LOCAL ELECTIONS / DISTRICT ATTORNEY : Candidates Are a Case Study in Opposites : Rivalry: Michael R. Capizzi and James G. Enright view the role of the office differently--and both eagerly point out the distinctions.

SANTA ANA —  One was chief deputy and one was chief assistant under stalwart Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks.

The chief deputy, James G. Enright, was second in command on paper. The chief assistant, Michael R. Capizzi, was second in command in the boss’s eye.

As the years went by, Enright saw Capizzi, the younger by 13 years, as an apple-polishing upstart. Capizzi saw Enright as a wasted talent whose refusal to grow with the district attorney’s office left a management gap that someone had to fill.

Now the two are locked in a heated race in the Nov. 6 election for the job Hicks held for nearly 24 years.

The latest Times Orange County poll shows Enright leading Capizzi 29% to 23%, with 48% undecided. However, most courthouse political observers believe Capizzi has the edge among undecided voters because he is running as the appointed incumbent. He was appointed district attorney by the Board of Supervisors in January to replace Hicks, who became a judge.

Enright supporters, however, are buoyed by their candidate’s chances. They point out that Enright, 63, finished a solid second to Capizzi, 50, in the four-man primary in June, forcing a runoff, when he had just $11,000 for his campaign. Enright is now running with probably close to $75,000, which his allies believe balances the odds.

Many of the deputy prosecutors, investigators and support staff, who have watched the Enright-Capizzi rivalry for years, are anxious for Election Day to come and go, for no matter who wins the race, the rivalry most likely will come to an end.

If Enright loses, he has said, he will probably retire. Even if he were to stay, Capizzi is highly unlikely to keep him as chief deputy.

If Capizzi loses, he is out, Enright has said. He would not keep him in the office.

Capizzi declined to say what he would do about Enright if the voters keep him in the district attorney’s job--or what he would do about the organizational anomaly of having both a chief assistant and a chief deputy.

“I haven’t thought past Nov. 6,” Capizzi said. “But I have never wanted to do anything to hurt Jim.”

Enright is more definite about the office structure. He has said that there would be only one second-in-command, that the function of both jobs would be filled by the chief deputy. And last week, he told The Times that Edgar A. Freeman, who is now the felony supervisor, is his choice for chief deputy.

Freeman, an assistant district attorney, is a longtime Enright ally and a longtime Capizzi foe. He ran in the primary against Capizzi when it appeared Enright was not going to get into the race. After the primary, he threw his support to Enright.

“Ed’s the most qualified prosecutor in the office,” Enright said.

That would be a sweeping change from the status quo. Though Freeman ranks no lower than fourth on the organizational chart, he and Enright have both been without influence in the Capizzi administration. Enright points out that he and Freeman were the only two in management passed over for raises by Capizzi in July.

Capizzi responds that they did get raises, but not as high as others received. He denied politics was a factor.

“Raises are based on performance in the office,” Capizzi said.

Capizzi, clearly unhappy that he is stuck with Enright and Freeman on his administrative team for now, believes he has put together a management group anyway that reflects his administrative abilities. He promoted not only Maury Evans as chief assistant, but John Conley, voted Prosecutor of the Year by the state prosecutors’ body. Conley is head of special operations and now the No. 3 man in the office. Edward J. Merrilees, the other assistant district attorney, is also a Capizzi backer and is part of that management team, along with administrative services officer William J. Morison.

Both Capizzi and Enright have played to what they see as their strengths in the fall campaign.

Enright has tried to paint a sharp contrast between himself as a courtroom prosecutor and Capizzi as just an administrator.

“I’m a professional prosecutor; my strength is knowing what’s going on in the courtroom,” Enright said.

If elected, Enright said, he will continue to prosecute cases in court.

“I couldn’t carry a full caseload,” he said. “But we need to keep our talented trial people from leaving the office. How can you lead them if you aren’t current on what’s going on in court?”

But Capizzi sees his opponent’s pledge as another example of Enright’s inability to understand the role of the district attorney. A district attorney would isolate himself from the job of running the office if he personally took charge of cases, Capizzi said.

“Jim was appointed chief deputy at a time when the office was small and the county was small,” Capizzi said. “But both the office and the county have grown tremendously. Some people have the ability to grow with the office.”

Capizzi, in his campaign, has emphasized his accomplishments, and his endorsements. He is also a former Prosecutor of the Year in the state prosecutors’ group. He is a former president of the Orange County Bar Assn., and has argued cases before both the state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although Hicks, as a member of the bench, cannot campaign or voice support for anyone, he did endorse Capizzi before accepting a Superior Court appointment. And Capizzi has hammered home in speeches the support from his longtime mentor, as well as his endorsements from every police chief in the county and most law enforcement groups. He also has the backing of all five members of the Board of Supervisors, and most of the other major political figures in the county.

Also significant, Capizzi was overwhelmingly endorsed by the association of deputies within the office and the county’s deputy sheriff’s association, which includes district attorney investigators. Capizzi received 86% of the vote among his own deputies. Enright and the other two candidates in the primary received 4% among them. The other 10% declined to vote.

Enright is endorsed by Kenneth Williams, who was county prosecutor before Hicks, and former County Administrative Officer Robert Thomas.

But Enright has tried to turn the Capizzi endorsements to his advantage. He depicts Capizzi as the “politicians’ ” candidate and himself as someone who would be independent of political pressure.

Capizzi considers that a cheap shot. He is particularly upset that Enright has criticized some of his decisions as county prosecutor: Capizzi’s waiting on federal investigators before wrapping up his investigation of uniformed poll guards hired by county Republican Party officials during the 1988 election, for example. And Capizzi’s decision--it was actually made by Hicks before him--not to get involved with the state investigation of Lincoln Savings & Loan. Capizzi and Hicks opted to cooperate with the federal investigation.

The state effort was headed by Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp and Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner. Van de Kamp at the time was running for the Democratic nomination for governor; Reiner was running for attorney general. Both were defeated in the primary.

“A federal investigation was already going on,” Capizzi said. “Here are two politicians running for office who jump on the bandwagon, and when I don’t join them, I get criticized by Enright and his supporters. Yet, Jim tries to say that I am not politically independent.”

Capizzi also considers Enright’s criticisms unfair because it was Capizzi, not Enright, who pushed for and led the prosecution of politicians in the 1970s, when two members of the Board of Supervisors and a former congressman were convicted of corruption.

“I agree a prosecutor has to be independent of political pressure; and I’ve already proved that I’ve done that,” Capizzi said.

To Capizzi, the endorsements should not be shunned.

“These come from people who have seen us in office together for 25 years,” Capizzi said. “Wouldn’t you think that if we were both equal candidates, some of these groups would say, ‘We can live with either one of them,’ or the vote would be split 60-40, or 50-50. But no. Every one of them has endorsed me for the job. What does that tell you?”

Capizzi also calls the apple-polishing accusation by Enright supporters unfair.

“When a gap is left in the administration of the office, someone has to step in,” Capizzi said.

Capizzi was appointed an assistant district attorney in 1971, at age 30 the youngest member of management in the office. Within a few years, it was generally understood by all deputies within the office that Capizzi was in charge. Hicks set policy; Capizzi carried it out.

Enright does not disagree that Capizzi’s influence within the office rose mightily while his own authority slipped. But those things happen, he says, and he refuses to discuss the reasons why it might have occurred.

What matters, Enright insists, is that too many good people want to leave the office to go into other legal careers. Capizzi points out that it was he who stopped the exodus--more than 50 deputies in the past two to three years--by getting a better contract from the county for them. But to Enright, Capizzi’s management style has been the problem.

Enright also claims that Capizzi is the “Lincoln Club’s candidate,” and his hardest attack has been on Capizzi’s use of deputies within the office to walk precincts for him.

Capizzi says that it’s strictly on a volunteer basis, though Enright and his campaign claim subtle arm-twisting has gone on.