Cluff Faces Fewer Charges

A judge dismissed seven of 11 criminal counts Thursday against Cody Cluff, accused of misusing and embezzling public funds as former head of the agency that promotes film production in Los Angeles County.

Defense attorney Mark Werksman said the judge “took a meat ax” to the case by dismissing the counts alleging that Cluff spent embezzled Entertainment Industry Development Corp. money on strip joints, club memberships and a Dominican Republic baseball trip.

Werksman said the prosecution had tried to “pile on specific charges that would create a mountain of damning allegations” and that Thursday’s decision made a fair trial more likely.

But Deputy Dist. Atty. Jennifer Lentz Snyder said the decision did not affect the strength or scope of the case against Cluff. “It’s a matter of housekeeping, nothing more,” she said. “We expect it will have no impact on the prosecution of this case.”

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler said he did not dismiss the counts for lack of evidence, but rather because they were repetitive of the remaining counts.

Those counts charge Cluff with misappropriation of public funds and embezzlement. He and EIDC General Manager Darryl Seif also still face charges that they forged a letter from the mayor’s office and used a counterfeit city seal.

The Los Angeles County Grand Jury indicted Cluff and Seif in August. Both pleaded not guilty. Cluff originally faced a possibility of 12 years and eight months in state prison if convicted. Now a conviction could bring him a maximum of eight years. Seif could face three years and eight months if convicted.

Judge Fidler also said he believed that the EIDC, which was created in 1995 to streamline permitting and promote filming in the county, was a quasi-public agency. He said the corporation functioned as a public agency in collecting permitting fees but also served as a private company working for the public good of bringing film work to the region.

Prosecutors said the EIDC, which has since been revamped, was a public entity and that Cluff was thus prohibited from spending its money on private luxuries. Defense attorneys maintained that the agency was a private, not-for-profit corporation and that no public funds were involved. They said the expenses were legitimate business ones.