Claim by Gov.’s Staff Was Unsupported

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign had no evidence a woman accusing him of sexual assault had a criminal record before it sent out an e-mail suggesting that reporters look into her background, according to court documents obtained Thursday.

Records filed in Rhonda Miller’s libel suit against the governor and others also revealed that the campaign had sent out an earlier e-mail that also suggested the 53-year-old stuntwoman had a criminal record.

Within hours of sending the e-mails, the documents show, Schwarzenegger’s campaign determined that Miller had no criminal record, but never issued a clarification or an apology.

The disclosures are included in hundreds of pages of records turned over this week to Miller’s attorneys as they press claims that the governor and his campaign knowingly smeared Miller after she accused him of twice accosting her on movie sets. Miller’s accusations, made on the eve of last October’s recall election, have been denied by the governor.

Last month, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert L. Hess refused a request by Miller’s attorneys to question the governor in a formal deposition, but did allow them to question Schwarzenegger in writing. The governor stated, as he has previously, that he had no role in the controversial e-mails. Hess authorized a deposition of Sean Walsh, who served as a campaign spokesman and sent out the e-mail that originally prompted the lawsuit.

In the 175-page sworn deposition taken April 8, Walsh testified that he decided to send out the e-mail about Miller after the campaign received information raising questions about her background and suspicions about her motives for accusing the governor of assault. Specifically, Walsh said, he had been led to believe that Miller had told others Schwarzenegger was a “decent, terrific person” and that she might have had a substance abuse history that led to a “need for money.”

In a testy exchange with one of Miller’s attorneys, Walsh was pressed to explain whether his real motivation was to discredit Miller for political gain.

“I am entitled to an answer to this question,” said attorney Paul L. Hoffman. “Was one of your purposes in providing information to the media to discredit Ms. Miller and her allegations?”

“The purpose was to answer the allegation,” Walsh responded.

“I am going to ask it all day,” Hoffman continued. “You can say no if you need to say it. Is one of your purposes ... to put out information to the media that discredited Ms. Miller and her allegation?”

“No,” Walsh answered. “The purpose was to say the allegation was made. The allegation was not correct ... “

Later, after repeatedly asking Walsh how a criminal history would be relevant to Miller’s claims of assault, Hoffman asked Walsh whether any evidence had been uncovered suggesting Miller had a record.

“Were you told by a single person that Ms. Miller had a criminal conviction?” Hoffman asked.

“I was told that she had engaged in activities that could be illegal,” Walsh said.

“That’s not my question,” Hoffman responded. “My question is: Did anybody tell you that Ms. Miller had a criminal conviction?”

“Not that I recall,” Walsh said. “But some of the issues raised

During the deposition, Walsh also was questioned about a heretofore undisclosed e-mail sent to a television news organization by another campaign official an hour before Walsh’s e-mail was sent out. The earlier e-mail, though only three sentences, specifically refers to “the criminal record of Rhonda Miller” and includes an attachment of court records that have no connection to the Miller who accused Schwarzenegger of assault.

It was not until the next day, Walsh said in his deposition, that campaign officials were able to check the court records and determine that they did not relate to the Miller who had made the allegations.

In written responses to questions posed by Miller’s attorneys, Schwarzenegger said he had no specific recollection of Miller before the election. Schwarzenegger also said he did not know about Miller’s accusations against him until an election eve news conference where she alleged he had assaulted her during the 1991 filming of “Terminator 2” and again in 1994 during the filming of “True Lies.”

After Miller’s accusations became public, according to the governor’s written responses, he had at least one discussion with a campaign communications official about her allegations but did not give anyone on his political staff specific instructions on how to respond to Miller’s claims.

Likewise, according to the governor, he had no role in disseminating the controversial e-mail, which recommended that reporters check Miller’s name against an Internet database of Los Angeles Criminal Court records.

Hoffman said in an interview Thursday that Walsh’s deposition showed that the campaign had committed libel.

“Our position, particularly with the Walsh deposition, is that this is a classic case of reckless disregard [for the truth],” said Hoffman. “They had no information that any reasonable person on the planet could connect her to a crime. Yet they put that out because it was in their interest to do that and they didn’t care whether it was false or true.

“Within 14 hours of having sent out that e-mail, they knew that they had put out a false statement and they never took it back,” said Hoffman. “If they were really concerned about the truth, they would have put something out. But they would have had to put it out on election day, and it would have hurt them. So they wouldn’t do it.”

Attorney Neil Shapiro, representing both Walsh and the campaign, said Thursday that Walsh’s deposition only underscored the campaign’s belief that Miller might have had a criminal background. And the e-mail was sent out, Shapiro said, so journalists could check it out. The second e-mail, Shapiro said, only buttressed claims by the campaign that they believed Miller could have a criminal record.

When that turned out not to be true, Shapiro said, campaign officials had no obligation to again contact reporters.

“Legally, it’s irrelevant,” Shapiro said. “The judge has said what was relevant is what was in their mind when they sent out the messages, not what was in their minds two or three or four days later.”

Said Shapiro: “Reporters frequently report that an individual was arrested and charged with child molestation or some other crime. But the same reporters rarely go back and report when the charges are dropped and the person is exonerated.”