Judge Recuses Himself From Rubino Case : Bankruptcy: Jurist says having performed marriage rites for former budget director could be seen as conflict. New judge agrees to postpone arraignment and frees the defendant on his own recognizance.

A judge on Wednesday voluntarily disqualified himself from handling former Orange County Budget Director Ronald S. Rubino’s criminal case, citing personal ties to the defendant.

Orange County Superior Court Judge David O. Carter said he could be perceived as having a conflict of interest because he performed Rubino’s wedding ceremony.

Presiding Judge James L. Smith took over the case from Carter and promptly granted a defense request to postpone Rubino’s arraignment until Jan. 24. Rubino faces two felony counts of aiding and abetting the county’s former treasurer in skimming more than $60 million of interest earnings belonging to schools, special districts and cities into a county-held investment account.

Smith released Rubino on his own recognizance. The judge said the former budget chief had many personal and financial interests in the county and was not a flight risk.

Assistant Dist. Atty. Wallace J. Wade did not oppose Rubino’s release, noting that Rubino has made all his court appearances and had appeared before the Orange County Grand Jury voluntarily.

“I think it’s a good bet that he will be making his appearances,” Wade said after the hearing.

Rubino’s attorney asked that the arraignment be postponed so he could review the charges and consider filing motions seeking to dismiss the grand jury indictment and disqualify both the Superior Court and the district attorney’s office because of conflicts in interest issues.

“We disagree that there’s a public crime that’s been charged by that indictment and we have a problem with the entire process by which the indictment was brought,” defense attorney Rodney Perlman said after Wednesday’s hearing.

“The work Ron Rubino did, we think, was in the best interest of the county and he’s always been an upstanding citizen of this county,” Perlman added.

Similar conflicts-of-interest motions already have been filed by Orange County Supervisors William G. Steiner and Roger R. Stanton, who were accused by the grand jury of willful misconduct for their involvement in the county’s Dec. 6, 1994, bankruptcy declaration. The supervisors--and county Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis, who also faces misconduct allegations--are scheduled to appear in court today to answer the civil accusations.

In court papers filed this week, Stanton asked that Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi be removed from the case because of what he alleges was Capizzi’s significant involvement in the county bankruptcy. Wylie A. Aitken, Stanton’s attorney, said Wednesday that Capizzi had access to the same information as Stanton before the bankruptcy. And Aitken said that as part of a three-person team that ran Orange County immediately following the bankruptcy, Capizzi clashed with Stanton on several important issues.

“How can [Capizzi] represent the people and take an unbiased look at this, given his involvement?” Aitken said.

Officials from the district attorney’s office have repeatedly denied that they have conflicts that would prevent them from handling the bankruptcy-related cases fairly.

On Wednesday, Judge Smith suggested offhandedly that he might have to be recused from the Rubino case because he has had several contacts with Rubino when Rubino was the county’s budget director. “Mr. Rubino is not a stranger to this court,” he said.

Smith said he had asked the county to pay for a new jury assembly room but was denied. The judge quickly added, “I’m sure it wasn’t his fault.”

Rubino was indicted by the grand jury earlier this month on charges of aiding and abetting former Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. Citron in the interest diversion scheme. Citron has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing. If convicted, Rubino faces up to nine years in prison.

The grand jury also accused Stanton, Steiner and Lewis of failing to oversee Citron’s activities. If the accusations are found to be true, the officials could be removed from office. Neither Rubino nor the elected county officials are accused of personally benefiting from their roles in the bankruptcy.