Suspect Alleges D.A. Violated Immunity Deal

In a case likely to affect the race for district attorney, a murder suspect said she was double-crossed by Ventura County prosecutors after providing them detailed information about a 1998 slaying.

Bridget Callahan’s allegations come amid a contested election and have already led to subpoenas for Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury and the two prosecutors vying to succeed him--Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Greg Totten and Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Ron Bamieh.

With a hearing set for later this month, sources say the controversy has already led to finger pointing within the prosecution ranks. And lawyers say it could result in recusal of the district attorney’s office.

At issue is whether authorities improperly coerced Callahan to talk about the slaying of 17-year-old Nichole Hendrix of Ventura and whether an agreement she signed is valid.

Callahan said prosecutors promised her immunity in exchange for her statements and told her she need not consult a lawyer before signing the agreement.

Six months later, the 31-year-old Ventura woman was indicted for first-degree murder along with two skinhead gang members she implicated.

Now, Callahan is asking a judge to set aside the indictment or exclude her statements and any evidence obtained as a result of her cooperation with prosecutors and sheriff’s detectives.

“The inducements and promises made to this defendant by the prosecution team were intended to coerce and improperly induce Ms. Callahan’s testimony,” attorney Joseph O’Neill said in a defense motion.

O’Neill argues that prosecutors acted unethically and devised “an evil scheme” to compel his client’s cooperation. He has subpoenaed six prosecutors, three detectives and a district attorney investigator to testify at a Nov. 16 court hearing.

Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Schwartz is scheduled to go before a Superior Court judge today to ask for additional time to respond to the defense claims.

Schwartz said he will also try to quash some of the subpoenas. He declined further comment.

Callahan Interviewed in Another Homicide

The controversy comes three years after the killing of Hendrix, a continuation school student who disappeared Oct. 15, 1998, after going out with friends. Her skeletal remains were found six months later in the mountains north of Ojai.

In October 1999, Bamieh and investigator Mark Volpei tracked Callahan to Arizona to interview her about an unrelated homicide and learned she had information about Hendrix’s slaying.

Callahan was initially resistant, but authorities persisted, and two months later she agreed to talk.

According to the contract she signed, Callahan agreed to identify those responsible for Hendrix’s death and testify at any subsequent hearings.

In return, the district attorney’s office would process her application for relocation under a witness protection program and give her $3,000 to move out of state.

But after the interview, authorities concluded that Callahan was more than just a witness.

She was not arrested, however, or advised she was a murder suspect until after she testified before a grand jury six months later.

During her testimony, Callahan, who waived her rights against self-incrimination, described how it was her job to keep Hendrix from escaping a motel bathroom where she knew the girl would be killed.

According to grand jury transcripts, she kept watch as David Ziesmer and Michael Bridgeford stabbed and beat Hendrix to death in the bathroom after concluding Hendrix had reported them to police for selling stolen property.

Callahan admitted kissing Hendrix goodbye before Ziesmer went into the bathroom with a knife. She later helped dispose of the body.

Prosecutors ultimately decided to prosecute Callahan, and she was indicted on one count of first-degree murder and related allegations that carry a possible sentence of life in prison without parole.

Ziesmer, 28, and Bridgeford, 25, both of Oxnard, were also indicted on first-degree murder charges and could face the death penalty if convicted.

In Callahan’s motion, the defense claims the “immunity” agreement was crafted in such a way as to confuse Callahan and take advantage of her.

O’Neill wrote that authorities told Callahan she need not consult with an attorney before entering into the agreement.

Prosecutors Says Talks Were Taped

On Wednesday, Bamieh, the original prosecutor who was taken off the case after announcing he was running for district attorney, countered that he never made such a statement and can prove it because his conversations with Callahan were tape-recorded.

Regardless, he said, her statements were voluntary.

“It is perfectly legal,” Bamieh said. “In fact, that is how we solve crimes--by talking to people.”

Callahan states in a sworn declaration that she fled to Arizona after Hendrix’s death because she feared for her safety.

She further states that when she agreed to talk to authorities she believed they were treating her as a witness--not a suspect--and that the district attorney was representing her legal interests and would protect her.

Bamieh said he never made a promise of immunity to Callahan and rejected the defense claims that she was coerced.

But in presenting the case to the grand jury, Bamieh acknowledged that they took advantage of Callahan.

“We knew as investigators and as a prosecutor that she in fact was not a witness; under the law she was culpable,” he told the grand jury. Regardless, Bamieh said prosecutors decided to use her as an informant.

“Miss Callahan agreed to wear a wire,” he said. “We never let her know at this point that she was culpable. . . . We decided to use her to get to Mr. Bridgeford and Ziesmer.”

Later, in a series of intraoffice memos to his supervisors, Bamieh stated his opinion that authorities used Callahan and should offer to let her plead guilty to a lesser charge.

“We took great advantage of her ignorance,” Bamieh wrote in an Oct. 24 memo, filed as a document in the case. “We did not lie to her, but we did create the impression that Callahan was helping herself the entire time we were using her.”

Volpei also stated in a separate memo last month that he repeatedly brought up the issue with administrators in the office, who delayed making a decision.

“There was no resolution on the issue and no consideration given to Ms. Callahan,” he wrote in the memo.

Prosecutors did eventually offer to let Callahan plead to second-degree murder, but she refused.

Contacted this week, Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard Holmes declined comment on any aspect of the Callahan motion. Bradbury, Totten, and Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Ron Janes did not return calls for comment.

From a legal standpoint, Callahan may have a difficult time making her case to dismiss the charges, given that she repeatedly waived her rights, said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson.

Case May Go to Attorney General

Still, Levenson said, she could see the case being handed over to the California attorney general, given the politics surrounding the case.

“Things go to the attorney general’s office not simply because they have to, but because it is to the political advantage of the district attorney’s office to have that happen,” Levenson said.

“This is a hot potato,” she said. “Although they may not have been required to give her her right to counsel, to the average citizen it might just look like it is unfair.”