Prosecutors Won’t Act and Judge Won’t Budge : Courts: U.S. attorney’s office says it has no case against a man who says he brought gun into courthouse by mistake. But an angry jurist has kept him in jail since Oct. 4.

Even though prosecutors decided a month ago they have no case against him, a 63-year-old man who carried a loaded .357 magnum into a Los Angeles federal courthouse remains jailed because an angry judge is refusing on principle to dismiss the charge.

Vladimir Flint was arrested Oct. 4 after federal marshals seized the gun he was carrying in a portfolio as he passed through a metal detector at a Downtown courthouse. In mid-October, he was ordered held without bail as a flight risk and a trial date was set.

But on Dec. 13, one day before Flint was to go on trial, Assistant U.S. Atty. Alicia Amador told U.S. District Judge David W. Williams that the charge should be dismissed because the government had less of a case than it originally believed. “We initially indicted the case because we didn’t know a whole lot about the defendant,” Amador said.

“We thought he could be a foreign national. We thought that he could be an assassin. We didn’t know why he was here in the courthouse.”

In fact, Flint, a Nicaraguan native, is a naturalized U.S. citizen, Amador said. He had come to the courthouse on legitimate business involving his bankruptcy case and had simply forgotten to leave the gun in his car, Amador said. The law requires that the government prove that Flint knowingly entered the courthouse with a firearm.

Williams, however, called Amador’s explanation “baloney” and accused the U.S. attorney’s office of taking the matter too lightly. “It’s a very serious offense for . . . a person to bring a gun in the courthouse. Judges have been shot. Witnesses have been shot,” Williams said from the bench.

Although it appears likely that Flint will be freed by the end of the month, the standoff has mushroomed into a cause celebre from Los Angeles to Washington.

The escalation began the day after the mid-December court hearing, when Amador filed a written declaration once again urging dismissal. She said Flint’s neighbor told her that Flint had been rushing to go to the courthouse that day and inadvertently brought with him a gun that he sleeps with for protection against crime.

Williams sharply questioned whether it was an innocent mistake, noting that the weapon was placed in a sock and wrapped in a plastic bag. Amador countered that Flint regularly wrapped up the gun and kept it buried in his Lennox back yard during the daytime.

Amador, 32, who joined the U.S attorney’s office in 1992, had the backing of her bosses. One of them, Steven G. Madison, told the judge that under Justice Department guidelines, prosecutors have an ethical obligation to drop a case “if at any time we believe that there is a doubt about the defendant’s guilt, irrespective of what we think a jury might do.”

But Williams, 83, a 24-year veteran of the federal bench, again refused to dismiss the indictment, steadfastly maintaining that a jury was entitled to hear the case.

After the government filed a notice of appeal, Williams became so infuriated that he wrote to U.S. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno and asked her to dispatch a special prosecutor to handle the case.

“The decision not to prosecute is too important to be made by a reasonably inexperienced assistant U.S. attorney backed up by her two lame duck superiors, who will leave office in two weeks,” he wrote. Reno has not responded, but Justice Department sources say she will not grant the request.

Although it is not unusual for Justice Department lawyers to drop a prosecution, the Flint case is unique, according to all sides. No one associated with the case can remember a judge accusing federal prosecutors of being insufficiently aggressive. In fact, the reverse has often been the case recently.

Flint, confined in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Downtown Los Angeles, was not available to discuss his case. But there were plenty of emotional comments from judges, U.S. attorneys and the federal public defender’s office, which is representing Flint.

“It is inconceivable that the government will not prosecute a case such as this one that goes to the heart of law and order in the house of law and order,” U.S. District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler wrote to Williams, applauding his stand. “We may want to barricade the front door, purchase our own magnetometer and perhaps carry our own side arm!”

U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian also expressed outrage at the U.S. attorney’s office: “They really are saying, ‘You judges are expendable,’ ” Tevrizian said. “This sends the wrong message to the community.”

But another federal judge, speaking anonymously, was bewildered by Williams’ actions. The judge suggested that Williams may be overly sensitive because the incident occurred in his own back yard--the Edward R. Roybal federal building, where Williams has his chambers. “If this had been a prosecution of someone going into the Metropolitan Detention Center or a post office, I don’t think he would have reacted this way.”

Then-U.S. Atty. Terree A. Bowers told Reno in a Dec. 20 letter that he knew the office’s decision had been controversial, particularly because the Justice Department’s No.1 priority is “combatting violent crime.” But he maintained that it was correct.

“I understand that there is greater concern with these types of cases because of a spate of recent random shootings that have received considerable publicity. . . . While I understand our district court judge’s concern with the security of the courthouse, we cannot allow such visceral reactions to override our obligations to see that justice is served.”

Bowers also told Reno “that on a fairly regular basis, individuals enter our courthouses having forgotten to remove a weapon from a satchel or briefcase. It is up to the Federal Protective Service and this office to determine who should be prosecuted criminally. Virtually all individuals are simply cited for an infraction ($50 fine), and released.”

The new U.S. attorney, Nora M. Manella, has picked up where Bowers left off.

“When we discover information that leads us to have substantial doubt as to a defendant’s guilt, we take whatever steps may be necessary, consistent with our ethical obligations, to prevent a miscarriage of justice,” Manella said.

She said she told Williams she understood his concerns--”It remains of primary importance to us that the federal judges be protected and feel protected”--but said the office was honor bound not to try the case.

Maria E. Stratton, the chief federal public defender in Los Angeles, frequently clashes with the U.S. attorney’s office, but she praised her traditional adversaries for continuing their investigation and seeking a dismissal: “I have to credit them for going toe to toe with the judge. I thought it was terrific the way they didn’t back down.”

But Stratton said she is outraged that Flint is still in custody.

He may not be for long, though.

On Thursday, responding to a motion from the U.S. attorney’s office, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paved the way for Flint to be released.

The U.S. attorney had appealed Williams’ refusal to dismiss the case. Ironically, that had the effect of keeping Flint in jail as long as the appeal was pending. So earlier this month, the prosecutors asked for permission to withdraw their appeal.

That request was granted Thursday and will send the case back where the controversy began--Williams’ courtroom.

Manella said the U.S. attorney’s office will renew its request to drop the charge.

If Williams again refuses, the U.S. attorney’s office will decline to put on a case, Manella said, and under the federal Speedy Trial Law, Flint should be released within 10 days.

Williams said he still believes the case should be tried, but acknowledged that although he can refuse to dismiss the case, he does not have the power to make the U.S. attorney’s office bring it to trial.

“My hands are tied. I can’t put on witnesses.” He said that if the U.S. attorney does not change her mind, he will bring the case to a close. “I don’t think he (Flint) should stay in jail forever.”