Two D.A. Workers Cleared of Eavesdropping Charges

A Superior Court judge accused by prosecutors of being too lenient dismissed charges against two defendants Wednesday--but this time even the district attorney’s office cheered the decision.

Superior Court Judge Lawrence Storch dropped the charges against two of Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury’s own employees, deputy prosecutor Stacy A. Ratner and investigator Katherine Smith.

The state attorney general’s office charged Ratner and Smith with eavesdropping on May 20, after they allegedly listened in on a conversation between a burglary defendant and his attorney.

In a news release, the attorney general’s office said it is considering an appeal of Storch’s decision.

Wednesday’s ruling comes seven weeks after Bradbury ordered Ratner and other prosecutors in the county to disqualify Storch from hearing new criminal cases. Prosecutors can remove a judge from a case by swearing that the jurist is biased against them.

Public Defender Kenneth I. Clayman said it was ironic that the judge accused of bias against the district attorney’s office ended up dismissing charges against two of its members.

“I would imagine they are going to take another look at their policy,” Clayman said. “They’ve got to realize that they’ve got a judge who is not discriminating against them.”

Although Bradbury has not specifically stated why he ordered Storch removed from hearing new criminal cases, he has in the past called the judge overly lenient. Bradbury’s office also has cited a case in which Storch reduced the conviction of a Newbury Park man from first-degree murder to second-degree murder.

Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Kevin J. McGee said prosecutors are pleased with the judge’s decision in the Ratner-Smith case. Nonetheless, they plan to continue disqualifying Storch from criminal cases, he said.

“The two matters are totally unrelated,” McGee said.

The eavesdropping case marked the first time any prosecutor or investigator in the county has been charged with a felony, authorities said.

Ratner and Smith have been on paid administrative leave since being charged but will return to work today, McGee said.

In dismissing the charges on Wednesday, Storch agreed with defense attorneys that California’s eavesdropping law, enacted in 1967, is ambiguous.

Under the law, a person commits eavesdropping by using an electronic or mechanical device to listen in on a conversation. Harland W. Braun and Stuart B. Adams, attorneys for Ratner and Smith, asked Storch to drop the charges because neither was accused of using such a device.

Ratner and Smith were charged with eavesdropping on a conversation between burglary defendant Robert Lee Morrow and his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Mary Fielder.

In court Wednesday, Deputy Atty. Gen. Robert Ottinger told Storch that Ratner and Smith broke the law even without using an electronic or mechanical device. Law enforcement officials cannot eavesdrop on a conversation between suspects and their attorneys even if they don’t use such devices, he argued.

Ottinger left the courthouse without commenting on Storch’s decision. But in a news release, the attorney general’s office said: “If this ruling stands, the Attorney General will likely propose legislation to correct any perceived ambiguity in the law, so that eavesdropping on private conversations between a lawyer and a client, priest and penitent or doctor and patient in in-custody settings is strictly forbidden under California law.”

Despite his ruling, Judge Storch said he believes it is inappropriate--and in some cases illegal--for law enforcement officers to eavesdrop on suspects.

But the Ratner-Smith case would be better handled administratively either by the court, the State Bar of California or the defendants’ superiors, Storch said.

Clayman agreed, even though his office has asked for the burglary charge to be dropped against Morrow because of the alleged eavesdropping incident. A judge is scheduled to rule on that request today.

“We certainly did not initiate charges, and would never take any pleasure in seeing any lawyer charged,” Clayman said.