Starr Focus as McDougal Case Opens

The first day of Susan McDougal’s contempt trial Monday turned into a political referendum of sorts on Kenneth W. Starr, and the early returns were not terribly favorable for the independent counsel.

Although Starr was not present, his name--and the reactions it generated from potential jurors--dominated the start of jury selection at the felony trial in U.S. district court here.

Indeed, the first panel of six potential jurors had barely sat down in the judge’s chambers when one young man in the group set the tone for the day. “Can I ask you a question?” he said to the lead prosecutor. “What is your relationship to Ken Starr?”

After prosecutor Mark Barrett told the potential juror that he and other members of the Arkansas team worked for the independent counsel, the man responded curtly: “I don’t hold a high opinion of Kenneth Starr.”

McDougal, 44, is on trial for contempt of court and obstruction of justice for refusing at two grand jury appearances to answer questions from Starr’s prosecutors related to the independent counsel’s investigation into the Whitewater affair and related business dealings of President Clinton.

A former business partner of Clinton’s who now lives in Redondo Beach, McDougal has already served 18 months in prison for civil contempt for her silence. She maintains Starr was trying to railroad Clinton, an Arkansas native, and that she did not trust him to conduct a fair investigation.

Her attorney, Los Angeles lawyer Mark Geragos, has vowed to put Starr on trial at the Little Rock proceedings, and the often vitriolic comments from potential jurors indicated he may have some support.

Two dozen potential jurors from a wide mix of economic and political backgrounds were questioned Monday by attorneys from both sides in Judge George Howard Jr.’s chambers.

Out of that group, seven expressed clearly negative views toward Starr and his handling of the Clinton investigations.

“I feel like Kenneth Starr’s been so very pushy and cruel . . . [to] so many people,” said one elderly woman with a deep Southern drawl. “Because of the lives that have been affected, I really felt he went too far.”

The court dismissed her and two other potential jurors “for cause” after they said that they disliked Starr and his investigation so much that they were not sure they could be fair to the McDougal prosecutors.

Eleven of the 24 potential jurors said they had not formed a definite opinion on Starr, preferring to avoid the rush of publicity over his investigations into the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater and other matters. A few of the panelists said they thought Starr appeared to be doing his job under difficult circumstances, and one panelist voiced unwavering support for Starr, saying he was a tough and articulate prosecutor.

Starr is “probably a misunderstood guy,” said the supporter, who described himself as an avid Rush Limbaugh listener and who criticized Clinton’s policies as “darn near socialist.”

Geragos said afterward that he was “pleasantly surprised” by the “anti-Starr sentiment” voiced by a strong core of potential jurors.

In written questionnaires filled out several weeks ago by more than 400 members of the jury pool, as many as 40% voiced negative opinions toward Starr, Geragos said. Many of the most ardent critics had been pulled from the pool based on those written responses, leaving a more middle-of-the-road group for oral questioning, he said.

But Barrett said he wasn’t discouraged.

“This is a highly publicized case. It’s to be expected that people have opinions, and we’ll have to work through that.”

Jury selection resumes today and is expected to last several more days before opening statements begin.