Public Defenders Refuse Access to Client Files Despite New Law : Prop. 115: Attorney is cited for contempt. He says defendants’ rights are threatened. Prosecutors vow to keep pressing for information.

Ventura County public defenders said Wednesday that they are girding for a fight over Proposition 115, the Crime Victims’ Initiative, which compels them to reveal information about their clients’ cases to prosecutors.

Public Defender Kenneth I. Clayman, who was cited for contempt of court Tuesday for refusing to produce such information, vowed that he will keep bucking the law because it violates defendants’ Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

“I want to keep the secrets of my client, unless somebody tells me there’s reason to give them over, and I think the Constitution says you shall not reveal them,” Clayman said in an interview. But acting Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Kevin J. McGee said prosecutors will keep demanding the information because Proposition 115 entitles them to learn which witnesses and evidence will be presented by the defense.

“We’re going to continue to press for discovery to the extent that the law allows,” McGee said Wednesday. “I’m sure the public defender will continue to resist until such time as the (California) Supreme Court says discovery is allowed. I’m sure if a court ruling on the issue upholds it, they will comply.”

After brewing quietly since Proposition 115 took effect last June 6, the legal argument suddenly flared on Tuesday in the second drunk driving trial of Bernardo Vergara, 29, of Santa Paula.

An off-duty Los Angeles police officer saw Vergara driving the wrong way down California 23 near Moorpark last July 15 and notified police, said the prosecutor, Deputy Dist. Atty. Scott E. Divine.

Police arrested Vergara after tests showed that his blood-alcohol content was 0.14%, well above the legal level of 0.08%, Divine said.

In January, a jury deadlocked 11 to 1 in favor of convicting Vergara of drunk driving charges.

A retrial began late last month.

On Tuesday, while the jury was out of the courtroom, Deputy Public Defender William Perryman refused to let Divine see defense reports about interviews with witnesses. Perryman told Superior Court Judge James McNally that he was obeying office policies to withhold the information, despite the law.

When McNally cited him for contempt of court, Perryman called in Deputy Public Defender Neil B. Quinn, who appeared in the courtroom accompanied by Clayman.

Quinn, too, refused to give up the reports. McNally cited him for contempt of court.

Clayman then told McNally that it was his policy to disobey court orders granting prosecutors’ discovery requests under Proposition 115, until the California Supreme Court decides whether that part of the law is constitutional.

McNally withdrew the contempt-of-court citations from Perryman and Quinn and cited Clayman twice.

McNally then fined the county’s top public defender $50 for each citation, but suspended the fines pending an appeal.

The jury returned, received instructions from McNally, and retired to deliberate.

The jurors returned within 30 minutes and convicted Vergara of his fourth drunk driving violation to date--without prosecutors learning exactly what was in the defense investigators’ reports.

“It’s obviously important to us that we can prepare for trial in the same way they can prepare for trial,” Divine said. “They have their policy, and we have our policy.”

“We need the information to do an efficient job of cross-examining witnesses and establish whether they’re telling the truth,” said McGee, who is Divine’s supervisor. “If the prosecution didn’t furnish discovery to the defense and it was trial by surprise, the defense would be screaming about it, and rightly so. The intent of the proposition was to take away what’s called ‘trial by ambush.’ ”

But Clayman warned that Proposition 115 could discourage defense attorneys from learning anything about their clients, for fear that some information would be damaging to their defense if prosecutors obtained it.

“The only reason we would change our course is if it ultimately is ruled we were wrong in the Supreme Court,” Clayman said.