Testimony in Corruption Case Excluded

The judge in the corruption trial of former Compton Mayor Omar Bradley on Wednesday refused to allow a witness to testify that Compton politicians may use city-issued credit cards for personal purchases and not be prosecuted.

The issue is a key point in the case in which Bradley and four other current and former Compton officials are charged with misusing public funds for allegedly paying for golf rounds, dental work, travel and limousine rides with city credit cards.

The legal wrangling stood out in a day marked by frequent outbursts and clashes between lawyers and the judge. At different times the judge threatened a lawyer with contempt, a bailiff threatened to kick out unruly spectators and Bradley accused a juror of misconduct.

The potential expert witness, Paul Richards, a former Compton assistant city manager, was called by the defense to tell jurors that criminal prosecution was not part of Compton’s credit card policy because the rule permits politicians to reimburse unauthorized purchases.

The hearing was held outside the presence of jurors to determine if Richards’ testimony was relevant or appropriate.

Superior Court Judge Jack W. Morgan said the Compton policy was trumped by a state law that prohibits the misuse of public funds. He suggested that Richards’ reasoning bordered on “fantasy” and left him “incredulous.”

“It’s so foreign to any possible, reasonable thing I could think of,” Morgan said on Monday when the hearing began. Richards cannot testify, Morgan said, because only a judge can determine which laws apply in a criminal case.

The ruling posed a potential blow to defense attorneys, who have argued that Compton grants politicians latitude in their spending habits for practical reasons. They say the defendants reimbursed the contested expenses and never intended to steal public funds. They said that theft laws already exist that apply in such situations and that cities should have final say on how local politicians use public funds.

In a surprise move, defense attorney Anthony Willoughby said that the district attorney’s office, in another case, had arrived at a similar conclusion in a 1993 letter, which he submitted to the judge.

Willoughby and another lawyer, Winston McKesson, then said that they planned to subpoena Gil Garcetti, who was district attorney at the time, and Deputy Dist. Atty. David Demerjian, the current head of the public integrity unit.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Terry Bork suggested in an interview that the letter would probably not have any bearing at the trial. The way cases are handled, he said, can vary and is influenced by whoever is district attorney at the time.

Bork said he would ask the judge to quash the subpoenas.

Though Richards was not allowed to testify as an expert witness, the judge permitted him to answer questions about one of Bradley’s expenses: a $567 bill for a hotel room in Torrance.

Richards said that Bradley had rented the room to discuss matters involving city issues, and that he had also been at the meeting. Bradley’s attorney, Ben Pesta, has said that Bradley’s contested expenses, including golf balls and a cigar, were related to city business and therefore justified.

Richards’ credibility was attacked by prosecutors, who elicited from Richards that Bradley, along with two other former council members on trial, Delores Zurita and Amen Rahh, had voted to give him a $350,000 settlement in a lawsuit he filed against the city.

Richards, an attorney and a former Lynwood councilman, also testified that he had been recalled from office in September for alleged misuse of public funds, among other things. Richards is under investigation by the district attorney’s office in connection with offenses similar to the ones alleged against Bradley.

Tuesday’s session took an unexpected turn when McKesson, the attorney for former City Manager John Johnson, alleged juror misconduct and then refused the judge’s order to reveal the name of the person who had told him of the alleged misconduct.

The judge threatened McKesson with contempt of court, but the lawyer argued that such a disclosure would violate confidentiality rules.

The standoff was defused after Bradley came forward, waiving his confidentiality rights. Put under oath, Bradley said that a juror had made a negative comment about Willoughby, Zurita’s attorney.

The juror said, “I can’t stand that man,” according to Bradley.

Other people who were sitting closer to the juror, including two prosecutors, said they hadn’t heard the comment. The juror later denied having made a comment and two other jurors sitting near her backed her claim.

During the heated exchange, which drew noise from audience members, a bailiff sternly warned spectators against making any disruptive sounds.

Bradley, who along with the others faces a potential four-year prison term if convicted, is scheduled to testify on Monday.