Baugh Defense Will Ask Case Be Dropped or Moved

Defense lawyers for Assemblyman Scott Baugh (R-Huntington Beach) promised Thursday they would file motions to have the new campaign fraud complaint against Baugh dismissed or have the case transferred to the state attorney general’s office.

If that fails, Baugh’s defense team is considering a motion to move the trial to the county’s West Court. The shift from the county courthouse in Santa Ana to Westminster would “put this case on Mr. Baugh’s turf,” Baugh lawyer Ron Brower said.

Baugh, 34, who was to be arraigned on five felony perjury charges and 13 misdemeanor violations of the Political Reform Act in Municipal Court in Santa Ana on Thursday, had his arraignment postponed until Nov. 8, three days after the general election.

His attorneys continued to denounce the prosecution as unwarranted and vindictive, saying that prosecutors added charges when they refiled the case this week. Assistant Dist. Atty. John Conley “vigorously” contested the defense claims.

Baugh appeared in court with his two brothers, their wives and three of his young nieces and nephews, all in town for his wedding Saturday.

Baugh brushed aside questions as he left the courtroom. “I am done with business with the court today and I am going ahead with my wedding and honeymoon,” he said.

Defense lawyers won the postponement after telling Municipal Judge James M. Brooks that they need time to prepare several motions. They want to seek dismissal of the case for “vindictive prosecution,” and also ask that the case be taken away from the district attorney’s office and given to “independent, objective” prosecutors in the attorney general’s office.

A Superior Court judge last month dismissed 17 of the 22 counts against Baugh brought in March in a grand jury indictment, saying prosecutors withheld evidence about the truthfulness of a key witness, Baugh’s former campaign treasurer Dan Traxler.

Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi refiled the case Wednesday in Municipal Court an alternative to seeking a new indictment or appealing the dismissal.

If the case is moved to West Court, it would mean that the judge assigned to the case would run for office in the West Court District, which overlaps almost all of Baugh’s 67th Assembly District. In addition, the jury pool for trial in Superior Court in Westminster is commonly drawn from that area, a court official said.

“I don’t think they are judge shopping,” said Kevin Stinson, an administrative official with the Superior Court. “I think they would be looking for a jury.”

Stinson said, however, that while the jury pool is usually drawn from the West Court District--which includes Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Seal Beach and Cypress--judges have the discretion “to broaden the pool for a jury panel.”

Assistant Dist. Atty. John Conley agreed the defense wants to “get jurors who are in the [67th] District and voted for Baugh. That is probably it.”

Conley said prosecutors brought the charges in the Central District because that is the site of the registrar of voters office, where the campaign documents central to the case were filed.

Most of the 18 charges relate to Baugh’s alleged misreporting of tens of thousands of dollars of campaign loans and contributions stemming from a recall election in November 1995, in which he replaced then-Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress).

Prosecutors allege that Baugh falsified his campaign reports in part to hide his ties to a GOP scheme to recruit a decoy Democrat--Laurie Campbell--to siphon votes from his chief Democratic rival in the recall election.

Campbell and her husband, longtime friends of Baugh’s, had given Baugh a $1,000 donation one week before she was recruited into the contest by GOP aides. Baugh returned that money in cash, then omitted it from campaign reports until he filed an amendment at 4:50 p.m. election day.

Baugh has maintained his innocence, saying he followed the advice of his former campaign treasurer Traxler. “Baugh acted in good faith,” Brower said. “When he discovered the errors, he sought to correct them.”

Conley rejected defense claims that prosecutors are motivated by ill will or that new charges were piled on in the case. The case is “substantially the same one” brought by a grand jury in March, he said.

Conley said the theory behind a vindictive prosecution is that “ ‘You are really guilty of “X,” but I am going to charge you with three “X’s” because you really ticked me off.’ That is not what we did.”