Final Arguments Paint Conflicting Views of Sen. Hill

Jurors at state Sen. Frank Hill’s political corruption trial on Monday were painted two sharply contrasting portraits of the veteran Whittier Republican--one a crooked politician willing to shake down a contributor, the other an honorable lawmaker misled by an aide.

In summing up his case on the trial’s 16th day, Assistant U.S. Atty. John Vincent portrayed Hill as knowingly taking an illegal $2,500 payoff from an undercover FBI agent at a meeting in a hotel suite across from the Capitol.

On a grainy black-and-white video secretly taped in 1988 by the FBI and played to jurors on Monday, Hill told the agent that he would do everything he could to help get then-Gov. George Deukmejian to sign legislation that would benefit a shrimp company seeking to locate near Sacramento. In effect, Vincent said, Hill was telling the agent: “I’ll do what you want me to do, what you paid me to do.”

But Stephen D. Miller, Hill’s lawyer, countered that Hill never entered into “an agreement to exchange money for official action. . . . That didn’t happen in this orchestrated FBI sting.”

In fact, Miller noted, the day after Hill received the “honorarium”--normally a speaking fee--the FBI agent posing as a businessman sought to clearly spell out the link between the money and the bill.

“Frank Hill firmly but politely declined,” Miller reminded the jurors.

The trial resumed Monday after a weeklong vacation recess.

Both prosecutors and defense lawyers sought to spice up final arguments by displaying charts and chronologies and playing audio and video tapes to buttress their contentions. The arguments, which continue today, were made before a packed courtroom, including at least two of Hill’s Republican legislative colleagues and Hill’s family and other supporters.

Hill, 40, is the first GOP lawmaker to stand trial in an ongoing series of cases stemming from an elaborate FBI undercover sting focused on public corruption in state government. Hill is charged with extortion, conspiracy and money laundering.

Prosecutors contend that he engaged in a conspiracy with former Republican Assembly Leader Pat Nolan, Nolan’s special assistant Karin Watson and Senate Democratic aide Terry Frost.

Nolan and Watson have pleaded guilty to corruption charges. Nolan is now serving a 33-month prison term, and Watson, the star witness against Hill, is awaiting sentencing.

Frost, 44, is standing trial with Hill on one count of conspiracy.

In his final argument, Miller maintained that Hill was a victim of Watson’s efforts to boost her position as a legislative assistant.

Miller cited a secretly recorded 1988 telephone conversation in which Watson proposes that then-Assemblyman Hill receive an honorarium.

“Why don’t I talk to Hill about doing something with George (the undercover FBI agent) and we’ll do it as an honorarium,” Watson is quoted as saying to an undercover informant, also part of the FBI sting.

But prosecutor Vincent argued that Watson, who worked directly for Hill in the mid-1980s, was doing exactly what Nolan and Hill wanted her to do.

As he periodically froze frames of the videotape, Vincent put his spin on Hill’s acceptance of the $2,500 honorarium.

“Karin Watson and Frank Hill look like employees responding to their boss,” he said, not public servants on the taxpayer payroll.

Vincent also questioned the reliability of a series of Hill’s witnesses, including Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy. Vincent said that Maddy, who carried the shrimp bill on the Senate floor, and his aides “were not telling you everything they knew” in an effort to distance themselves from the legislation.

As for Frost, Vincent said his conversations were constantly laced with references linking money with official acts.

Citing secretly taped conversations during which Frost talked about money needed to win passage of the legislation, Vincent shook his head and said: “I don’t want to be melodramatic, but it makes you sick to your stomach.”