Assembly Backs Baugh’s Measure on D.A. Powers

File this one under the category of strange bedfellows.

Assemblyman Scott Baugh, a conservative law-and-order Republican from Huntington Beach, is pushing a bill to help the little guy caught under the thumb of district attorneys.

That’s the sort of effort normally reserved for liberal Democrats toting membership cards of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Baugh’s measure, which won a lopsided 62-3 victory Thursday in the Assembly, would require any prosecutor presenting a case before a county grand jury to reveal evidence that might prove a target’s innocence. Failing to do so, a charge could be dismissed.

Currently, there’s no hard and fast rule in the penal code requiring such a presentation, and Baugh argues that prosecutors take advantage of it.

Defending the defendants isn’t usually in the GOP script, but Baugh’s bill is a case of politics following personal experience. Baugh, after all, has been the little guy at the wrong end of a prosecutor’s blunderbuss.

Last year, he was indicted by the Orange County Grand Jury for election wrongdoing during his successful campaign to succeed recalled Assemblywoman Doris Allen. Since then, Baugh has complained long and loud that Orange County Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi and his lieutenants presented a lopsided case to win multiple felony and misdemeanor indictments.

“We submitted letters to the D.A. identifying witnesses who could contradict everything,” Baugh said. “And the D.A. did not put those witnesses on before the grand jury.”

Some of the grand jury charges against Baugh were thrown out by a Superior Court judge, who agreed with Baugh’s attorneys that prosecutors failed to inform the grand jurors that Baugh’s principal accuser had made conflicting statements.

But most of the dismissed charges were refiled directly by Capizzi, and a preliminary hearing is set for May.

Baugh, meanwhile, has become a born-again civil libertarian of sorts.

“It was a no-brainer for the ACLU,” Baugh said. “But it doesn’t mean this is a liberal piece of legislation. Everyone should support it.”

Francisco Lobaco, the ACLU’s state lobbyist, agrees. His group isn’t actively backing Baugh’s bill, which is being championed by defense attorneys, but the ACLU likes it.

“Constitutional rights and civil liberties impact everyone, whether they be a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican,” Lobaco said. “Basic rights guaranteed by the constitution should fundamentally be a bipartisan matter, but unfortunately it’s not always that way.”

Mary Broderick, executive director of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, said Baugh’s authorship of the measure, along with nearly rock solid support from other Republicans, isn’t really that surprising. She said it’s “not uncommon” for district attorneys zealously pursuing charges to withhold exculpatory evidence from a grand jury.

“Once people have an opportunity to fully understand the implications of the grand jury process, they appreciate the need,” said Broderick, whose group represents California’s defense bar. “How can anyone oppose the idea of a grand jury getting the whole picture?”

She said the measure also has a fiscal benefit. A grand jury that is given an even-handed presentation won’t issue bad indictments that might waste “valuable court resources” before eventually getting dismissed, Broderick said.

The state prosecutors association has taken a neutral stance on Baugh’s bill, saying it merely enshrines in the penal code a 1975 state Supreme Court decision that called for prosecutors to present conflicting evidence when appearing before a grand jury.

But the prosecutors group took umbrage at the suggestion that district attorneys sometimes veer into unethical territory while arguing cases at the grand jury.

“I think it’s very uncommon,” said David LaBahn of the California District Attorneys Assn. “Certainly Mr. Baugh can make the argument that his case wasn’t done right, so hypothetically any other case might not be done right. But I don’t think the problem is widespread.”

Only one Republican opposed Baugh’s measure--Assemblyman Rod Pacheco of Riverside, a former prosecutor. “It would be bad for California, bad for law enforcement and you should vote no,” Pacheco said before the vote.

Baugh, however, said that his measure will help ensure the independence of the grand jury system.

“Prosecutors can give a one-sided view of life to a grand jury,” Baugh said. “They become a tool of the district attorney. I don’t care if you’re liberal or conservative--that’s wrong.”

His bill, which now goes to the Senate, is one of three bills Baugh is carrying to help people under grand jury scrutiny. The other two would allow targets of grand juries as well as witnesses to be accompanied by attorneys when they testify.