Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The National Law Journal
Los Angeles attorney Mark J. Geragos early last year assumed the defense
of Susan
McDougal in a remote California embezzlement case.
His client already had been convicted in the Whitewater loan fraud
case, with her
ex-husband, James McDougal, and former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy
Tucker, and had
been sentenced in 1996 to two years in jail, plus 18 months for
refusing to answer
questions before a federal grand jury. Later she was accused of
stealing $150,000
from orchestra conductor Zubin Mehta and his wife, Nancy, through
forgery and the
unauthorized use of credit cards, when she worked as their
bookkeeper between
1989 and 1992.
Ms. McDougal says her purchases were gifts from Nancy Mehta. And
she has
accused Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr of using the
California case to coerce
her into implicating the Clintons�her former business partners in
the failed Whitewater
land development deal.
On April 23, she again refused to answer questions before a federal
grand jury in Little
Rock, Ark., risking further contempt charges.
Mr. Geragos now threatens to turn his defense of Ms. McDougal into
the public trial
of Mr. Starr, whether in Arkansas or in California, where the Mehta
case is scheduled
for pretrial proceedings later this month. He intends to build on
recent allegations of
Mr. Starr�s political bias and on reports that he made payments to
key Whitewater
witness David Hale.
Mr. Geragos spoke with The National Law Journal about his
strategies in both cases:
Q: In her many public interviews, Ms. McDougal has said repeatedly
that the Clintons
were not involved in illegal Whitewater transactions. Why would she
risk more years in
prison rather than tell that to the grand jury, even after one of
the jurors pleaded with
her to trust them?
A: She told that juror that if the Office of the Independent
Counsel would leave the
room she just might do that. Her position has evolved somewhat.
Originally, there was
an idea that they had accepted the truth according to David Hale,
and if she told the
truth as she knows it, she would walk into a perjury charge. Now,
with the allegations
Hale may have been paid off, she�s basically telling them to find
her in criminal
contempt because she would use the trial to point out that Starr is
conflicted and
should have nothing to do with this investigation....And it would
also give me, as a
practical matter, a means of investigating the payoffs. If this is
litigated and he�s told to
get off of this thing, he�s done.
Q: It has been reported that Ms. McDougal, in her 1996 appearance
before the grand
jury, answered all but three questions that had to do with the
Clintons� truthfulness
concerning Whitewater. If that�s the case, why won�t she answer
some of the
prosecutors� questions now?
A: That was not the case; it was part of a misinformation campaign
by Starr�s office. In
fact, she refused to answer any questions before the grand jury in
1996 and was held
in civil contempt by the judge.
Q: What does the independent counsel have to show to prove criminal
contempt, and
how much more time in jail might she receive if convicted?
A: They would have to show she didn�t have just cause to refuse to
answer questions.
But a provision under the code allows just cause for refusal as a
defense against
contempt. It can be based on the fear that you or somebody close to
you would be
hurt or evidence was collected illegally. There is no precedent for
our argument that
she has just cause because the prosecutor has conflicts; we�re
breaking new ground.
But I don�t think they can give her any additional time. They have
already given her 18
months, which is the maximum for civil contempt. If it didn�t
coerce her to testify after
18 months, more time could only be construed as punishment�and you
can�t
double-punish. If they are insane enough to indict her, it will be
the public trial of Ken
Starr. This is a very sophisticated legal game of chicken.
Q: If Ms. McDougal is not indicted for contempt, do you have
alternate plans for
launching your legal attack on Mr. Starr?
A: Yes. I can file a motion establishing his conflicts and asking
that her conviction be
overturned. There�s credible evidence that witness-tampering went
on. We filed an
ethics complaint against Starr on April 14, and that day they
notified me they would
bring her back to testify. My theory is they did that to prevent
her from litigating his
conflicts of interest, because she can�t seek to vacate her
Whitewater sentence when
she�s serving a different sentence for criminal contempt.
Q: Does Ms. McDougal stand to gain favors from the Clintons for
refusing to testify?
A: She won�t take a pardon, and I would be extremely disappointed
if she was offered
one because I don�t think she committed any crime. And I don�t
think she�ll be
appointed ambassador to someplace in Europe. It probably would be
more helpful to
the Clintons if she went in there and spoke her piece. But this
thing is much more about
Starr than it is about Clinton. She feels she is the last person
alive who can stop this
guy, who can stand up to him. Tucker is out of custody and will
cooperate with
prosecutors, and James McDougal is dead.
Q: How will the May 7 expiration of the Arkansas grand jury�s term
affect the
investigation?
A: It�s a problem for prosecutors, not for me. But they can
reconstitute a new grand
jury, read them the transcripts and go on from there.
Q: Regardless of what happens in Little Rock, Ms. McDougal is
awaiting trial in Santa
Monica, Calif., this summer on seven counts of theft and three
counts of income tax
evasion, in connection with her work for the Mehtas. What, if
anything, does that case
have to do with Whitewater?
A: The FBI was in contact with the Los Angeles County District
Attorney�s Office
when the case was filed. Nancy Mehta had filed the police report in
January 1993, but
it just sat there for months. People from Arkansas have gone
through case records in
Santa Monica. When I was hired, she had been convicted in
Whitewater and was
serving the contempt sentence. The Office of the Independent
Counsel suggested to
the district attorney�s office bringing her to Los Angeles to
increase the pressure on
her. She was in the Carswell Federal Medical Facility in Texas, a
very soft facility.
Where would you put someone you wanted to talk? In the notorious
Sybil Brand
Institute for Women in Los Angeles.
Q: Ms. McDougal claimed she was kept in isolation and was generally
mistreated at
Sybil Brand. Why did it take so many court appearances for you to
have her
transferred to a federal detention center, despite a Los Angeles
Superior Court
judge�s orders to move her?
A: The judge ordered her back to Texas, but they didn�t take her.
After that, he
ordered her release, then transfer to Pasadena jail, then Alhambra.
But they didn�t
take her. I got the judge to order a body attachment on Starr to
come show cause.
After three days we got his assurances, but they still didn�t move
her. So we sued in
federal court, and within 12 hours they took her out of the county
jail. They had
figured if they left her in Sybil Brand, she would talk. Susan, as
tough as she is, could
do time in a federal facility standing on her head.
Q: The prosecutor in the Mehta case has acknowledged that his
office has shared
information with the independent counsel, but he insists the case
is a simple matter of
embezzlement that has nothing to do with politics. How, then, can
you interject the
Whitewater investigation into the Santa Monica trial?
A: The [Los Angeles] prosecutor is the one who brought up
Whitewater, and I am
certainly not going to let it drop. Furthermore, Ken Starr used the
case as a bargaining
chip in 1996, after the preliminary hearing in the Mehta case and
before she was
sentenced in Whitewater. He promised her �global immunity� if she
would talk. But the
Los Angeles D.A. has no case. If this were anybody but Susan
McDougal, somebody
would have stood up and dismissed it already.
Q: What do you predict for Susan McDougal in each of the cases?
A: I think we�re going to either try the criminal contempt in
Arkansas or will get her
Whitewater conviction vacated, and they will have to retry that.
She had nothing to do
with Whitewater finances. The mere fact that she signed for a
$300,000 loan would
never be enough to convict her, were it not for the embellishments
of David Hale. In
Santa Monica, I�m prepared to go to trial, although I am still
hopeful they will dismiss
it. But the issue in either case will be the tactics of Ken Starr.
He�s the focal point of
Susan McDougal, wherever she is, because to him she�s just road
kill.
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
