Merrill Deal Bad for County

As a former criminal prosecutor, I submit that the district attorney’s “deal” with Merrill Lynch (“O.C. Halting Probe of Brokerage,” June 19) is a grotesque imitation of justice. I’ll mention just a few of many points.

Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi stated, “I don’t know how you could possibly hope to achieve any more favorable a result.” Here’s how. Tell a worldwide firm that they’re not above the criminal law. It was a criminal case; try for or get a criminal verdict. As an aftereffect, the criminal verdict would have been immensely helpful in the county’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit against Merrill. Capizzi never stated they didn’t have the evidence for an indictment. How could he? The main witnesses from Merrill hadn’t even testified! How can they “deal” a case without knowing the testimony?

The question to ask is: Has Merrill already reached a tentative agreement with the county in the multibillion-dollar civil case if the D.A. doesn’t come forth with a criminal indictment?

The grand jury transcripts can’t be released under state law without an indictment. Capizzi said they’ll now explore getting over that hurdle. Hello? Why not get the indictment and then make the “deal” with Merrill, thereby releasing the transcripts. End of problem.

Why did Merrill and the D.A.’s office rush to settlement just when the main characters from Merrill were about to be questioned by the grand jury?

Isn’t it too bad that robbers, rapists, drug dealers and other criminals don’t have $30 million to escape an indictment? Assistant Dist. Atty. Wallace Wade said this about the settlement, “It was Merrill’s idea.” That says it all.

NICK NOVICK

Irvine