Testimony Links Drug Ring to Police Insiders : Courts: As Bryant Family members await trial on narcotics and murder charges, defense attorneys want the state to take over the prosecution.

A detective who has been investigating the so-called Bryant Family drug ring for four years testified Tuesday that he has repeatedly heard from informants and witnesses that members of the group had access to information from police, the district attorney’s office and other agencies.

The testimony came during a hearing before Superior Court Judge J. D. Smith to determine if the district attorney’s office should be removed from prosecuting the San Fernando Valley group’s members in a murder case.

“There are multiple law enforcement agencies that are guilty by association with the Bryant Family narcotics dealing and coldblooded killing,” Los Angeles Police Detective James Vojtecky said.

Vojtecky testified in regard to a case stemming from the Aug. 28, 1988, slaying of four people at a Lake View Terrace house allegedly used to count drug profits. Nine defendants await trial on murder and drug charges.

Also during the hearing, Smith questioned Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner and his top spokeswoman, Sandi Gibbons, on the seemingly conflicting statements they have given the media regarding the internal investigations of possible leaks to the Bryant Family.

Defense attorneys want the California attorney general’s office to take over prosecution of the case. Last month, prosecutors filed court documents indicating they might present evidence during the trial showing that members of the Bryant ring have insiders’ knowledge of the prosecutors’ office.

The allegations were contained in the prosecutors’ appeal of a decision by Smith ordering separate trials on drug conspiracy and murder charges against the defendants in an effort to speed the case along. Defense attorneys argued that if such allegations were true, the district attorney’s office should be removed from the case due to a conflict of interest.

The district attorney’s office has since backed away from any plans to use such information in a trial. And in more recent court documents seeking to block their removal from the case, prosecutors said five current or former employees that have been investigated for possibly being connected to the Bryant Family have no connection with the current case. The documents said two employees, including a deputy district attorney, remain under investigation.

The issue of who should prosecute the defendants has during the last month eclipsed the case itself, which has been compared in size and projected length to the McMartin child-molestation case--the costliest and longest trial ever undertaken in Los Angeles.

Smith, who presided over a courtroom packed with defendants, court-appointed defense lawyers, investigators and the prosecution team, seemed clearly frustrated by the delays.

“It has taken on a life of its own,” Smith said. “It’s outrageous that this case has gone on four years.”

But the hearing underlined how slowly the case has moved as attorneys and witnesses were bogged down by what appeared to be mere semantics.

Vojtecky testified that the Bryant Family had “connections” to law enforcement agencies but said that he could not say the group had “infiltrated” the agencies. One defense attorney asked him whether he would consider an “investigation” the same as a “probe.”

Reiner was called by Smith to testify because he told The Times last month that there was no ongoing investigation of possible infiltration of his office by the Bryant Family. On the day he made the statement, his spokeswoman, Gibbons, said there was an investigation.

But in his testimony, Reiner drew the distinction between an investigation and an “inquiry.” He explained that there was a long-standing inquiry under way when he spoke to The Times, but an investigation had not yet been started.

None of the witnesses were asked to provide details of the allegations in court because Smith has already held two closed-door sessions with district attorney’s officials during which he was informed of the details of the current investigation.

Smith said he will decide during another hearing Nov. 24 whether the district attorney’s office will be removed from the case and if defense attorneys should have access to records relating to the internal investigations.

At the hearing’s close, Deputy Atty. Gen. Patricia Bigelow said that if the case were taken from the district attorney’s office, state prosecutors would need a substantial period of time to prepare to go to trial.