Allegations of Grand Jury Tampering to Be Probed

Responding to allegations that Ventura County’s district attorney tampered with the grand jury, a Superior Court judge launched an inquiry Wednesday to determine whether the indictment of accused murderer Michael Dally was properly obtained.

Judge Frederick A. Jones ordered Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury and at least five members of the Ventura County Grand Jury to answer questions related to defense claims that Bradbury tried to coerce the panel.

Bradbury is expected to take the witness stand today.

During testimony Wednesday, grand juror DeShay Ford told the judge that Bradbury had pressured the panel to return an indictment against Dally on charges of murder, kidnapping and conspiracy related to his wife’s killing in May 1996.

The grand jury indicted Dally’s lover, Diana Haun, on murder and related charges in August but failed at that time to return an indictment against Dally--a move that Ford said had apparently angered prosecutors.

Ford described a mid-November meeting in which grand jury foreman George J. Billinger told the group of Bradbury’s alleged demands.

“He said the prosecutor would not bring the case back to us unless they were sure of an indictment,” Ford testified during the hearing.

At Billinger’s request, Ford continued, the 19-member grand jury took a vote. Twelve members raised their hands.

Ford said he believed they were voting to indict Dally despite the fact that no new evidence had been presented since the August grand jury hearings. His recollection, however, was contradicted by three other grand jurors who also testified.

The hearing was opened Wednesday after attorneys for Dally and Haun filed motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

They want Jones to dismiss all charges against Dally and some against Haun on the grounds that prosecutors improperly influenced the grand jury on more than one occasion.

But prosecutors say defense attorneys have no facts on which to base their allegations. In court Wednesday, they called the request for an evidentiary hearing a “fishing expedition.”

But the judge disagreed, saying the apparent impropriety was sufficient enough to warrant a full hearing. He immediately launched an inquiry and ordered Bradbury and various members of the grand jury to testify about their actions last November.

“I am mightily concerned with what has occurred,” Jones said. “I am concerned with the apparent violation . . . and the events which have apparently prompted that apparent violation.”

Deputy County Counsel Frank O. Sieh expressed concern about the probe, stating that the integrity of the grand jury, whose affairs are kept strictly confidential, could be compromised.

But the judge said he planned to keep a tight leash on the questioning, and indicated that the need for full disclosure outweighed those concerns.

*

However, Wednesday’s testimony was largely conflicting and failed to clarify many of the issues at hand.

While Ford told the judge that 12 members raised their hands in favor of an indictment that day, two other grand jurors testified that they could not recall ever taking such a vote.

And a third grand juror, Dorothy Intlekofer, said she voted on a scheduling matter--not a request to return an indictment.

“The hand count was to see how many of us would be in chambers if an indictment was brought to us,” Intlekofer testified, explaining that several of the 19 grand jurors were about to go on vacation.

“To me, it was a show of hands to see how many people would be available,” she said. “That’s what I voted on.”

Shortly before the end of the court day, Billinger was called to the witness stand. He said he could not recall talking to Bradbury after the grand jury failed to indict Dally in August.

*

Under questioning by Deputy Public Defender Neil B. Quinn, Billinger said he had no notes for reference, explaining that all of the grand jury’s documents have been destroyed.

During Ford’s testimony, Quinn asked why the panel was suddenly willing to indict Dally. Three months earlier, grand jurors had refused to return an indictment on murder charges, indicating they needed more evidence.

Answering Quinn’s question, Ford said that prosecutors had stopped taking cases to the grand jury and its members were eager to handle more criminal matters.

“We wanted more indictments,” Ford testified. “The majority feeling of the grand jurors was that we liked and loved indictments.”

During the hearing, which was peppered with numerous objections and dogged cross-examination by the prosecution, Ford acknowledged that he was not present at any meeting between Bradbury and Billinger.

He was not personally aware of what--if anything--the district attorney asked the foreman to relay to the grand jury, he said.