McDougal Lawyer Hints at Going on Offensive

Look who’s talking all of a sudden--it’s Susan McDougal, the mum martyr of Whitewater.

The 43-year-old McDougal, who spent more than a year in jail rather than blab to a grand jury about President Clinton’s 20-year-old real estate dealings, is yakking up a storm at her embezzlement trial in Santa Monica. So much so that on Wednesday the judge, whom she has an unfortunate habit of interrupting, repeatedly told her to pipe down.

“Are you totally unable to keep your mouth shut?” Superior Court Judge Leslie W. Light asked in exasperation. He also admonished McDougal to avoid signaling the jury through facial expressions and body language.

“This is not theater. You are not a mime. You are not going to communicate to this jury. You’re going to have to do your best to sit there like a wooden Indian,” the judge scolded.

As it turns out, McDougal soon will be delivering her message directly to the jury, taking the witness stand in her own defense, according to her attorney, Mark Geragos.

Geragos implied in his opening statement that his client, who once worked as an assistant and bookkeeper for famed conductor Zubin Mehta and his actress-wife, Nancy, has plenty of dirt to dish.

For starters, McDougal plans to make Zubin Mehta’s alleged infidelity and the “several” children born out of wedlock during his 32-year marriage a central part of her defense against a dozen creditcard fraud, forgery and embezzlement charges. The charges cover the years of her employment, 1989 through mid-1992.

According to the defense, Nancy Mehta during this time spent all her husband’s considerable earnings--ranging from $50,000 to $200,000 monthly--so that he could not send extra cash to the children, who already received healthy allowances.

Zubin Mehta’s illegitimate children, who Geragos did not name or number, “caused consternation or bitterness between the two of them,” he said. So much so, that Nancy Mehta feared that her husband was planning to divorce her, the attorney told the jury.

And so, he added, long before McDougal appeared on the scene, Nancy Mehta had “devised a scheme of making sure that at the end of the month, there was no money left in the accounts so he wouldn’t take the money and give it to his kids.”

Nancy Mehta, who became close friends with McDougal, turned on her during the summer of 1992 when McDougal refused to accompany her to Italy, or to invite her along when her parents were visiting, Geragos said.

He added that Nancy Mehta’s story changed three times after she reported the theft to police--a clear sign of fabrication, according to the defense attorney.

At first, Nancy Mehta complained to investigators about a $6,000 check, which Geragos claimed McDougal had paid back--at 11.75% interest--when her boss deducted the amount from her paychecks. The alleged swindle, which mushroomed to $150,000, is nothing more than a fabrication by a jealous, bitter woman, the defense contended.

But prosecutor Jeffrey Semow told jurors Tuesday that the Mehtas’ lack of sophistication about money matters made them ripe targets for a woman who had grown accustomed to the high life and lost it.

Semow contended that McDougal forged Nancy Mehta’s signature on a credit card application and dozens of checks. She then purchased thousands of dollars’ worth of luxuries--everything from clothing to baby furniture. She even spent $1,200 of the Mehta’s money to get her mother’s teeth fixed, he charged.

Semow objected strenuously to the planned defense, claiming that McDougal and her lawyer were “using it as a chance to get out all this trashy evidence about the Mehtas’ private lives.”

So began a case of she said/shesaid--complete with conflicting stories on the lengthy paper trail.

“Every item, there’s a reasonable explanation for,” the defense attorney said. He offered explanations for purchases ranging from the couple’s wedding china to an $1,800 plane ticket to fly a “Christian Science practitioner” from Los Angeles to New York for the Mehtas’ marriage counseling sessions. “The [prosecution] wants you to look at the paper. I’m telling you, you’ve got to look at the people in this case.”

Testimony got off to a tedious start following the fireworks provided by the lawyers’ opening statements and the verbal jousting outside the jurors’ earshot. The day’s highlight came in the morning, with the scolding judge matching wits with the voluble defendant.

As Light advised McDougal that she has the right not to testify, and that no one can make her testify, she shot back, “I’ve got that,” drawing chuckles from courtroom spectators.

Later, he referred to the defendant and her lawyer’s “ventriloquist and puppet routine,” reminding her that she can address the court only through her lawyer. It proved to be a difficult task for McDougal, who interrupted with frequent “buts.”

“You’re going to have to do a much better job of controlling your statements,” Light advised her. “It’s so hard,” wheedled McDougal, her voice rising like a pleading child’s.

“As you probably realize, it’s much easier to sit there [at the defense table] than it is to sit in my lockup,” Light cautioned.

“Yes, it is,” she agreed, laughing.

If only she had left well enough alone.

A few minutes later, she interrupted the judge again, explaining that she thought he had stopped speaking.

“I have to stop to breathe,” Light snapped.