Hill’s Trial in Capitol Probe to Begin Today : Courts: The case is part of a federal investigation that has brought several corruption convictions. The state senator from Whittier says he is innocent and upbeat about his prospects.

Six years after becoming the target of a political corruption investigation, state Sen. Frank Hill (R-Whittier) is scheduled to go on trial today, the first Republican lawmaker to stand trial in the decade-long probe of the influence of money in the state Capitol.

“I’m upbeat. I look forward to getting it all over with,” said Hill, who expects to testify on his own behalf during what is expected to be a four- to six-week trial.

Hill, 40, will face a group of federal prosecutors who hold an impressive record. They have won a dozen convictions, including those of four Los Angeles County lawmakers, two lobbyists, three legislative aides, a coastal commissioner and two Sacramento-area officials.

Hill’s is the only case still pending in the investigation, officially known as Brispec (bribery-special interest), but it may not close the books on the unprecedented probe.

“Until we have exhausted every investigative lead . . . I will not declare the operation to be closed,” said U.S. Atty. Charles J. Stevens.

In an apparent reference to former Coastal Commissioner Mark Nathanson and lobbyist Clayton R. Jackson, Stevens noted in an interview that several people convicted in the probe are “in a position to provide relevant information to us.”

“In addition to the upcoming trial, we are still reviewing a number of investigative leads,” he said.

During the trial in a courtroom just a few blocks from the Capitol, prosecutors will attempt to show that Hill is guilty of three counts of extortion, money laundering and conspiracy related to an elaborate FBI sting operation.

Each count carries a maximum possible penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of either $250,000 or $500,000.

All the charges stem from Hill accepting a $2,500 honorarium in 1988 from an FBI agent masquerading as a Southern businessman seeking legislation to help establish a shrimp processing plant in West Sacramento.

Prosecutors allege that Hill violated the law when he received the honorarium and deposited the check, allegedly in exchange for his support for the shrimp bill. But his lawyers stress that Hill first voted for the proposal in 1986--two years before he was even approached by an undercover agent--and again in 1988.

Hill’s lawyers maintain that “there was never any connection” between his receipt of the honorarium and his action on legislation.

Hill has been waiting for nearly six years to clear his name. The undercover sting surfaced after FBI agents armed with search warrants raided the Capitol offices of Hill and others.

Despite publicity about the sting, Hill won reelection to the Assembly and in 1990 captured a Senate seat in a special election. He later won a full term.

Hill is an affable and glib onetime congressional aide who emerged as a rising Republican star after he won an Assembly seat in 1982 at the age of 28. He immediately became a GOP point man on curbing bilingual education, and his career appeared to be on a fast track.

Hill’s ambition to run for statewide office has been thwarted by the probe and, especially, by his 1993 indictment.

A federal grand jury charged Hill, former Assembly GOP Leader Pat Nolan of Glendale and Terry B. Frost, a onetime Senate Democratic aide, contending that they had conspired to extort payments from an undercover FBI agent.

Frost, 44, also goes on trial today. He is charged with conspiracy to commit extortion.

In a surprise move, Nolan in February pleaded guilty to one racketeering charge, resigned his office, and is serving a 33-month prison sentence.

Critical to the prosecution’s case against Hill and Frost will be the testimony of Karin L. Watson, a former top aide to Nolan who is expected to provide the jury with a road map of the alleged conspiracy.

Watson, 47, has pleaded guilty to a felony extortion charge and agreed to testify against Hill. As part of her plea bargain, prosecutors agreed to a sentence of probation or six months in a halfway house or treatment center.

Watson is expected to spell out the influence staff members such as herself and Frost were able to exert on the passage of legislation.

At the heart of the prosecution’s case is a pivotal taped meeting prosecutors say Watson and Hill had with the undercover FBI agent in June, 1988, in a suite at the Hyatt Hotel across from the Capitol.

At the session, an undercover agent paid the $2,500 honorarium to Hill, then one of Nolan’s top lieutenants. Prosecutors allege that the money was in exchange for Hill’s assistance in rounding up votes for the bill introduced as part of the undercover sting operation.

During the meeting, prosecutors said, Hill assured the agent that he and Nolan would do “everything” they could to persuade then-Gov. George Deukmejian to sign the measure. Deukmejian, informed by the FBI about the bogus nature of the bill, vetoed the legislation.

In pretrial documents, Hill’s lawyers contend that there was no wrongdoing, saying that “at no time during the meeting was there any intimation that the honorarium was to be paid to Hill for his support of the bill,” said Stephen D. Miller, the Los Angeles lawyer representing Hill.

In addition, Miller seeks to cast doubt on Watson’s credibility by maintaining that sometimes, when she bragged to undercover agents about Hill’s assistance on the shrimp legislation, she was drunk.

“She was frequently inebriated in her dealings with the agents,” according to Miller’s pretrial documents.

“The agents took advantage of her tendency to drink,” Miller said, adding that “she was given to making exaggerated statements and boasts.”

Clyde Blackmon, Watson’s lawyer, declined to comment on Miller’s contention.

Frost, charged with conspiracy to commit extortion, was allegedly the go-between who introduced Watson to John Shahabian, a Democratic aide who had become a secret government informant.

According to the prosecution’s case, as described in pretrial documents, “Watson explained that the best way to get money to Hill was by an honorarium, stating, ‘Hill would like an honorarium,’ ” meaning that the funds could be used for personal expenses, not restricted to campaign purposes.