When Jurors Fear a Cover-Up

They were ordinary citizens, grand jurors, unexpectedly thrust into the depths of a Los Angeles City Hall political culture that shocked and disgusted them.

After hearing weeks of testimony last year, the jurors indicted one of L.A.’s most powerful political figures, lobbyist and former Los Angeles City Councilman Arthur K. Snyder, for engineering a vast money laundering scheme designed to hide corporate campaign contributions.

It was a stunning development in the career of a politician who as a young man was considered a future mayor and who as a councilman and lobbyist wrote the book on manipulating the City Hall system. He has denounced the indictment. “They’ve created from whole cloth a crime that doesn’t exist,” he said. “They are pursuing an innocent man and . . . have been unable to find any facts that will uphold their preconception that he has done evil.”

Now, almost a year and a half later, members of the grand jury are still waiting for the Snyder trial to begin. Ten of them have come forward to say they’re worried about the slow pace of the felony prosecution. It is most unusual for them to go public. Jurors usually remain silent about their experiences even after their service.

“We’re so affected by what we saw,” said juror Mel Ferber. “Suddenly we were made aware of things we weren’t aware of.”

As it stands now, the jurors’ fears don’t seem justified. On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge John Ouderkirk scheduled a trial for Sept. 9. Prosecutors said they won’t plea-bargain away a case they believe in.

Still, the jurors wanted to speak out. “We want to see that the public is aware what will happen to this case,” said Ferber, “so it doesn’t fall between the cracks.”

*

It was Ferber who called me and said that he and several of his colleagues wanted to talk. They have continued to meet for lunch after their year on the grand jury and often discuss their fears about the Snyder case. I arranged for us to meet at The Times.

On Thursday morning we sat down together and they told the story of their political education. It began when the district attorney’s office began presenting evidence in the closed door jury hearings.

The alleged plan, prosecutors charged, involved about $200,000 in political contributions to Los Angeles City Council members and other candidates in an effort to promote a large downtown development project.

Trying to evade the city’s $500 contribution limit, prosecutors said, Snyder arranged for the donations to be made through employees and relatives, who were reimbursed in cash.

The alleged reimbursements quickly caught the jurors’ attention. Most of the so-called contributors “were working people, they didn’t have a lot,” said juror Ed Kwinn. He said one witness testified about signing a blank check. “It didn’t have a name on it but I knew it was for a good cause,” Kwinn recalled the witness saying.

Juror Bruce Emerson said the panel was told how Snyder representatives went to people’s houses at night to solicit contributions on the condition that the “contributors” would be repaid.

“It is a case about tampering with the political process,” said juror William Goldstein. “To me, this stinks. The public needs to have confidence in its lawmakers and when you see something like this, it erodes it.”

As the case poked along, the jurors got worried. “We feared justice isn’t going to be done because he has so many contacts,” said Jean Kuder. “He is a power in Los Angeles,” said James A. Froede.

*

The jurors are smart to worry.

Most cases like this end up with the accused paying fines to the main enforcer of campaign laws in California, the state Fair Political Practices Commission. Although the fines sound severe, they are small change for corporate offenders. And politicians can cover them by raising more money.

In contrast, the City Ethics Commission, the state FPPC and Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti’s office decided to play hardball with Snyder.

Garcetti, in fact, made a tough call when he decided to prosecute Snyder on felony charges. As the jurors noted, Snyder is a Los Angeles power, with many influential friends. Garcetti is raising money for his reelection campaign and risked getting turned down from big contributors when he told his deputies to go ahead.

The result is a case that is being watched by campaign law experts around the country, especially by recent graduates of a crash course on campaign financing, members of the 1994-95 Los Angeles County Grand Jury.