Judge Hears Arguments on Merits of Libel Lawsuit Against Governor

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his campaign were so intent on winning last fall’s recall election that they were prepared to “destroy” the reputation of a woman who accused Schwarzenegger of sexual assault, her lawyer told a Los Angeles judge Tuesday.

Hoping to derail the libel suit brought by Rhonda Miller, attorneys for the governor and his campaign argued that aides were acting on the best information available when they urged reporters to check Miller’s criminal background, only to learn later that she had no record.

Schwarzenegger played no role in the campaign’s decision to contact reporters, his lawyers said.

The charges and counterclaims were leveled during a spirited two-hour hearing Tuesday before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert L. Hess on whether the libel suit should be dismissed. Whichever way the judge rules, an appeal is almost certain. Miller’s suit could put the governor in the legally -- and politically -- perilous position of testifying before a jury about the case.

Miller, 53, filed the lawsuit after Schwarzenegger’s campaign responded to her election eve claims of sexual assault by sending out an e-mail that suggested reporters check Miller’s name on an Internet site of Los Angeles Superior Court criminal records. Reporters who followed those instructions were presented with a list of crimes, but those records belonged to one or more people with Miller’s name but not her birth date.

Even so, the suggestion that she had a criminal record made its way to radio and television shows where she was vilified throughout election day.

Miller’s claims of assault were denied by some of her acquaintances, who also raised questions privately about her credibility, lawyers for the campaign said. Those questions, the attorneys said, led campaign officials to justifiably suspect the woman had some history that would undermine her claims.

Miller’s public accusations against Schwarzenegger meant that she could no longer claim to be merely a private citizen wrongfully smeared by the campaign, the lawyers argued.

“This is someone who stood up and held a press conference with the sole purpose of influencing an election,” said attorney Neil Shapiro, representing the campaign official, Sean Walsh, who sent out the e-mail.

In the last minute pandemonium of the campaign, Shapiro added, it was not only logical but also fair that the campaign try to quickly answer a host of questions about Miller: “Who is [she]? Did she have an ax to grind? Was she looking for money?”

Schwarzenegger’s longtime attorney, Martin Singer, told the judge that the governor had already said, in sworn declarations, that he had had no role in sending out the e-mail about Miller. “He should never have been sued in this case,” Singer said.

Attorney Paul Hoffman, however, representing Miller, argued that there was evidence that Schwarzenegger was running the campaign and in constant contact with those responsible for sending out the controversial e-mail.

Hoffman also dismissed the suggestion that Walsh could never have anticipated the consequences of his communication to reporters. “Mr. Walsh worked in the White House. He worked in the governor’s office [under former Gov. Pete Wilson]. This is a very experienced guy,” Hoffman said.

“If Mr. Walsh can get up and convince a jury he is a Boy Scout and blameless ... let him try,” Hoffman said. But the evidence, the attorney said, would clearly show that Walsh, like others in the campaign, was willing to have Miller “crucified by false statements about criminal convictions.”

“He had an election to win and he had to win it that night,” Hoffman said. “But that is not a defense. It just isn’t.”

Outside court, attorneys for both sides pledged to press forward.

“The real question is whether Rhonda Miller will be permitted to have her day in court,” said attorney Gloria Allred, a lawyer for Miller. “To accuse someone who has never been arrested, let alone convicted, and have this on her record is outrageous.”