D.A. Should Rethink This One

Orange County Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi should review the evidence carefully before plowing ahead with another trial of the county’s former budget director, Ronald S. Rubino. Based on the evidence presented at the trial, it is difficult to see how a new jury would arrive at a different verdict than the panel that deadlocked last week on a 9-3 vote to acquit the defendant.

Capizzi is a veteran prosecutor of political corruption cases. He won a string of them two decades ago that led to the ousters of two county supervisors and a congressman. But in the Rubino case, one key witness refused to testify and another, former Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. Citron, gave testimony that largely absolved Rubino from having had knowledge of Citron’s financial shenanigans. It was these shenanigans that ultimately caused the county to declare bankruptcy nearly two years ago.

There is also a valid question of whether the district attorney should continue to prosecute County Supervisors Roger R. Stanton and William G. Steiner on charges of willful misconduct for allegedly not helping prevent the bankruptcy.

Like all district attorneys, Capizzi must perform a balancing act, deciding which cases are serious enough to bring to trial and whether there is enough evidence to make a conviction likely. No prosecutor can be expected to win every case, but in a county with a history of political corruption, vigilance is especially important. Also, the D.A. must enthusiastically prosecute white-collar crimes as well as violent ones.

Capizzi has been criticized by fellow Republicans for prosecuting Assemblyman Scott Baugh (R-Huntington Beach) on election fraud charges. A judge dismissed many of the charges against Baugh, but they may be refiled.

In a county as dominated by one party as Orange County is by the Republicans, a district attorney can expect criticism for pursuing political corruption cases. As the Rubino prosecution and the Baugh case have shown, Capizzi is not exempt from review, by both juries and judges. The system generally has worked well, supplying checks and balances on a prosecutor’s power.