Capitol Sting Case Tainted, Informer Says

A crucial informant who helped federal prosecutors build corruption cases against eight high-ranking Capitol figures has accused the government of “unethical police methods” and “deceit” by allegedly distorting transcripts of secretly recorded conversations and covering up important evidence, The Times has learned.

John A. Shahabian, a former top aide to former Sen. Paul B. Carpenter, has made the allegations in a letter to prosecutors that could hurt the upcoming prosecution of his former boss and perhaps others, including Republican Assemblyman Pat Nolan of Glendale and Sen. Frank Hill of Whittier, who this week were indicted on corruption charges.

Shahabian agreed to go undercover for the FBI in 1987 after he was implicated in wrongdoing. Shahabian says now that he wants to clear the air before he takes the witness stand next month against Carpenter.

“Ultimately, I believe that bad cops drive out the good ones, and to reward unethical police methods is to propagate injustice,” he wrote in an April 4 letter obtained by The Times.

Reached by phone Friday, Shahabian said that “the letter really speaks for itself.”

Carpenter’s attorney, Charles F. Bloodgood, said Friday, “If Mr. Shahabian’s allegations are true, that the FBI has manipulated or attempted to manipulate him and the evidence, then all the prosecution’s case becomes tainted.”

He said that he and other defense attorneys in the pending cases are considering a court challenge based on the government’s treatment of Shahabian and other unnamed witnesses.

Neither the U.S. attorney’s office nor FBI spokesman Tom Griffin would comment on Shahabian’s allegations.

But in a carefully worded response dated April 16--10 days before the latest indictments--Assistant U.S. Atty. Christopher A. Nuechterlein flatly stated that the allegations “are without merit” and scolded Shahabian for misinterpreting events.

He reminded Shahabian that early draft transcripts of recorded conversations always have been corrected in advance of political corruption trials. Because of the serious nature of the issues raised by Shahabian, Nuechterlein said that he has provided a copy of the letter to Carpenter’s lawyer.

Although many of Shahabian’s allegations are not directly related to the charges against Carpenter and others, the unpleasant exchange with prosecutors suggests that the government might have trouble with one of its key witnesses and is likely to provide ammunition for defense attorneys.

Shahabian’s assertions also place the government in a delicate position. At this point, if prosecutors discredit Shahabian, their case against Carpenter and perhaps others could be undermined.

Since the federal investigation became public in August, 1988, when FBI agents raided the Capitol offices of several lawmakers, Shahabian has played a role in the conviction or indictment of eight individuals, including Nolan, Hill, Carpenter and Sens. Joseph B. Montoya and Alan Robbins and three legislative aides.

At the time he was caught in an elaborate federal sting operation, Shahabian was a high-ranking aide to Carpenter, a Cypress Democrat.

Shahabian became involved for his role in arranging a $20,000 contribution to his boss as part of an FBI plan to win passage of a bill sponsored by a bogus shrimp processing company. Faced with possible criminal charges and prison, Shahabian agreed to cooperate as an informant, carrying “a wire,” or secret recording device.

In 1990, Carpenter was convicted on four counts of racketeering, extortion and conspiracy. His conviction was overturned, and he is set to be retried next month.

At the first Carpenter trial, Shahabian was crucial to the government’s case because he often acted as an intermediary between the senator and FBI Agent John E. Brennan, who posed as a Southern businessman seeking legislative favors.

In his letter, Shahabian said he is “not unmindful of the potential consequences in making these facts known, not just for me but for the investigation as a whole.”

Shahabian said that in private conversations with federal attorneys before Carpenter’s first trial he had raised similar objections.

Shahabian said he felt compelled to revive his allegations in writing on the eve of Carpenter’s retrial because he wanted the government to be aware “of the evidentiary problems.”

Shahabian said his agreement to become an informant was “the right decision” but hinted that his confrontation with the FBI might never have taken place had the transcripts been more accurate.

Shahabian, 43, who now is a consultant to an environmental coalition and owns a coffee business in Sacramento, said he believed his allegations should be investigated because “the many errors in the transcripts and the loss of critical other evidence” suggest the possibility that there was a systematic suppression of evidence.

In his letter, Shahabian specifically faulted the government on three main points. He cited a missing passage in a transcript of a conversation he had with undercover FBI agent Brennan, errors in rough drafts of other transcripts, and the disappearance of original statements that he was asked to sign when he became a government informant.

In one allegation, Shahabian cited a conversation he recalled holding with Brennan but which failed to show up on a tape or transcript.

Shahabian said that in a 1986 meeting with Brennan in front of the Senator Hotel, across from the Capitol, Brennan “opened up his wallet and fanned a stack of $100 bills before me and told me to take what I wanted.”

“I was shocked by this behavior and in rejecting his offer, made a clear statement of my disapproval of the use of cash in politics,” Shahabian said in his letter.

In contrast, Nuechterlein responded that Brennan told him that all his conversations with Shahabian were recorded and that no recorded conversations were altered or destroyed.

Nuechterlein also recalled that the undercover agent was questioned about the incident during Carpenter’s first trial. “Then and now, Brennan unequivocally states that this incident simply did not occur.”

Shahabian also described the duress he was under during this period, noting that on the day he first met Brennan, his father was struck by a truck and killed in Hemet.

Shahabian’s second point is that there are numerous other errors and gaps in transcripts that make events “appear to be more sinister than what actually had been said.”

He said that the transcript of one secretly recorded conversation on Sept. 3, 1987, is flawed. Anyone relying on the transcript, he said, “would come away with a perniciously inaccurate picture” of what transpired.

Just a week later, Shahabian was invited to what he thought was a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office to help a developer overcome some environmental questions. Instead, he was led into a room filled with FBI agents. Shahabian agreed to cooperate with federal authorities.

After being interrogated by investigators for more than 12 hours at the meeting, Shahabian said, he declined to sign draft statements that he contended erroneously depicted events of the prior year. He said he was told to delete the inaccurate passages and sign the statement.

Shahabian said he did so but continued to balk at signing without the benefit of a lawyer. Based on assurances that his rights were not in jeopardy, he signed a four-page statement agreeing to cooperate and detailing his involvement, he said.

In 1990, while preparing for Carpenter’s first trial, Shahabian asked to see the statements but FBI Agent James J. Wedick, who was overseeing the inquiry, “said they were not in the file.”

Nuechterlein dismissed assertions that “impermissible pressure” was applied to Shahabian to get him to cooperate with the government.

“While you now may try to cast the circumstances in a different light, you cannot argue with the fact that you were given the choice of either cooperating with the government or refusing to do so. You chose to cooperate,” Nuechterlein said in his letter to Shahabian.