San Diego corruption trial likely to present an unflattering picture of the business of politics

The highly anticipated corruption trial of two San Diego city councilmen is scheduled to begin Tuesday with much more at stake than the freedom and careers of young politicians.

The reputation of the city and the future of its Democratic-majority council will be on the line. The trial could bring a backlash against politicians in general, revealing their behind-the-scenes behavior and giving constituents an unprecedented peek at their elected officials beyond images and slogans.

"To a certain extent, the system is on trial," said Geoffrey C. Morrison, a lawyer for cooperating defendant John D'Intino. "What's going to end up happening is it will cause people to step back and look at how we do business in this town."

The outcome of the corruption case – involving an estimated 100,000 wiretap intercepts, two cities, 12 lawyers, six defendants and five years of investigation and trial preparation – is likely to have strong implications for a parallel corruption case in Las Vegas, scheduled for trial in January, and perhaps for other federal investigations of city finances under way at San Diego City Hall.

And the credibility of U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, who has made combating corruption a priority of her administration and has aggressively pursued cases against prominent public officials, could rest on the outcome of the case.

"It's going to be a long, hot summer," said Glen Sparrow, professor emeritus of public administration and urban studies at San Diego State University. "The city is in horrible turmoil anyway.

"San Diego is going to become national news. And the second paragraph of every story is going to say, 'And besides this, they've lost their credit rating, they can't borrow money, they're on the verge of bankruptcy.' I don't think Geraldo is going to be here, but it has that potential if the Michael Jackson trial winds down." Two years after City Hall was stunned by a bevy of FBI agents searching the offices of Councilmen Ralph Inzunza, Michael Zucchet and Charles Lewis, San Diego government will be distracted again as scores of city officials and staffers prepare to take the witness stand. The trial is expected to last three months.

"We all know it's on May 3," said a City Hall staffer who asked not to be identified for fear of being labeled a traitor and ostracized by co-workers. "We realize in the next couple months the calculus could change around here dramatically. If the U.S. attorney doesn't gain convictions, will this hurt her ability to issue indictments on other things she's investigating? And what if they are convicted? It puts us in a quandary."

The FBI case that began in 1999 at Cheetahs strip club out of concern that the mob was infiltrating the local adult entertainment industry morphed into a corruption investigation that federal officials never imagined.

Finally, after a high-profile three-month grand jury investigation, indictments and litigation of about 80 pretrial motions, some of the city's most prominent lawyers are set to square off in federal court.

The prosecution will argue that Inzunza, Zucchet and Lewis knowingly accepted, and in some cases solicited, money from strip club owner Michael Galardi, through his bagman, Lance Malone, in a scheme to repeal the no-touching law at his Kearny Mesa club. The rule, which prohibits physical contact between dancers and patrons, has cut into profits at local clubs since it was adopted in 2000.

Prosecutors will present evidence that the politicians made efforts to repay $70,000 worth of favors by sneaking the issue onto the City Council's agenda – a matter that should not have concerned them because Galardi's club is in Councilwoman Donna Frye's district.

The defense is likely to argue that the case involves nothing more than politicians going about their business, that the councilmen did what they would do for anyone who asked them to work on legislation they support. The defense will argue Galardi may have thought he was buying votes but that the councilmen were not aware of his criminal motives, nor were they taking money in exchange for political action.

"The defense will be that there was no scheme to defraud or to do anything illegal," former San Diego U.S. Attorney Charles La Bella said. "Rather, it was merely accepting campaign funds from people who they believed were legitimate contributors. Meeting with people who are significant contributors is what happens and is at the heart of campaign contributions. It's how the system works."

"The government's hurdle is going to be to get over that, that the political process by definition includes this sort of conduct," La Bella said. "The government will try to say this conduct went above and beyond what is acceptable political process."

Inzunza, Zucchet and Lewis were indicted by a federal grand jury Aug. 28, 2003, along with Galardi, Cheetahs manager John D'Intino and Malone, Galardi's Las Vegas-based consultant. Lewis' aide, David Cowan, is charged with making a false statement to the FBI.

Lewis, 37, died Aug. 8 of internal bleeding related to cirrhosis of the liver. His name has been stricken from the indictment, which is routine when a defendant dies before trial.

Galardi and D'Intino have pleaded guilty and are expected to testify against the others as part of their deal with the government. Malone and the councilmen have pleaded not guilty and say any money received was legally reported as campaign contributions.

If convicted, the councilmen and Malone could face three to four years in prison, according to calculations based on federal sentencing guidelines. Because of a recent Supreme Court decision that made those guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, sentences are difficult to predict. The terms would be at the discretion of the judge, who would consider the guidelines as well as recommendations from the prosecution and defense.

The San Diego City Council has been shaken five times before by criminal indictments, but there is no record of any San Diego official spending a day behind bars for crimes committed at City Hall.

If the councilmen are convicted of felonies, state law requires they relinquish their offices when the judge formally accepts the verdict. This usually happens about the time of sentencing, which can be months after a verdict. They cannot remain in office while an appeal is pending.

In the event of a conviction, it is unlikely that Inzunza and Zucchet would be taken into custody immediately. By attending all required court appearances, they've demonstrated they are not flight risks. Most defendants convicted of white-collar crimes are allowed to remain free pending appeal.

Should the councilmen be removed from office, the city would have to hold a special election within 90 days to replace them.

The trial is certain to be a major distraction for City Hall, because the mayor, five City Council members and many staffers are on the government's witness list and will probably take part in the trial.

"Starting May 3, the community focus is going to be on this trial," City Attorney Michael Aguirre said. "As a practical matter it will be difficult to perform much business at City Hall."

The trial schedule is structured so that the councilmen will be able to attend as many council meetings as possible. The trial will run Tuesdays through Fridays from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The council meets Mondays at 2 p.m., and Tuesdays in closed session at 9 a.m. and in regular meetings at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Zucchet will miss meetings of the Rules, Finance and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, which are held Wednesday mornings. Inzunza's committees meet after the scheduled court times.

Zucchet and Inzunza probably will miss only the morning meeting on Tuesdays. A council member can be removed from office for eight consecutive unexcused absences, according to the city charter. Typically, council members ask colleagues to officially excuse absences when important conflicts arise.

Former Councilman Jess Haro was an exception. He lost his seat in 1978 while serving a three-month jail term for misdemeanor customs law violations. His council colleagues refused to excuse his absences and he was ousted for missing too many meetings – not for the crime.

The councilmen and Malone are charged with wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy and extortion under the Hobbs Act. Malone also is charged with interstate travel in aid of racketeering.

To prove a wire fraud violation, the government must show the defendants planned to deprive citizens of their right to honest services and acted with intent to do so and that the defendants used or caused someone else to use a wire communication – such as a telephone – to carry out the plan, according to a book of standard jury instructions published by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

To prove Hobbs Act extortion, the government must prove the defendants knowingly obtained property to which they were not entitled by using their official positions. And, if the property in question was in the form of campaign contributions, the government must prove quid pro quo.

The Latin term quid pro quo means "something for something," or in legal terms, getting something of value in return for giving something of value.

Accepting a campaign contribution from someone who has business pending before the public official is not extortion unless the official demands or accepts the contribution in exchange for a specific, requested exercise of official power, according to jury instructions.

To show quid pro quo, prosecutors need not demonstrate that officials followed through, but merely that they agreed to do so. In the case of the councilmen, a vote on the no-touch ordinance never took place. The government has said efforts were being made to get it on the agenda of a City Council committee.

The councilmen are not charged with bribery, but the case has sparked much discussion about the difference between bribery and extortion and why the government did not charge bribery in this case.

Extortion is obtaining something one is not entitled to because of official position. Bribery is promising to do something in exchange for a thing of value.

"Bribery by definition is much more difficult to prove," said La Bella, the former U.S. attorney in San Diego. "It has elements that are different. Quid pro quo is part of any bribery scheme. You are going to have to show that I gave you money for this particular result."

The city's political landscape could change dramatically if the councilmen are forced from office, creating an opportunity for conservatives, some experts said.

Zucchet and Inzunza are "in that 'progressive wing' of the City Council, so there's going to be a re-look at the living wage, needle exchange, all of those things those five people have cobbled together in that coalition," said Sparrow, the SDSU professor emeritus, referring to the voting bloc that includes the defendants and Toni Atkins, Donna Frye and Tony Young.

"It could be a battle for the heart and soul of the city if the interests on the right see this as an opportunity to pick up two seats and change the nature of that council, especially a council going into a strong mayor situation," Sparrow said.

Equally uncertain is whether the two politicians' careers could survive even with not-guilty verdicts. The trial is likely to expose the unseemly side of politics and perhaps paint unflattering portraits of the councilmen.

Inzunza's second term on the council expires in 2006. He was expected to run for state Assembly. Zucchet is eligible to run for re-election in 2006.

In five previous City Hall-related indictments, a total of five elected officials were convicted and six were exonerated. Just one official returned to public life.

The largest and most explosive case was the Yellow Cab bribery scandal of 1970. It cut short the careers of Mayor Frank Curran and a number of council co-defendants, all but one of whom would be exonerated. Curran was cleared by a jury, but he could not recover politically from the allegation that he raised taxi rates in exchange for campaign payoffs.

Even if Inzunza and Zucchet are exonerated, there could be a reaction against politicians in general after the public hears evidence from the wiretaps.

"It's just going to expand their biases and prejudices against public officials," Sparrow said. "At this point in time, the City Council, the whole regime, is not held in high esteem. Add three months of washing the dirty laundry of two council members before the voters, it's going to be cynicism run amok and everyone's going to get splashed with this."

Lawyers for the councilmen have said they will decide during trial whether the councilmen will testify. Some legal experts said it may not be advisable, but it is probably politically necessary because constituents will expect to hear the councilmen's explanations.

In addition to the corruption case, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI and the Justice Department have been investigating city finances for more than a year. U.S. attorney Lam, a low-profile but tough former Superior Court judge, has had to summon city leaders to her office to scold them about the slow pace of the city's investigation into its finances and its lack of cooperation with federal investigators, including the alleged failure to turn over subpoenaed documents on demand.

"I think it's positive PR for her, and it creates the impression that she is a watchdog and is looking out for the interests of the people of San Diego in a way that no other official in San Diego was able to do," a lawyer familiar with the corruption investigation said.

Lam has managed to stay above the political squabbles that have erupted in city government.

"She has really differentiated herself, through no achievement of her own. She stands out among all of law enforcement and the high-profile, political-type officials in San Diego as the one person who is kind of above it all," the lawyer said. "If she wins a conviction in this case, it bodes ill for the people who are targets, subjects or suspects in the pension investigation. If she wins, it will embolden her to continue in this kind of gladiator role."

"If she loses, 'gladiator' becomes an inappropriate characterization and 'gadfly' or 'Don Quixote' becomes more appropriate," said the lawyer, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution from the government. "For people who are targets in the pension investigation, if they're intelligent, they're hoping for an acquittal in the Cheetahs investigation that will sour the feds from meddling in state and city politics."

Statistics are on Lam's side. The Justice Department reported an 88 percent conviction rate in the 23,246 public corruption cases it tried from 1993 to 2002, the most recent figures available.

Legal and political observers said that once the evidence is presented, the public will be able to make its own judgment.

"This is not such a clear bright line until we see the evidence," La Bella said. "The question mark in most people's mind is how is it different than me giving money to someone who's going to advocate my particular position even if my particular position is a tax break for white guys with salt-and-pepper hair who live at my address? There's nothing wrong with that."

Aguirre said: "The people of San Diego are going to have a chance to understand how the people's business has been conducted. The defense has been that this is typical of how business is done in San Diego. This is really going to be one of the most revealing episodes we've ever gone through as a community."

If the trial triggers a larger debate about the line between what's appropriate campaign fundraising and what's unacceptable or even criminal, there could be a positive result from the proceedings.

"If I could fix one thing in the U.S. political system, it would be to do something about money," Sparrow said. "I think that is the most dangerous thing going on in our political system, from the top on down. If we looked at this thing honestly, it's the money. And let's fix it."

The FBI's case began in 1999 at Cheetahs strip club out of concern the mob was infiltrating the local adult entertainment industry. It grew into a federal corruption investigation involving two cities, six defendants and an estimated 100,000 wiretap intercepts.

Yeah, sounds like your typical local Gov't corruption - Of which there is an epidemic throughout the Country. Interesting that these slime-balls can continue to serve through their trials as long as they don't miss too many Council Meetings. Isn't the whole exercise designed to prevent them from attending meetings and exerting influence?

And I read today in the paper that the favored candidate to be the next Mayor of San Diego is DONNA FRYE! San Diego gets what it deserves. I'm glad I'm leaving next month.

Well .. I sure hope not - I think Donna Frye will destroy this city - and it doesn't have far to go.

Sorry to hear you're leaving .. where are you off to .. if I may ask ..??

Next month?

Hell, you'll be outta here before me!

I am laggin, dragging and stalling with every excuse I can summon, and I'm pretty good in the excuse department...lol.

Hi, have you ever been there in the Summer? We lived there for quite a while, and it is different.

I haven't been there at all. I had a friend in San Diego who made a regular trip to Bullhead City to visit his mother.

The average low in Bullhead City is 43 in Dec/Jan and 79 in Jul/Aug. The average high is 65 in Dec/Jan and tops at 112 in Jul. Jun to Sep average high is always above 103. The temperature gets above 90 degrees for 181 days each year. Annual precipitation is 6.31 inches. Pretty darn hot and dry. Looks like a candidate for year round air conditioning.

Personally, I dislike humidity. I have yet to experience a humid day in Pocatello. Snow is fine. It means I don't have to mow the lawn. That would have been welcome today as I pushed my mower over 3/4 acre of grass. The ambient temperature was 54 degrees and the air was dry. I didn't even break a sweat. Quite an improvement over a humid August day in San Diego.

If so much to do why does San Diego have thousands of Arizona cars here during the summer. Many Zonnies live here full time during the summer.

Poor surfing opportunities in Arizona. Arizona is pretty darn hot. As a local, I couldn't find a parking place a Mission Beach to purchase parts for my inline skates. It is too attractive to vacationers who don't have to deal with the consequences of corrupt politicians. Another reason to be gone from San Diego.

don't have to deal with the consequences of corrupt politicians.

I don't believe people should run away from their problems.
There are plenty of political and corrupt situations
in many other areas of the country. It is up to us to
correct it not run to another area where next week or next
year the same thing can happen.

Quite an improvement over a humid August day in San Diego

All my 58 yrs. of living in San Diego, I don't recall
humid August days. A few every so often isn't going
to make me move to snow. I don't like lawn work either,
that is why I live in an apt.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.