Trial Delay May Benefit Holden’s Reelection Bid : Politics: Facing sexual harassment charges during campaign would have been a political nightmare for the councilman, experts say. But he laments postponement of case.

On the scale of political predicaments, this one was off the charts. Imagine having to wage a tough reelection campaign while sitting in a courtroom fighting well-publicized sexual harassment charges.

But it now appears Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden will avoid that scenario.

Last week, Holden’s case, originally scheduled to go to trial Monday, was postponed until Jan. 8. Had the trial gone on as scheduled, it would have come in the midst of Holden’s runoff election campaign against attorney J. Stanley Sanders.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Donald Smallwood, who has been assigned to the case, reset the trial date, saying he had scheduling conflicts.

But a motion seeking at least a 90-day delay was also simultaneously being sought by Marylyne Goldstock, attorney for Carla Cavalier, one of three former Holden staffers who have accused Holden of sexual harassment.

Goldstock, through another attorney, claimed that an unspecified illness temporarily made it impossible for her to practice law. Neither Goldstock nor Cavalier could be reached for comment.

Holden expressed disappointment at the postponement.

“They want to keep this (lawsuit) hanging over my head throughout the election,” he said. “We want the trial to go forward. I want to vindicate myself. (The postponement) delays my right to prove my innocence, and the public has a right to know I’m not lying.”

But many political observers said the postponement would be a boon to the embattled Holden’s reelection bid.

“This is absolutely good news for Nate,” said political consultant Richard Lichtenstein.

“I’m sure the councilman is saying he wanted a trial so he could clear himself of these phony charges, but in his heart of hearts he’s got to be pleased,” said Paul Clarke, a San Fernando Valley-based consultant.

“Even if he was vindicated at trial it would be time-consuming, and there’d always be the taint,” added consultant Steve Afriat.

Last week, in the city’s primary election, Holden was unable to win a majority of the vote and now must face a June 6 runoff election against Sanders.

Holden got 46.2% of the vote to Sanders’ 42.5%. A third candidate, Deputy Dist. Atty. Kevin Ross, received 11.3% of the vote.

During the primary, Sanders dinged Holden about the sexual harassment charges, holding the incumbent up to criticism specifically for having his defense paid for by the city.

Holden’s legal defense bill has already exceeded $300,000. The councilman has filed a cross complaint, accusing Cavalier and others of defamation and seeking to recover the city’s legal costs.

In one Sanders mailer, voters were shown a fictitious check drawn against city taxpayers for $300,000, payable to Holden’s “sexual harassment legal defense fund.”

Sanders expressed dismay about the delay, saying the big loser will be the taxpayers. The eight-month postponement will result in another $200,000 in legal fees, he estimated.

“With the huge budget deficit facing the city, we can’t afford eight more months of Councilman Nate Holden, much less four more years,” Sanders said.