Lawyers Want D.A. Kept Out of Lab Cases

As legal challenges to the Ventura County crime lab’s licensing troubles continued, defense attorneys Thursday demanded that the district attorney’s office be disqualified from the cases in question to avoid a possible conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, the lab technician whose failed proficiency test prompted the snafu was placed on paid administrative leave.

And the former supervisor of the crime lab’s alcohol testing division said he has become the target of threats and intimidation.

“This is a three-ring circus,” Malibu attorney Robert Sandbach said outside a courtroom during a break in Thursday’s court proceedings.

Defense attorneys have filed more than 100 motions seeking dismissal of drunk driving charges on the grounds the crime lab erred when supervising breath, urine and blood tests during a four-month period starting last year.

The crime lab’s licensing problems started in November when the forensic alcohol supervisor, Norm Fort, retired. Under state law, the department had 90 days to replace Fort with another qualified supervisor.

But the county did not meet the March deadline and the technician handling the tests, Vincent Vitale, failed a standard proficiency test needed to keep the license.

As a result, the state took over urine and blood testing at its Santa Barbara lab though the Ventura County lab continued to oversee breath tests.

Vitale was placed on administrative leave Wednesday by the Sheriff’s Department, officials said. Capt. Mark Ball would not comment on how long Vitale would remain on paid leave or why he was taken out of the lab.

He did, however, comment generally on the issue, calling it a “feeding frenzy on behalf of the defense attorneys.”

On Thursday, Fort said he has recently been accused by lab employees of being responsible for the licensing mess, even though he was retired when the problems started, he said.

“There is some intimidation going on,” he said, adding: “We are not going to refocus this discussion on Norm Fort.”

Nearly two dozen attorneys appeared Thursday morning before Superior Court Judge Steven Z. Perren to set hearings on their motions, which will be joined into three cases.

Noting that several issues need to be addressed, Perren said the first order of business must be to determine the status of the crime lab’s license between November and March.

“I think the first thing is to find out what happened,” he said. “As far as I am concerned, we are at the infancy stage of the litigation.”

But before considering evidence, defense attorneys told the judge, they want a hearing on whether prosecutors should be handling any of the cases.

“I believe the district attorney has a conflict of interest that precludes the defendants from having a fair hearing,” attorney Robert Huber said during a court recess. “Every day we uncover new involvement by the sheriff and the district attorney in this mess.”

Last month, prosecutors told members of the Ventura County Bar Assn. that the crime lab’s forensic alcohol analysis license had not been renewed by the state Department of Health.

As a result, prosecutors said, they were reviewing drunk driving cases filed between Nov. 15, 1996, and March 16, 1997.

But last week, prosecutors filed a motion stating--contrary to earlier reports--that the lab had never lost its license. They now say alcohol tests supervised by the lab are valid.

Defense attorneys have cried foul.

“Given the fact that the district attorney is trying to sanitize the actions of the sheriff,” Huber said, “asking the district attorney to handle this matter is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.”

Assistant Public Defender Jean Farley, whose office plans to file a motion next week seeking the prosecutors’ recusal, said the potential for conflict is too great to allow local prosecutors to handle the cases.

Instead, she said, the attorney general’s office should take over the litigation.

But Deputy Dist. Atty. Peter Kossoris said he could see no legitimate reason why prosecutors should be removed from the cases.

“I sure don’t see what the conflict of interest is,” he said. “Our role is to do whatever legitimate thing we can to sustain convictions.”

During the hearing, defense attorneys asked the judge to impose a series of orders, such as compelling certain witnesses to reappear in the event they might leave the area.

But the judge was unwilling to grant such requests, pointing out that many witnesses are already under court orders to appear.

“I am sorry,” he said at one point. “I just don’t see this as being as sinister as the tone being presented.”

Among the attorneys and county officials assembled in court Thursday were a few individuals arrested and charged with drunk driving, including a 24-year-old Camarillo man who is awaiting a jail sentence.

In light of the crime lab problems, he said, he now questions the validity of the breath test he took in March and is seeking a new trial. He negotiated a plea after the Breathalyzer registered .17--twice the legal limit for driving.

“That test is what showed my innocence or guilt--period,” said the man, who asked that his name not be used. “The numbers were so high, I had no case.”

Given the current legal battle over test validity, he wants his case thrown out.

“The fact that they couldn’t use the evidence,” he said, “I would be a fool not to retry this.”