State Declares D.A. Official Was Deceptive

The state attorney general’s office has concluded that a top lieutenant of Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas was not truthful during a criminal probe of the office. State prosecutors also said that if the official is called as a witness in future criminal cases the office handles, he may be required to disclose his alleged deception to defense attorneys.

Donald Blankenship, chief of the district attorney’s 200-officer bureau of investigation, failed to acknowledge during a 2001 interview with the attorney general’s office that he knew Rackauckas gave a handgun to a campaign contributor, according to a memo written by a top state prosecutor.

The gun inquiry did not result in criminal charges. The recipient of the handgun, Patrick Di Carlo, is a Rackauckas friend who was the target of a 1980s probe into bank fraud and political corruption. He was not charged with any crimes.

State prosecutors attached to the memo transcripts of Blankenship’s statements to investigators and conflicting statements he made to a subordinate who was secretly recording their conversation at the attorney general’s request, according to several sources.

The memo, signed by Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Gary Schons, also suggests that defense attorneys be told about the attorney general’s conclusions if Blankenship is called to testify in future cases.

Schons cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brady vs. Maryland, that requires prosecutors to disclose to the defense evidence that is favorable to a defendant, including past dishonesty by investigating officers.

Blankenship is a manager who is rarely called to the witness stand, although he did testify in a political corruption case two years ago.

A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined to comment Friday, saying she was not familiar with the memo. A representative of the attorney general also declined to comment.

The memo marks an escalation in the public feud between Rackauckas and Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer. It was Lockyer’s staff that helped the Orange County Grand Jury investigate the district attorney’s office last year. The grand jury accused Rackauckas of intervening on behalf of political contributors with cases before his office, including Di Carlo.

Lockyer has publicly criticized Rackauckas’ ethics but said he has found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Lockyer’s office is auditing a special district attorney fund, intended for law-enforcement purposes, that Blankenship allegedly used to buy food and alcohol for lobbying meetings.

*

Praise From the Boss

In an interview this month, Rackauckas praised Blankenship, describing him as a positive force in the office. Blankenship oversees investigators targeting cases ranging from political corruption to homicides and terrorism. He is considered one of Rackauckas’ confidants.

“One thing he’s done is improve this management team a great deal. It’s a night-and-day improvement.... He pays quite a lot of personal attention to a lot of cases as well as handles administrative [duties],” Rackauckas said.

It is not unheard-of for prosecutors in California to alert police agencies about problem officers. Some district attorneys track allegations of police misconduct and advise departments when an officer’s marred record will have to be shared with the defense. The attorney general’s memo about Blankenship is commonly called a “Brady letter” by prosecutors and police.

*

Will There Be a Fight?

It’s now up to Rackauckas to decide whether he agrees with the findings. If he’s not inclined to share the memo, defense lawyers could ask a judge to decide whether the issue is relevant. Officials in the Orange County public defender’s office say they expect prosecutors to give them copies of the Blankenship memo in relevant cases.

“Certainly, in every case in which we think Mr. Blankenship had a role, we will be awaiting the information about the attorney general’s probe, and if that’s not forthcoming, we will take steps to get it,” said Assistant Public Defender Denise Gragg, who supervises the office’s death penalty caseload. “We certainly think the integrity of the investigators of a criminal case is relevant information that needs to be turned over to the defense.”

Law enforcement officials said it’s rare for a top police official to face the prospect of having to disclose past dishonesty in court. Police officers with proven credibility problems are often fired, the officials said.

Newark, Calif., Police Chief John Robertson said he’s fired eight to 10 officers for dishonesty during his 15 years as chief. “If you’re found to be dishonest, it’s the end of your career,” Robertson said. “In any law enforcement organization, whether it’s the chief or the line-level officer, honesty is absolutely critical.”

*

Hit From Two Sides

Word of the attorney general’s allegation follows months of controversy involving the Rackauckas administration. In June, the Orange County Grand Jury issued a report that accused Rackauckas of intervening in cases to benefit friends and political supporters, unfairly punishing political enemies and misusing office resources. Four months later, Lockyer accused Rackauckas in a letter of failing to take the report seriously.

Although he recently acknowledged making mistakes in managing the office, Rackauckas maintains the grand jury report was inaccurate and that the panel was unduly influenced by his political enemies.

In November, state prosecutors sent another letter to the district attorney’s office that detailed how one of Blankenship’s top officials, assistant investigations chief Michael Clesceri, secretly recorded conversations with a “ranking member” of the investigations unit suspected of misleading the attorney general’s investigators.

The letter went on to say that Clesceri, acting as a law-enforcement officer, helped prosecutors investigate whether the official interfered with a police investigation or committed conspiracy to obstruct justice. Both are criminal charges.

Although the conspiracy charge requires the participation of two or more people, the letter does not identify a second person.