Montgomery Picks New Defense Lawyer

Pushing ahead with plans to withdraw his guilty pleas on felony and misdemeanor conflict-of-interest charges, former Moorpark City Councilman Scott Montgomery switched attorneys Tuesday and got at least a two-week delay before the court will consider the motion.

Montgomery picked criminal defense attorney George Eskin to take over the case from attorney Dan Schmidt, who has represented Montgomery since the district attorney first began questioning the councilman in March.

Montgomery would not comment on the change, but Schmidt said he was bowing out because he was a potential witness after allegedly seeing prosecutors threaten and intimidate Montgomery.

Schmidt said he considers Eskin one of the best criminal defense attorneys in Ventura County, and that he is confident the court will support the withdrawal of Montgomery’s guilty pleas.

The change in counsel was announced Tuesday morning at a sentencing hearing, which was postponed for at least two weeks while transcripts from the grand jury inquiry that led to Montgomery’s guilty plea are filed with the court.

A handful of family friends attended the hearing, including Connie Lawrason, the wife of Moorpark Mayor Paul Lawrason. She said friends were considering starting a legal defense fund for Montgomery.

Eskin reiterated what Schmidt had already said in his motion to withdraw the plea: that Montgomery was coerced into pleading guilty on Oct. 12 to charges that he accepted a $3,500 loan from a rubbish company executive before voting to extend a city trash contract with the firm.

The penalty for the charge is a possible 3 1/2 years in jail and a $1,000 fine.

“I believe he was coerced into pleading guilty to crimes he did not commit,” Eskin said, calling the grand jury inquiry a “terrifying Star Chamber proceeding.”

During the grand jury hearing, Eskin said, Montgomery was denied access to his attorney and threatened with jail time by prosecutors.

The lawyer also accused Deputy Dist. Atty. Mark Aveis, who conducted the questioning before the grand jury and who negotiated Montgomery’s plea, of improperly discussing the case with Montgomery when Schmidt was not there to represent the councilman.

“I think there is enough evidence of overreaching, of intimidation, of improper communication with a person not represented by his counsel and in the absence of his counsel--enough evidence of misconduct to justify a withdrawal of the plea,” Eskin said.

But prosecutor Aveis said Montgomery was never denied his right to counsel and was never threatened.

When Montgomery pleaded guilty before Municipal Court Judge Thomas Hutchins, Aveis asked him more than 40 questions about whether he understood what he was admitting. Montgomery said during the questioning that he had not been threatened or coerced into pleading guilty to the charges.

Aveis said Montgomery seemed to be having “buyer’s remorse”--second thoughts--about his plea, unable to come to terms with his guilt.

“The transcripts will help refute statements made by Schmidt and Montgomery,” he said. “You’ll find that Mr. Montgomery repeatedly asked and was granted permission to leave the room and consult with his attorney before coming back to answer.”

Aveis also contradicted the charge that he threatened Montgomery with jail time, saying he merely informed Montgomery that jail time was a possibility, and that if he went to trial Montgomery could also face a perjury charge.

“I told him that if he did not agree to the plea that I would pursue an additional charge for perjury for what I believe were false statements Montgomery made under oath before the grand jury,” Aveis said.

The prosecutor said that if the judge does grant Montgomery’s request to withdraw his plea, the district attorney’s office would go back to the grand jury for an indictment and would take the case to trial.

A hearing date has not been set to consider the withdrawal of the plea, and the attorneys will wait until that matter is resolved before setting a new date for sentencing.