Expanded Espy Probe May Take a Year : Investigation: Counsel plans to hire more staff, saying ‘too many allegations’ of misconduct have emerged against the agriculture secretary.

Independent counsel Donald C. Smaltz said Tuesday that he has expanded the scope of his investigation of Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy in light of new allegations since his appointment by the federal courts in September.

Smaltz, a Los Angeles defense attorney and former prosecutor, said in an interview that he expects to hire as many as 35 staff members in an investigation that he estimated will now last a year. He said that he previously had anticipated that he would need only six months to determine whether Espy had violated any federal laws.

“I’m going to be here a year to complete this investigation,” Smaltz said in an interview in his temporary office near Union Station in Washington. “There’s just too many allegations.”

Faced with reports that he had accepted sports tickets, travel and hotel accommodations improperly from agricultural businesses and had abused government transportation perquisites, Espy abruptly announced Oct. 3 that he would resign, effective Dec. 31.

Despite the resignation, Smaltz said: “I have a duty to look into all allegations of misconduct involving Secretary Espy, especially any sort of bribe or gratuity or any other offenses he may have committed.”

Smaltz said that he will consider information from news accounts that appeared shortly after his appointment--including questions concerning Espy’s use of taxpayer-funded vehicles--as well as “other allegations that have never even reached the press.” He declined to disclose the nature of that information.

At the same time, the independent counsel expressed surprise that Espy has not offered to explain his version of the matters under review. While targets of federal inquiries traditionally are not compelled to testify before grand juries because of the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination, they or their attorneys sometimes seek to meet with prosecutors to offer their view of events in question.

“I would have thought that by now I would have heard from him,” Smaltz said of Reid H. Weingarten, Espy’s lawyer. “My thinking is that he would want to get his client’s version of the facts before me at the earliest opportunity.”

Weingarten, a former federal prosecutor, declined to comment on Smaltz’s remarks.

Richard Ben-Veniste, a defense attorney and former Watergate prosecutor, said that the decision to come forward voluntarily depends on circumstances.

“When you’re dealing with a grand jury investigation, naturally you want to be very protective of your client’s rights. And going in and talking to a prosecutor under these circumstances would definitely be an on-the-record conversation, with whatever implications there might be,” Ben-Veniste said.

Even though Smaltz has broadened his investigation, Weingarten expressed confidence that his client will be exonerated.

“I think the allegations are insubstantial, are trivial,” Weingarten said. “I think (Espy’s) been severely punished by his resignation. I think there has to be a sense of proportionality here. I think it’s extraordinary that he’s under criminal investigation at this time. . . . At worst, these things were oversights caused by the crush of business.”

Espy has been accused of accepting gifts from companies regulated by the Agriculture Department such as Tyson Foods Inc. of Arkansas and Quaker Oats. In addition, Smaltz has vowed to review allegations concerning other department employees. He also said that he intends to explore the legal issue of whether favors accepted by Patricia Dempsey, Espy’s woman friend, from lobbyists for agricultural concerns could be construed as indirect gifts to Espy.

Ethics laws prohibit senior federal officials from accepting all but small gifts from companies with interests before their agencies. In addition, a strict 1907 law bars agriculture officials with responsibility for regulating the meat and poultry industries from taking any gratuities from companies the department oversees.

Smaltz, a Republican appointed by a three-judge panel in response to a request for an independent counsel by Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, said that he has completed the preliminary phase of his investigation and now has “lots of documents we’ll have to look at and a fair amount of testimony that I expect to take.”

Weingarten said that Espy has not set up a defense fund to seek contributions to pay his legal fees and does not intend to do so “when he’s a public official.” Asked whether Espy would do so when he leaves office, the attorney replied: “We’ll see.”