D.A. Admits Stanton Trial Not Probable

Hours after a mistrial was declared Friday in the first case stemming from the Orange County bankruptcy, Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi conceded Friday that Supervisor Roger R. Stanton might escape prosecution altogether.

“It is unlikely it will get to trial before his term ends,” Capizzi said.

Stanton was named by the grand jury last December in a civil accusation charging him with willful misconduct in office for his role in the events that led to the massive bankruptcy. Had he been convicted, he would have faced removal from office. But his term is up in December, and if he hasn’t been prosecuted by then it won’t matter.

However, Capizzi said he has no intention of dismissing the case against Supervisor William G. Steiner, who also faces similar charges.

“The two [cases] are totally different,” Capizzi said, explaining that Steiner still has more than two years left to serve on his term.

*

Stanton and Steiner are the only remaining supervisors sitting at the time of the bankruptcy in December 1994. Steiner, who was the newest board member at the time, is scheduled to leave office in 1998.

The grand jury also charged Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis with willful misconduct. His case has yet to be resolved.

All three elected officials have appealed the charges. Currently, the 4th District Court of Appeal is considering a defense motion to have the cases thrown out.

Stanton could not be reached for comment Friday.

Steiner expressed disappointment at Capizzi’s comment but said he hoped that the appeals court would end the case against him.

“Hopefully, they will rule in my favor and dismiss my case,” he said. “Then the district attorney’s office can devote its energies in other areas.”

Both supervisors have maintained their innocence and steadfastly insisted they acted properly. Their fellow members on the Board of Supervisors allocated $250,000 each to Steiner and Stanton to pay their defense costs.

Defense lawyer Allan H. Stokke, who represents Steiner, dismissed Capizzi’s remarks Friday.

“He doesn’t have any jurisdiction. It’s really out of his hands at this point,” Stokke said. “The Court of Appeal controls what happens.”

Stokke said he expects a ruling sometime next month, or by early November at the latest.

*

If the appellate court dismisses the case against the supervisors and Lewis, Capizzi could appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court.

Capizzi “knew the timeline of Stanton’s term of office before he filed the case,” said Vincent J. LaBarbera, a Stanton defense lawyer. “Roger Stanton will be vindicated. Any resolution of this case that doesn’t vindicate him will not be satisfactory.”

Should the appellate court pitch the case, Capizzi said it might endanger future prosecutions against local officials.

“The issue is the applicability of [a statute] that has been on the books for 130 years and if they say it doesn’t apply to an elected local official . . . that would be a new and novel interpretation,” Capizzi said.

Such a ruling would make local elected officials the only public officials not subject to removal from office by a means other than defeat at the ballot box, Capizzi said.

“That is just totally, absolutely, utterly untrue,” Stokke said. “Nobody else has tried to remove someone for trying to do his job in the proper way.

“The general reasons for the old ancient statute is for kicking someone out of office when they’ve been guilty of some kind of bad faith, some kind of mischief or bribery of some sort.”

Also contributing to this report was Times correspondent Shelby Grad.