Roth’s Age, Agreement on Fine Swayed Prosecutors

In the end, prosecutors said their decision to accept misdemeanor convictions against Don R. Roth came down to an image of a broken politician advancing in years and his long record of public service.

Yet Deputy Dist. Atty. Guy N. Ormes said Thursday that the plea bargain struck with the 71-year-old former Orange County supervisor simply turned on the defendant’s agreement to pay $50,000 in fines. Prosecutors sought a fine large enough to cover the gifts Roth had improperly received while in office.

Of somewhat lesser consideration, but a factor nonetheless, was Roth’s age.

“We had to ask ourselves: ‘Would a judge have sent a 71-year-old man to jail for those offenses?’ We determined that a judge would not do that,” Ormes said.

The money, to be paid over the next several months, will not come close to covering the hundreds of hours spent investigating the case during the last 11 months. But, Ormes said, the fine was probably the key element in keeping the case from going to trial.

The money will more than cover the sports tickets, trips, home landscaping improvements, golf outings and other gifts that Roth had improperly received over the last several years and that prosecutors had valued at up to $40,000, Ormes said.

For his part, Roth’s defense attorney heralded the plea bargain, especially the absence of felony charges. Paul S. Meyer called it “exoneration” for Roth, a man who was forced from office by an aggressive criminal investigation.

“For months, we heard allegations of perjury, fraud and other serious charges,” Meyer said outside the Municipal Court where his client had just pleaded guilty to seven misdemeanor violations. “But this case worked its way down to the bare facts. I prefer to call them technical violations.”

Bristling at the mention of exoneration, prosecutors said the charges and punishment fit the crimes.

“What we are trying to do is achieve justice,” Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi said. “I don’t think we sacrificed anything.”

Roth’s punishment also includes three years’ probation, 200 hours of community service at the Anaheim Boys and Girls Club and an agreement that Roth would not work as a lobbyist or seek another elective office for four years.

The outcome was the product of several negotiating sessions, in which Ormes said a gamut of options were considered.

“I don’t want to get into a discussion of, ‘Did you trade the horse for the cow,’ ” Assistant Dist. Atty. Wallace J. Wade said. “When we began the negotiations, we had in mind exactly what we got--dollar amounts, counts and hours of community service.”

Other factors that kept prosecutors from seeking jail time for Roth were the absence of prior convictions and a seriously overcrowded local jail, not to mention the public cost of taking the case to trial.

Capizzi said he could not even estimate how much the investigation had cost the county or what additional costs would have been incurred in preparing for and prosecuting a trial and appeals.

“You look at all the aspects of this case and the bottom-line judgment is that the penalty imposed redressed the wrong,” Capizzi said.

Meyer praised the district attorney’s “fairness.”

He said the investigation, which forced Roth’s resignation effective March 1, had been a “tremendous pressure” on his client. Throughout the ordeal, he said, rumors of the serious felony charges Roth could face were constant.

“It’s sad this ended with charges being filed,” Meyer told reporters, “but I don’t equate technical (gift-reporting) violations with dishonesty. I don’t think there was anything dishonest in what Don Roth did.”

Although the terms of Roth’s guilty pleas were agreeable to both sides, the collection of misdemeanor charges bears little resemblance to a stinging affidavit filed by prosecutors in January.

At that time, investigators said in a 27-page statement that they suspected Roth of perjury, theft of public funds, campaign money laundering, obstruction of justice and other possible felonies.

Prosecutors used the affidavit to gain access to the former supervisor’s bank records. The document, criticized by Roth attorney Dana Reed for what he called “highly inflammatory language,” showed an escalating investigation.

Santa Ana-based defense attorney George Peters, whose client list includes people charged with white-collar crime, said the strategy of possibly “overstating” the charges is not unusual during investigations.

“I’m sure the prosecutors wanted to get Roth in a position where he would have to leave public office,” Peters said. “That done, it seems like what happened here was sentence bargaining.”

“This is an important matter, but Roth is 70-something years old,” the attorney said. “I think the bottom line is how much harm was done to the public trust. If (Roth) can come in and show a long history of public service, then that is certainly something to consider.”

Others, including one of Roth’s former colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, offered their assessments on how the Roth case closed.

“To me,” Supervisor Roger R. Stanton said, “it means that the board can continue on as an institution without question. From all the feedback in the community, I think that people were able to separate the case from the rest of government. I think that separation was achieved with the appointment of Bill Steiner (to fill Roth’s seat). This (decision) gives some reassurance.”

Some predicted the outcome would leave an uneasy feeling.

Public Defender Ronald Y. Butler believes Roth had suffered enough, but he said there will probably be questions about the lack of jail time.

“I think there is a basic lack of trust when a politician gets in trouble,” Butler said. “People feel that the person should be made an example.” Since Roth did not go to jail, Butler said, “people might feel that he might have influenced the result because he is a politician.”

William R. Mitchell, an attorney with the local office of Common Cause, questioned the plea agreement:

“Because everything happened so fast--the charges, plea and sentencing coming all in one day--people will naturally feel that there was more to it. Now, no one will ever know what else there was.”

Times staff writers Rene Lynch and Eric Lichtblau contributed to this story.