John F. Lynch for District Attorney

In many respects, the two candidates for the office of Los Angeles County district attorney present mirror images. Gil Garcetti, the incumbent, is an enthusiastic, polished speaker with good political instincts. John F. Lynch, his opponent, is not as comfortable or as facile in the public spotlight. Garcetti, 55, has proven himself a formidable campaigner and fund-raiser, generating endorsements from a long list of state and local officials and accumulating, according to county disclosure forms, a war chest of $714,460 as of Sept. 30. By contrast, Lynch, 50, has a far shorter list of backers and had received just $47,462.

The two men also approach the job of district attorney differently. During his four years in office, Garcetti has taken an expansive view. He sees his responsibility in part as preventing crime and promoting initiatives against domestic violence and gang activity. Lynch promises a more traditional view of the D.A.’s job, focusing on tough and fair-minded prose- cution.

Both men can take pride in long and distinguished records in the district attorney’s office. Since he joined 19 years ago, Lynch has served in a number of key management positions; he has supervised all prosecutions in downtown courts and was the head deputy of both the environmental crimes division and the D.A.’s Santa Monica branch. He currently heads the Norwalk office. Garcetti began his career in 1968. He helped form the consumer protection division, headed the special investigations division and was chief deputy to then-D.A. Ira Reiner. Both men are deeply committed to fighting crime in Los Angeles County.

Having said that, however, The Times again endorses Lynch for district attorney. As we wrote in March, when we backed Lynch in the primary election, we believe he offers the sort of sober-minded judgment the office and the people of Los Angeles County need now.

The O.J. Simpson trial may still loom large in the minds of many voters. But the jury’s repudiation of the prosecution’s case is not by itself a reason to vote against Garcetti. Most prosecutors win far more cases than they lose, regardless of who heads the office. With a 93% overall conviction rate, the D.A.’s office under Garcetti is no exception. Wins or losses in high-profile proceedings such as the Simpson murder case have as much to do with factors beyond the D.A.’s control--for example, the defendant’s name recognition or the legal and financial resources available to the defense--as they do with prosecutorial strategy. Nonetheless, Garcetti’s key decisions in that matter--presenting an unduly long and complex case, the evidence and witnesses included or excluded--may have exacerbated the difficulties. That does speak to the issue of Garcetti’s judgment.

And questions do remain about his wisdom in accepting contributions of $170,000 in 1992 from Guess Inc. and $50,000 last year from one of its founders, since the D.A.’s office sometimes prosecutes cases involving the theft of Guess jeans and other products. Questions also were raised after the district attorney’s office last year allowed the grandson of a campaign contributor to plead no contest to a lesser count after he originally had been charged with a more serious offense.

John Lynch has put a $5,000 limit on contributions to his campaign, although we also would like to see him turn down any contributions from attorneys in the D.A.’s office.

Lynch presents a solid record of trial experience and management. He knows the district attorney’s office and has won a reputation as being evenhanded and intelligent. He points to John Van de Kamp as a role model. As district attorney from 1975 to 1982, Van de Kamp was praised for his competence, management skills and his low-profile professionalism.

In the wake of a series of highly charged and highly publicized cases, that’s the model that this county needs. The Times endorses John Lynch for district attorney.