Bankruptcy Bid Delays Ruling in Antonovich Case

After one of the defendants abruptly declared bankruptcy, a Superior Court jury was sent home Tuesday without deciding whether Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich owes damages for conspiring to influence a judge on behalf of a campaign donor.

The jury is scheduled to reconvene today in Norwalk, four days after finding in favor of a businessman who sued Antonovich, the county, the campaign donor, Krikor Suri, and several of Suri’s business partners. The county was named because Antonovich was said to have acted within his official duties.

The plaintiff, Avedis Kasparian, is seeking $1.7 million in damages.

Antonovich has acknowledged calling Superior Court Judge Eric Younger, whom he described as an old friend, but denies any impropriety. He said he called the judge to offer himself as a character witness for Suri, whose jewelry business was being sued by Kasparian.

According to campaign reports, Suri and his companies contributed about $19,000 to Antonovich’s campaigns from 1985 until 1989. A $3,000 contribution was made after Antonovich called the judge, reports show.

Norwalk Superior Court Judge William W. Bedsworth adjourned the case early Tuesday after Suri and the other businessmen told him outside the presence of the jury that their company, Western Jewelry Mart Joint Venture, had declared bankruptcy that morning.

To avoid influencing the jurors, Bedsworth did not tell them the reason for Tuesday’s delay and ordered them not to read any newspapers.

Under bankruptcy laws, a creditor cannot seek damages from a company that has declared insolvency, making it impossible for Kasparian to win damages from Western Jewelry Mart without a court order. Kasparian’s attorney, Bruce Altschuld, said he plans to seek an order from the bankruptcy judge assigned to the case allowing his client to win damages.

“It is a bad-faith filing intended to delay the damage phase of the trial,” Altschuld said. “They claim they are bankrupt, but we believe there are assets.”

Suri’s attorney, Frank V. Zerunyan, declined to comment on the company’s financial status. He said his client plans to appeal the verdict.

“The public outcry with reference to politicians really prejudiced the mind of the jurors,” he said. “The evidence was not there. In fact, the evidence showed the opposite.”

Altschuld said that if the bankruptcy judge turns down his request to unfreeze Western Jewelry Mart’s assets, the burden for any damages could fall more heavily on the individual businessmen, Antonovich and the county.

Principal Deputy County Counsel J. Patrick Joyce confirmed Tuesday that the county could end up footing part of the bill.

“I suppose it would be the taxpayers,” Joyce said. “But we really don’t know how significant it will be. It could be $1 or $1 million.”

A spokeswoman for Antonovich said the county should pay any damage award because the supervisor was acting in his official role.

Lynne Plambeck, one of six challengers who ran against Antonovich in June, 1992, said Tuesday that the supervisor should have to pay any damages out of his own pocket or campaign fund. During last year’s campaign, Plambeck and the other five challengers contended that Antonovich’s board decisions are influenced by campaign contributions.

Despite the crowded field, Antonovich easily won his fourth term with 55% of the vote in the sprawling 5th District, which includes the northern rim of the San Fernando Valley and the Antelope and Santa Clarita valleys. During the campaign, Antonovich repeatedly said he is not influenced by such contributions, pointing out several instances where he voted against projects proposed by contributors.

Jim Mihalka, a conservative Republican who also ran against Antonovich last year, said Tuesday that he plans to appear before the board later this month to call for the supervisor’s resignation.

“In my opinion, it was obvious influence-peddling,” Mihalka said. “If he wanted to be a character witness, he should have approached the defendant’s attorney, not the judge.”

A spokeswoman for the state Fair Political Practices Commission said that what Antonovich did is not illegal under the state Political Reform Act of 1974. Under the act, which the FPPC enforces, it is illegal for politicians to use their official positions to influence a decision, but only if the decision benefits their own economic interests, she said.

Under other state laws, however, it is a crime to pay a county supervisor to perform a service, and both the politician and the person who paid can be prosecuted, Altschuld said. But unlike in a civil trial, where only a preponderance of evidence need be considered, prosecutors in a criminal case must be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendants are guilty.

The district attorney’s office Tuesday declined to comment on whether criminal charges will be brought in the case.

Friday’s verdict will not significantly weaken Antonovich’s base of support, according to both Democratic and Republican pundits and party members.

“He’s known as a conservative and conservatives will stand by him,” said John Peschong, a spokesman for the California Republican Party. “He’s always been a fighter for law enforcement . . . and against illegal immigrants, and those are the issues that voters care about.”

Democratic political consultant Richard Ross said voters are likely to pay the incident little mind when Antonovich comes up for reelection almost three years from now in June, 1996.

“It ain’t a big deal,” Ross said. “Most voters believe that if you’ve done something really corrupt, you’d be in jail, that real political crooks go to jail. Voters will say, ‘maybe it’s just an error in judgment.’ ”

Most Republican groups in the Antelope and Santa Clarita valleys agreed.

“Having been a police officer, I know you don’t have direct contact with judges,” said Bill Pricer, president of the Antelope Valley Republican Assembly. “But all of us can naively step into an area we shouldn’t . . . one incident should not discredit him, absolutely not.”

“To say it was somehow a major breach of ethics to put in a good word for a constituent--I don’t think that’s right,” said David Shemanski, president of the Santa Clarita Valley Republican Assembly.

But Doug Bryce, president of the Santa Clarita Valley Young Republicans, disagreed.

“Anytime you use your influence like that I’m 100% against it,” Bryce said. “I will never make excuses for something like that.”