Hacker Recants in Porn Case

In an attempt to salvage a highly publicized child pornography case, federal prosecutors on Monday offered new evidence that a Canadian hacker who broke into an Orange County judge’s computers was not working for the police.

Bradley Willman of Langley, British Columbia, in a newly sworn statement, recanted his previous testimony that he served as a law enforcement “agent” in the case against former Superior Court Judge Ronald C. Kline, and in other child pornography investigations.

The move comes two weeks after U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall in Los Angeles ruled that Willman illegally invaded Kline’s home and courthouse computers -- where Irvine police said they later found more than 1,500 pornographic images and the judge’s diary. Kline later resigned as judge.

Marshall determined that, at the time, Willman was working on behalf of the police. Because of that, the judge is considering suppressing some of the prosecution’s strongest evidence because it stemmed from Willman’s illegal search.

Kline, 62, has pleaded not guilty to six charges of possessing child pornography. He has also pleaded not guilty to state charges of molesting a 14-year-old boy more than two decades ago.

Willman allegedly hacked into Kline’s computers by using a “Trojan Horse” program he had developed to invade another’s computer and track that person’s online activity. He then forwarded his findings about Kline to a Colorado-based Internet watchdog group, Pedowatch, which alerted Irvine police. Based on that material, police questioned Kline and secured a search warrant for his computers.

Defense attorneys argue that Kline’s diary, the pornographic images and all other evidence collected from his computers, his home and courtroom chambers should be excluded from the trial. All of those were found by police as a result of Willman’s illegal actions, which violated Kline’s constitutional rights, they said.

Paul S. Meyer, Kline’s lead attorney, dismissed efforts by the federal prosecutors to downplay Willman’s ties with law enforcement, saying they are trying to renew old arguments.

“There is nothing new, nothing surprising and nothing persuasive in this material,” Meyer said.

Assistant U.S. Attys. Deirdre Eliot and Greg Staples maintain that Willman worked as an anonymous tipster, not as a police informant, and that his new declaration should be enough for the court reconsider his status.

Aside from that issue, the prosecutors contend that Kline cannot challenge the police search of his courthouse computer because it is government property and, under county policy, can be freely monitored for criminal activity. They also argue that Kline made incriminating statements to Irvine police before any search of his home and computers, and that evidence is not tainted by any illegal actively by Willman.

In a declaration signed under oath March 19, Willman swears he never worked as a law enforcement informant before or during the Kline investigation. He said he was pressured into describing himself as an agent during a deposition by Kline’s attorneys Sept. 20.

“All such statements that I was working for law enforcement, either directly, or indirectly through an Internet watchdog group, when I accessed computers and retrieved material ... are not true,” Willman said in the statement. “I made those statements during the deposition because I felt pressured by defense counsel and wanted to get off the stand during a lengthy deposition hearing.”

Prosecutors do not dispute that Willman helped the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with a child molestation case before Kline’s case. But the U.S. attorney’s office maintains that Willman was a cooperative suspect in that case, not an informant.

They also argue that, even if Willman had assisted police in the past, neither the Irvine police nor any other law enforcement authority had asked Willman to hack into Kline’s computers.

Two law professors offered different views about whether federal prosecutors can rescue their case, but agreed that Kline might be freed if prosecutors can’t convince Marshall to reconsider or if they can’t file a successful appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

“Judge Kline may well walk in this case if the ruling is upheld on appeal,” Chapman University law professor Scott Howe said. “It sounds like most of the evidence the government has is the result of that search [by Willman].”

Howe gives prosecutors a “fair shot” at rescuing their case. Even if Willman had been an informant for another police agency, Kline’s 4th Amendment right against an illegal search might not protect him, Howe said.”If Irvine police had had no contact with the guy until four months later, then it’s an odd conclusion to say he was working as a government agent at the time,” Howe said.

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen said he wasn’t surprised to see prosecutors, with nothing to lose, attack the previous testimony of their strongest witness.

“I’m sure they see it as a necessary position they’re going to have to take if they’re going to salvage any of this case at all,” Uelmen said.