Haidl defense files for dismissal of rape case

Deepa Bharath

Attorneys for an Inland Valley teen accused of raping an unconscious

girl at his father’s Corona del Mar home have filed several motions,

including one to dismiss the case against their client because of

“outrageous prosecutorial misconduct.”

Joseph Cavallo, the lead attorney of Greg Haidl’s defense team,

has filed six motions since April and is preparing to file two more

motions by next week asking that the judge remove the district

attorney’s office from the case, he said.

Haidl, the son of Orange County Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl; Keith

Spann; and Kyle Nachreiner, who were all 17 at the time of the

incident, face 24 counts. Spann and Nachreiner face enhancements for

allegedly inflicting great bodily injury to the victim and using a

deadly weapon -- in this case a pool cue -- to penetrate her.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Everett Dickey ruled in January

that there was enough evidence in the case for the Rancho Cucamonga

High School students to stand trial after he a 20-minute videotape

the teens made that captured the incident in lurid detail. The

incident reportedly took place in Don Haidl’s Jade Cove home in July

2002.

The defense has accused the district attorney’s office of acting

inappropriately on several occasions, including not providing them

with information such as the victim’s psychiatric evaluation records

from after the incident.

Deputy District Atty. Susan Schroeder said the motions are merely

a defense tactic to “take the public eye away from the conduct of the

defendants.”

“Trying to say negative things about the prosecution is not an

unusual tactic,” she said.

Prosecutors intend to file written responses to all of the

motions, Schroeder said.

“We expect this case to go forward and go to trial,” she said.

One of the defense motions asks that Deputy District Atty. Camille

Hill be taken off the case because “she interfered with defense

counsel’s right of access to his client” during the initial stages of

investigation, when Haidl had not even been arrested, and “personally

instructed a crucial witness not to speak with or answer any

questions” posed by defense attorneys.

The motion also states that Hill was present when police were

conducting their investigation at the Haidl home, making herself “a

witness to those tests and the manner in which they were conducted.”

Another motion demands that prosecutors provide the defense with

29 items, including copies of police reports, search warrants, audio

tapes and transcripts of Haidl’s interviews with police after his

arrest, the victim’s phone records and a list of the prosecutor’s

witnesses.

All such information is vital to any attorney trying to defend his

client, Cavallo said.

“Not providing information hampers your ability to defend your

client,” he said.

Cavallo said his motions do not target any one in the district

attorney’s office.

“It’s the way that office has handled this case from its

inception,” he said. “They’ve overcharged my client and have failed

to communicate crucial discovery to defense attorneys.”

Yet another motion asks that the judge not consider the video

camera and videotape as evidence because they were stolen from the

defendants by their acquaintances.

“The government should not profit from that illegal conduct,” the

motion states. It also says that the camera and its contents were

taken without the knowledge of the defendants and turned over to the

police.

The next hearing on this case is scheduled for Nov. 5 at the

Central Justice Center in Santa Ana.

* DEEPA BHARATH covers public safety and courts. She may be

reached at (949) 574-4226 or by e-mail at deepa.bharath@latimes.com.