Sources Sketch Anatomy of Secord’s Plea Deal : Iran-Contra: Facing 12 charges, the former Air Force general decided that pleading guilty to one would be his best bet--financially and in terms of history’s verdict.

WASHINGTON —  Publicly, he had always been defiant, heaping scorn on his accusers in the Iran-Contra case. Privately, Richard V. Secord decided that pleading guilty to what he considered the least damaging single charge out of the 12 he faced was his best bet--both financially and in terms of history’s ultimate verdict of him.

For their part, prosecutors for independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh looked at the single count as “a five-year felony” that made Secord guilty of both of the basic accusations against him: lying to Congress and exploiting the secret Iran-Contra scheme for personal gain.

Those were the dynamics that led to last week’s plea bargain agreement between Secord and prosecutors--a deal that outwardly seemed in conflict with the stated positions of both parties.

What lay behind the unexpected deal, according to sources familiar with the anatomy of the bargain, was six weeks of negotiations culminating in decisions on both sides that emphasized their gains and made light of their losses.

Secord, a retired Air Force general, predicted last year after being indicted that Walsh and his prosecutors were “going to be looking very silly very soon.” As recently as last August, he branded Walsh’s investigation as a “$50-million-plus witch hunt.”

But last week, Secord admitted that he had testified falsely under oath when he told investigators that he was not aware of money from the scheme benefitting Oliver L. North; the truth was, Secord acknowledged, that he knew that more than $13,000 in Iran-Contra funds went into a security system at North’s house.

The plea bargaining began about six weeks before Secord changed his story when a prosecutor told Secord’s lawyer, Thomas Green, in what one source described as “an offhand way” that the government might accept a deal in which the defendant pleaded to any one of the 12 charges against him.

But when Green, after conferring with his client, took the bait and specified Count Nine, the prosecutors backed off and pushed for Secord to plead guilty to a perjury charge, according to the sources.

That led to the prolonged negotiations, turning mainly on what charge Secord would admit.

The false-statements charge proved attractive to Secord because he viewed it as a lesser offense than admitting perjury and preferred to admit lying during a deposition given to congressional investigators than during the nationally televised hearings.

For the government, Secord’s guilty plea eliminates the chance of losing at trial or during a subsequent appeal and requires him to cooperate with the continuing investigation. Government attorneys did not draw the distinction between false statements and perjury that pleased Secord.

“A lie is a lie,” is how one source described Secord’s plea. Although the plea-bargain discussions progressed slowly at times, both sides believed that it would be advantageous to avoid the rigors and costs of a long trial, the sources said. Secord, who already had incurred legal expenses of $600,000 during the Iran-Contra case, was told by friends that a two-month trial could double that bill, one source said.

So a plea bargain, presumably, could save him more than half-a-million dollars.

Unlike North, a charismatic figure who benefited from a legal defense fund fueled by thousands of donations from across the country, private businessman Secord had no such drawing power and no such backing.

Openly bitter about the costs of defending himself, he told television host Larry King earlier this year that defense attorneys are “piranhas,” gobbling up cash the way the South American fish devours flesh.

Moreover, his lawyers advised him that any defendant facing trial on 12 separate charges runs a high risk of being convicted on at least one count and perhaps several.

The sources said Secord also was advised that he might reasonably expect to avoid prison, through imposition of a suspended sentence, if he pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government.

Robert C. McFarlane, a former White House national security adviser, escaped a prison term after pleading guilty to four misdemeanor charges of misleading Congress about the Iran arms scandal. McFarlane last March was fined $20,000 and received a suspended two-year sentence from Chief U.S. District Judge Aubrey E. Robinson Jr., who also has presided over Secord’s case.

The government, for its part, was intent on avoiding even the slight risk that Secord might be acquitted--or get any conviction reversed on appeal.

“It’s great to have a defendant plead guilty,” one source remarked. “For the government, it’s money in the bank.”

Prosecutors also wanted to gain a cooperative future witness in Secord, if for no other reason than developing more data for the final, voluminous report that Walsh must submit at the end of his long investigation. Secord’s testimony before Congress two years ago, which he gave without a grant of immunity from prosecution, made clear that he was knowledgeable about details of all the Swiss bank financing and logistical planning that were essential ingredients of the Iran-Contra operation.

Sources said that Secord’s plea also helps prosecutors put pressure on Albert A. Hakim, his former business partner in the Iranian arms sales, to enter into a plea bargain himself. No date has been set for Hakim’s trial.

And if Secord provides unexpected new information during interviews with prosecutors that are scheduled to begin soon, he might become an important government witness against former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter, whose trial is set for next Jan. 22, the sources said.