D.A.’s Office Can Pursue Sex Case Against Judge : Court: Motion by defense lawyers for Stanley Samuel Feinstein is denied. He is accused of molesting female attorney.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office can continue to prosecute a judge accused of sexually molesting a female attorney in his Van Nuys chambers, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Friday.

Following a hearing Friday, Judge Robert J. Perry denied a motion by defense attorneys to remove the county prosecutor from the case against workers’ compensation Judge Stanley Samuel Feinstein, 61.

Feinstein, charged with two misdemeanor counts of unlawful touching and false imprisonment, is accused of fondling a 40-year-old attorney during a March 28 visit to his office.

At the center of the dispute is a memo circulated at the woman’s law firm, stating that the district attorney’s office had warned against any discussion of her case, which defense attorneys contended prevented them from interviewing her co-workers to establish her credibility.

“There’s just something about this case that doesn’t really seem to be a search for justice,” said Philip Israels, Feinstein’s attorney.

In considering Israels’ arguments for removing local prosecutors, Judge Perry found that it was unlikely that Deputy Dist. Atty. Carol Straughn, who is prosecuting the case, would exercise her authority irresponsibly.

Straughn said she was not surprised by the judge’s rejection of the defense request. “I knew there was nothing there,” she said.

Prosecutors had originally charged Feinstein with felony counts of false imprisonment and sexual battery. Those counts were reduced to misdemeanors following a preliminary hearing last month, prompting prosecutors to file a motion to have the felony charges reinstated.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito is expected to rule on that motion Monday. Meanwhile, another Municipal Court judge is scheduled to set a trial date on Monday.

Friday’s testimony in the hearing to determine whether local prosecutors should continue to handle the case focused on the memo distributed at the alleged victim’s law firm.

The woman testified that she had asked a prosecutor whether it was all right for her to discuss the case at work and that she was advised not to.

She stated that she passed the information on to her supervisor, who, on his own authority, issued a memo advising employees not to discuss her case with co-workers or family members. The memo also warned that the district attorney’s office would consider leaks to anybody outside the office as separate transgressions--a threat which the district attorney’s office apparently never made.

The attorney who authored the memo testified during the hearing that he had distributed it mainly to prevent information leaks to a competing law firm, for reasons unrelated to the molestation charges.

It was that warning which upset defense attorneys, who contend that as a result of the memo they have been unable to interview the female attorney’s co-workers.

“I think the implications of that memo are outrageous,” Israels said, referring to the implied threat of prosecution of the woman’s co-workers.