Key Witness Against Ex-Panther Listed Among D.A. Informants

A key prosecution witness against imprisoned former Black Panther Party leader Elmer “Geronimo” Pratt has turned up in a confidential informant file kept by the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.

The revelation that Julius “Julio” Butler was an informant for Pratt’s prosecutors could bolster Pratt’s efforts to have his murder conviction overturned, his lawyers say. Other legal experts agreed that the new information gives Pratt at least more credibility.

In a series of memos turned over to Pratt’s attorneys, the district attorney’s office said its own investigation discovered that three confidential informant cards had been kept on Butler in the district attorney’s Bureau of Investigation.

The cards were dated Jan. 27, 1972--six months before Pratt stood trial on charges of murdering a teacher and critically wounding her husband during a 1968 robbery on a Santa Monica tennis court that netted $18.

A captain in the district attorney’s Bureau of Investigation Intelligence Section said a card does not necessarily mean that an informant provided information. But if a card was prepared, that individual was probably used on an ongoing basis, the captain said.

Pratt is seeking to have his murder conviction overturned, arguing in court papers that there should be a hearing on new evidence that his lawyers say points to his innocence.

Butler is a former Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy and a onetime Panther whom Pratt had expelled from the Black Panther Party. He denied during the trial that he was an informant.

The revelation that informant cards were kept on Butler is significant, but not necessarily enough to get Pratt a new trial, said Loyola Law School professor Laurie L. Levenson, a former federal prosecutor.

“The bottom line is that the more evidence the defense gets from the government supporting the claim that Butler was an informant, the more likely they will get an evidentiary hearing--unless the government can show that this material had no effect on the outcome of the trial,” Levenson said.

Suzanne Childs, a spokeswoman for Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, said her office has “painstakingly reviewed every potential issue in this matter and provided [Pratt’s] attorneys all information no matter how remote or speculative its possible relevance.”

Beyond that, Childs said, the district attorney’s office will not comment. “Because the matter is before the court, it is inappropriate for us to make public statements,” she said.

San Francisco attorney Stuart Hanlon, one of Pratt’s lawyers, calls the informant card on Butler a “smoking gun,” saying the district attorney’s office knew during Pratt’s trial 24 years ago that Butler was an informant.

“The fact is that he was an actual informant, and no one said anything about it in court,” Hanlon said. “The informant status of a main prosecution witness is always reversible error.”

Pratt has maintained since his arrest that he was in Oakland when the murders occurred, and that he was framed by the FBI and Los Angeles police as part of their war against what they saw as black extremist groups.

Butler testified during Pratt’s trial that Pratt had confessed committing the crime to him in a private conversation.

During the trial, Pratt’s prosecutor, Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard P. Kalustian--now a Superior Court judge--saw Butler’s testimony as critical.

“Julio Butler has testified in this court under oath and to the jury to a confession that Mr. Pratt made to him that admits all of the elements of the offense,” Kalustian said during Pratt’s trial. “If the jury believes Julio Butler . . . Mr. Pratt is guilty. The case is over if they believe that.”

As part of the district attorney office’s investigation of the Pratt case, two deputy district attorneys and an investigator interviewed Butler in May, asking him if he had ever been paid as an informant by any law enforcement agency.

Butler answered “yes,” explaining that he was either given a gun or money to buy a gun by someone in the district attorney’s office. He refused to identify that person, saying he didn’t want to get a friend in trouble.

Butler said he could not recall if the assistance he received in obtaining a gun was provided before, during or after the Pratt trial, the investigation showed.

Talking to the same investigators three weeks later, however, Butler denied being an informant for law enforcement, describing his role as a “liaison” between the Panthers and law enforcement.

In the summary, Kalustian is quoted as saying he was unaware of anyone providing Butler with assistance to get a gun, and found it inconceivable that anyone in the district attorney’s office would do so.