Prosecutors, White House Will Treat Jurors Gingerly

Like prosecutors everywhere, the 13 members of the House making the case for President Clinton’s conviction will gear their arguments to the jury--in this instance, a 100-member, tradition-bound panel with idiosyncrasies all its own.

In an acknowledgment of the prickly Senate they will try to persuade, the prosecutors will steer clear of the graphic details of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s lengthy report and focus on the impact of the president’s alleged offenses against the Constitution. Keep it lofty, prosecutors were reminding each other in their strategy meetings this week; stay out of the mud.

Even with such watchwords, however, legal and political experts observing from the sidelines predict tough going for the prosecution. The murkiness of the facts, the uncertainty of whether witnesses will be allowed and the allegiances of potential witnesses to the president all present obstacles, according to veteran lawyers of both political stripes.

They also advise House prosecutors--called managers--to accentuate factual disputes to show how essential witnesses are. And, they say, focus the case on the larger jury--the American people. Do not dare antagonize the senators.

“The No. 1 rule at trial, any good lawyer will tell you, is to know your audience, know your jury,” said Marc Garber, an assistant U.S. attorney in Las Vegas who added that he would stress obstruction of justice over perjury if the case landed in his lap. “I would walk in and say, ‘Let’s talk obstruction.’ ”

No Tricks or Surprises Planned

The House prosecutors said that they will make the case for perjury and obstruction of justice without tricks or surprise evidence that will leave senators’ mouths agape--no trial gimmicks, like O.J. Simpson tugging on those too-small leather gloves.

Rather, the prosecutorial team says it will simply lay out the well-known facts of the case--methodically, vigorously, hour after hour--and attempt to win over two-thirds of the senators, significantly more support than they received in the House.

“No surprises,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) said after a planning session this week on his team’s trial strategy. “I feel strongly we have an excellent presentation.”

Expect that presentation, which is limited to 24 hours over three days, to gloss over exactly what went on between Monica S. Lewinsky and the president in that hallway off the Oval Office and to avoid Linda Tripp’s secret and controversial taping of her telephone conversations with Lewinsky.

Too much talk of sex is a sure route to a quick acquittal, lawyers said. The controversial audiotapes turn a cloudy case even cloudier, some contended.

And Starr, whose tactics have stirred up so much wrath among Democrats, also will go largely unmentioned. This is now the House’s case, not the independent counsel’s.

As they try to sway both Republicans and Democrats, prosecutors intend to appeal to the jury’s sense of propriety and love of country. They will talk about previous impeachment cases and the weighty words of the Founding Fathers.

To present the evidence itself, prosecutors are ready with visual aids. Wide-screen television sets will display video snippets. Blown-up charts of telephone records will detail frantic efforts by presidential secretary Betty Currie to contact Lewinsky.

Although the House prosecutors said that the facts are on their side, they acknowledge that their case has complications.

Lewinsky, for example, told the grand jury that no one asked her to lie or promised her a job for her silence. Currie said that Clinton did not pressure her to give false testimony. And attorney and presidential friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. said that he was just helping out a young person in need--not helping the president by arranging to get Lewinsky a job out of town.

So the House prosecutors will try to steer the senators toward what they consider the big picture.

“Events and words that may seem innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a sinister, or even criminal connotation when observed in the context of the whole plot,” they wrote in a brief filed Monday with the Senate.

As for Lewinsky saying that nobody asked her to lie, for example, the brief acknowledged that “when considered alone this would seem exculpatory. However,” it added, “in the context of other evidence, another picture emerges. Of course no one said, ‘Now, Monica, you go in there and lie.’ They didn’t have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what was expected of her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job but once she signed the false affidavit, she got one.”

Avoid Details, Stress Conspiracy

The prosecutors also urge the Senate jury not to dwell on each minute detail of the record but to look at what they allege is an overall conspiracy.

In a sign of the vigorous sparring to come, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said Tuesday that the House memo is full of “hyperbole and overblown rhetoric” and “reads like a cheap mystery.” The two sides will respond to the other’s memos in another round of filings today.

The prosecution also will have to “strike a balance between” making the case for conviction and “conveying the need for witnesses,” said Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.), one of the managers.

Under the compromise adopted by the Senate last week, the senators will decide whether to hear from witnesses--based on recommendations from the two sides--midway through the trial.

Hyde said the prosecutors can show the need for witnesses by indicating the many instances in which Clinton’s testimony clashes with that of others who appeared before the grand jury.

“When we reach the point of asking for witnesses, we think the Senate will be in a more generous mood,” he said this week.

Without witnesses, some believe the prosecution’s chances are nil.

“It will be impossible for them to win a conviction of a president without the complete testimony of witnesses,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has supported the Republicans’ case.

In hopes that the case will go on, the House managers have worked to hone their witness list from 15 people down to half a dozen or so, with Lewinsky, Currie and Jordan near the top.

Also uncertain is whether senators will want to expand the case beyond that presented in the House. There remains a distinct possibility that prosecutors will attempt to call a surprise witness, another woman, to show a pattern of obstructive behavior by the president.

Among the names floated by aides are Kathleen Willey, who has said that she was pressured by unknown people after alleging that Clinton groped her outside the Oval Office, and Dolly Kyle Browning, who has accused Clinton of pressuring her to file a false affidavit.

Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), another member of the prosecution team, said that he has no interest in hearing about sexual experiences. Rather, he said, “our investigation has shown there is a consistent pattern and practice in respect to these Jane Does.”

Times staff writer Eric Lichtblau contributed to this story.