Prisoner’s Release Angers Officials : Law enforcement: Felon claims his attorney told him selling drug chemicals was legal. Prosecutors decide not to pursue case.

The early release from federal prison of a drug felon who prosecutors said sold enough chemicals in the 1980s to give everyone on the planet a methamphetamine high has angered U.S. drug agents and raised questions about the role played by a prominent defense attorney.

Robert J. Miskinis, 42, was released in April after serving four years of a 40-year prison term because of a legal technicality. The U.S. attorney’s office, which convicted him four years ago and called him the moving force behind San Diego County’s reputation as the meth capital of the world, chose not to prosecute him again after reviewing the case.

Miskinis won early release by appealing his 1989 conviction to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the court said there was “overwhelming evidence” of his guilt, appeals judges referred the case back to U.S. District Court in San Diego, ruling that Miskinis may have been inadequately represented by his defense attorney at trial.

At issue was whether trial attorney John A. Mitchell had a conflict of interest in representing Miskinis. In his appeal, Miskinis charged that Mitchell and another attorney, Jonathon P. Chester, had advised him before his indictment that selling chemicals and lab equipment was perfectly legal.

Working under the business name of RJM Laboratories Inc., Miskinis sold chemicals such as ephedrine and lab equipment such as glassware to people who manufactured methamphetamine.

Miskinis’ allegation that Mitchell had advised him he was doing nothing unlawful has stirred considerable controversy within the legal community here. Prosecutors and defense attorneys have reacted with incredulity to the charge against Mitchell, noting that the veteran defense attorney is among the most respected and experienced in the state.

However, Miskinis’ appeal was supported by an affidavit from Richard L. Barrett, a Riverside County attorney who worked as a law clerk for Chester before and during Miskinis’ trial. According to Barrett, Chester--who was acting as Miskinis’ civil attorney--had told him that Mitchell advised that “the RJM Labs operations were lawful.”

Barrett said he took notes in a meeting between Mitchell and Chester in which the two attorneys discussed the possibility of trying to get the charges against Miskinis dismissed, “drawing an analogy to someone who sells gasoline to a person transporting illegal aliens.”

Mitchell, however, denied to federal prosecutors that he had advised Miskinis that his laboratory operation was legal. However, Miskinis’ appellate attorney, Marcus S. Topel, used Barrett’s affidavit to charge Mitchell with lying in order to avoid “potential criminal liability, malpractice and professional embarrassment.”

Topel also filed a motion listing 45 examples in an effort to show how Mitchell failed to provide adequate counsel to Miskinis during the trial.

Included in the examples is Mitchell’s failure to testify as a witness for Miskinis’ defense. Topel also faulted Mitchell for not calling as a witness an RJM Laboratories employee who would have testified that Miskinis had informed his employees that Mitchell advised him the company was not breaking the law.

Mitchell, saying that he expected Miskinis to file a lawsuit against him and Chester, declined to comment. Chester could not be reached for comment.

Miskinis was already a well-known figure to state and federal drug agents before his 1988 arrest in San Diego. He was arrested in 1978 in Los Angeles and charged with unlawfully manufacturing and transporting methamphetamine. He served two months in custody and was placed on five years probation.

Law enforcement officials saw Miskinis as an arrogant dope dealer who frequently thumbed his nose at them. In 1987, he made headlines by hiring a Sacramento lobbyist to delay strict new reporting requirements on chemicals used to manufacture meth, which is also known as speed.

The lobbyist succeeded in winning a six-month delay in the reporting requirements, but the postponement was promptly lifted when state lawmakers learned that Miskinis was a convicted drug dealer.

In August, 1988, Drug Enforcement Administration agents seized three chemical supply plants owned by Miskinis in San Diego County and North Hollywood. Miskinis, a former UCLA chemistry student, was called by federal drug agents the “granddaddy” provider of chemicals and equipment used by more than 2,000 illegal meth labs across the country.

After his indictment in November, 1988, authorities estimated that Miskinis had sold enough chemicals and laboratory equipment to underground meth cookers to produce at least 16 tons of the drug since 1980. A federal prosecutor later argued that was enough illicit methamphetamine to get everyone on the planet high at least once.

The federal government seized Miskinis’ RJM Laboratories Inc. and Safe Laboratories Inc. and a total of about $2 million in cash and other assets. As part of a deal struck with federal prosecutors, Miskinis was reimbursed $450,000 cash and put on five years probation after his release in April.

With Miskinis going free, some DEA agents who worked on the case are seething over the U.S. attorney’s decision not to prosecute the case again.

“The guy has set a precedent. All a convicted drug felon has to do now is say that his attorney told him it was all right to sell drugs and he can get out of jail. It’s amazing,” said a veteran DEA agent who did not want to be identified.

“That’s the U.S. attorney’s decision to make and that’s what we’ll abide by. We considered it a decent investigation,” said Jack Cook, DEA spokesman in San Diego.

U.S. Atty. James W. Brannigan said he did not believe that Mitchell had a conflict of interest when he represented Miskinis. But after reviewing the case, federal prosecutors believed there was a good chance the District Court would find that Mitchell did have a conflict.

“I personally have no doubt in my mind that what Miskinis claimed never happened. . . . I’m angry that we had to give him a much-reduced sentence. We’re going to cut our losses and take our conviction,” said Brannigan.

Topel said his client is unavailable to comment on the case.

However, Mario Conte, a prominent defense attorney who helped Mitchell plot legal strategy for Miskinis’ case, questioned Miskinis’ version of events.

“Mitchell and I brainstormed the case together. I know Miskinis well. I can tell you that under no circumstances, during any time that I was present with Mitchell and Miskinis, was there ever a conversation about pretrial advice that Miskinis allegedly received,” said Conte.

“I know what my memory is. I know what happened. I know that none of this was ever discussed in those meetings.”