hallinan sprinkled his opening remarks with references to the quality of the programs offered by the educational consulting organization operated by Honig’s wife, Nancy. The group she ran is at the center of the conflict-of-interest allegations.

Hallinan’s tactics led Chief Assist Atty. Gen. George Williamson to complain, “He’s telling the court, ‘You’ve made your ruling and you can take it and put it somewhere.’ ”

After sending the jury out of the courtroom for the third time in less than half an hour, Long’s voice rose as he told Hallinan, “I’m going to ask you nice: Don’t do that again.”

The superintendent of public instruction is accused of four counts of conflict of interest in approving more than $337,000 in contracts paid by tax money to educators to act as consultants to set up parent involvement programs in schools. The programs were set up in connection with the Quality Education Project, a nonprofit organization that was run by Honig’s wife.

The prosecution contends that the work of the publicly paid consultants resulted in the growth of QEP, which enabled Nancy Honig, who was president of the company, to increase her annual salary from zero in 1984 to more than $100,000 in 1991. The growth of the organization, which had offices in the Honigs’ home, allowed the couple to charge the company $1,000 per month rent, according to the prosecution.

“Mr. Honig had a financial interest in the contracts,” said Williamson, “nothing more, nothing less.”

Williamson showed the jurors a large diagram with a figure representing Honig sitting at a green desk authorizing the contracts to the consultants.

“That’s how QEP grew,” Williamson told the seven women and five men on the jury. “When QEP incorporated (in 1982) they didn’t have diddly.” Hallinan had his own chart for the jury, and--though Judge Long ruled last week that the attorney could not present evidence of how much private money Nancy Honig raised for QEP--the judge allowed Hallinan to diagram $600,000 in contributions that flowed through QEP to the public schools at the same time the $337,000 in contracts were in effect.

Honig’s defense is that the program grew from nothing into a million-dollar organization because of his wife’s fund-raising efforts, not because of the contracts that have led to his indictment.

His defense is also based on his contention that QEP was effective and that is why he approved the contracts. But every time Hallinan brought up the subject, Williamson objected.

Even so, between objections Hallinan managed to say of QEP, in front of the jury, “It’s extremely effective. I won’t say it’s the best, but it’s effective.”

And again: “It was a dynamic program.”

When Williamson objected, an exasperated Long said to Hallinan, “I’ve told you.”

Honig has repeatedly been at odds with conservatives over issues such as school finances and the teaching of evolution and has maintained that his prosecution is politically motivated. But the one time that Hallinan mentioned politics in his opening statement, he was quickly cut off by an objection.

If convicted of all four counts, Honig faces up to five years in prison as well as removal from the office he has held since 1983.