Roth Was Spared Such Embarrassments as Arrest, Handcuffs

SANTA ANA —  For former Orange County Supervisor Don R. Roth, there were no handcuffs and no embarrassing arrest in front of his colleagues or the neighbors. Authorities never took his mug shot or his fingerprints. There was no stint in a stale-smelling jail cell waiting to make bail.

Unlike the vast majority of people accused of crimes, Roth, 71, was spared the usual indignities of the booking process.

Before he ever stepped into the courtroom Thursday, the details of his surrender and plea agreement had been settled behind closed doors. Everything from the number of charges to where Roth would perform his community service had been carefully negotiated between the district attorney and Roth’s lawyers.

Prosecutors concede that the case was handled in a unique fashion, but only due to the unusual charges and the gravity of the investigation, which triggered the resignation of one of the county’s most powerful politicians.

But others, including those who question the relationship between Roth, his attorney and Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi, say the accommodations for Roth highlight the differences in the way the criminal justice system treats the rich and poor, the powerful and the powerless.

“There is a certain courtesy given in cases like these, involving high-visibility politicians and the like, that does not sit well in the context of the criminal justice system,” said retired Orange County Municipal Judge Russell A. Bostrom, now a professor of criminal procedure at Western State University College of Law, Irvine.

“A prominent official gets treated one way, while Danny Doper gets treated another,” Bostrom said. “It’s like people who have money and influence and good ol’ boys aren’t supposed to go through the system like everyone else.”

Supervising Deputy Dist. Atty. Guy N. Ormes, whose unit handles political corruption cases, said Roth was allowed to surrender in court Thursday because the charges related to nonviolent crimes and there was no fear of him fleeing.

Ormes noted that it is not unusual for defendants facing misdemeanors to avoid arrest, especially if their defense attorneys intercede on their behalf and there is no flight risk.

Just as significant, precious court time and taxpayers’ money were saved by two weeks of “negotiations” with Roth’s defense attorney, which included presenting prosecution evidence and asking for rebuttals, Ormes said.

According to the district attorney’s office, the extensive investigation into Roth’s financial dealings as well as the charges underscore that there was no favorable treatment.

In the prosecution’s defense, Orange County Public Defender Ronald Y. Butler, whose agency represents those too poor to hire their own attorneys, said the district attorney handled the matter properly. Political corruption cases are so unusual, he said, that they cannot be compared fairly to the average criminal case.

But others say that poor defendants usually don’t get the type of treatment Roth received because they are unaware of their legal rights.

“Many times, the great inequity in the judicial system comes down to representation,” said Prof. Jeremy Miller of Western State University College of Law, Fullerton. “People with more money get the best defense, and offense, in court, while poorer people don’t.”

While deputy public defenders are available to represent the poor who are under investigation, few people know enough to request such assistance, officials said.

Defense attorney Thomas Avdeef, who unsuccessfully ran against Capizzi in a bitter 1990 election, has repeatedly raised questions about whether Capizzi’s investigation of Roth posed a conflict of interest. He contends that the Roth case received “special handling.”

“It’s seems like an unusual and bizarre way to do business,” said Avdeef, who spent more than 20 years as a county prosecutor before turning to private practice two years ago. “We (defense attorneys) would all like that kind of treatment, having the D.A. show you his evidence, but it just doesn’t happen.”

Capizzi has always maintained that his office could objectively handle the investigation of Roth, whose supervisorial job effectively made him one of Capizzi’s bosses and very influential in deciding the budget for the prosecuting agency. As a board member, Roth also helped appoint Capizzi to the job when the county’s former district attorney, Cecil Hicks, became a judge.

Defense attorneys further questioned why the negotiations were not conducted in open court, and criticized the protracted plea-bargaining sessions between Roth attorney Paul S. Meyer and prosecutors.

“You can’t help but wonder about the wheeling and dealing that goes on behind closed doors--if there’s nothing to hide, why not do it in court?” said a deputy public defender, who requested anonymity.

Bostrom noted that Meyer might have had an advantage in the case, since he is a former head of the district attorney’s homicide unit and now a prominent defense lawyer.

Meyer declined to respond specifically, except to say, “I believe the district attorney in this case was fair, thoughtful and conscientious in bringing these charges.”

Avdeef said such pretrial negotiations and special handling of the case were never available to him when he represented former Brea Mayor Ron E. Isles, who later pleaded guilty to conflict-of-interest charges.

In contrast to Isles, Roth was allowed to make a one-stop court appearance Thursday afternoon in which it took less than 45 minutes to charge, fine and sentence him to probation and community service on his guilty plea on seven misdemeanors.

The package was presented for the anticipated approval of Municipal Judge Richard W. Stanford Jr., who called the situation “a little unusual” before going along with the plea agreement.

But defense attorney Michael McDonnell, who secured an acquittal for former Brea Councilman Wayne Wedin when he faced conflict-of-interest charges last year, said he engaged in a similar procedure with the district attorney that resulted in the scrapping of some unnecessary charges against his client.

Instead of circumventing justice, McDonnell said, such negotiations ensure a proper filing of criminal charges.

“The D.A. would say, ‘Here’s the evidence we have to support this charge,’ and I’d say, ‘Wait a minute, here’s the reason behind that,’ and the prosecutor might realize ‘Hey, you’re right after all,’ ” McDonnell said.

Both Wedin and Isles were allowed to surrender in court rather than facing the inconvenience of arrest and booking procedures, their attorneys said.

Veteran defense counsel Marshall M. Schulman, a former prosecutor, said the district attorney showed Roth the respect he deserved. Far from being perceived as too lenient, he said, prosecutors can be seen as too harsh sometimes.

“The man has given up his job and held up to public ridicule. He’s been punished enough already,” Schulman said. “It’s not a very pleasant way to end it, going from the top to the bottom.”