|
Attorney general to prosecute Hall - Diana Hall |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Tuesday, 31 August 2004 |
|
Attorney general to prosecute Hall
Judge's case raised worries of conflict of interest
8/31/04
By DAWN HOBBS
NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER
Concerned that Judge Diana Hall may not receive a fair trial, a judge decided on Monday that the state attorney general should prosecute her for alleged violations of the California Political Reform Act.
Conduct by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office in last year's unrelated criminal trial against Judge Hall created a potential conflict in the pending case, Orange County Superior Court Judge Jack Ryan ruled.
At issue Monday was whether local prosecutors stepped over the line by questioning Judge Hall on the stand about campaign contributions during her earlier trial, which centered around a domestic dispute that led to a drunken driving conviction.
Judge Ryan, who is presiding over the case to avoid a conflict among local justices, deemed the questioning inappropriate and irrelevant.
He cited another reason the Attorney General's Office should take the case: Judge Hall may appear as a witness in an unrelated civil case against District Attorney Tom Sneddon, creating another potential layer of conflict.
The current eight misdemeanor charges stem from an undisclosed $20,000 contribution to Judge Hall's 2002 re-election bid by her former live-in lover, Deidre Dykeman. A spat between the women ended with a high-profile criminal trial and Judge Hall's conviction for misdemeanor drunken driving last year.
In July, Judge Hall pleaded not guilty to the current charges. If convicted, she could face up to six months in jail, a fine of up to $60,000 on each count, and a four-year ban on running for public office.
The judge's ruling on Monday came in response to a defense request to take the local prosecutors off the current case. Defense lawyer Michael Scott claimed prosecutors are bitter because they got a misdemeanor rather than felony conviction in last year's trial and are now going after Judge Hall on trumped-up charges.
"We're very pleased, particularly since the principal basis for the (ruling) was the DA's conduct in the first trial -- that's the same basis for our request for dismissal," Mr. Scott said.
The District Attorney's Office requested months ago that the Attorney General's Office take over the second case to avoid any potential appearance of a conflict, but the request was denied. Now, the attorney general's staff must decide if they're going to appeal Judge Ryan's decision or prosecute the case, which would remain in the county.
"We had taken the position there was no disabling conflict that would prevent the district attorney from handling the case," said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "The court obviously disagreed."
Assistant District Attorney Christie Stanley, who attended Monday's hearing, insisted the office could provide a fair trial for Judge Hall, "but that we did concede that one could perceive us to have a conflict."
"We pointed out to the judge that there was no objection by defense attorneys in the prior trial," she said. "But the judge focused very narrowly on the issues he thought would cause conflict of interest to the extent that she could not get a fair trial. ... But he also said that (Judge Hall) was very clear in her answers to the questions about the campaign contributions that she confessed to a crime on the stand and that she was guilty."
Deputy District Attorney Kimberly Smith, who was the prosecutor on both cases, and Mr. Sneddon could not be reached for comment Monday.
Mr. Scott said he's filed motions that are now temporarily on hold to dismiss the charges against his client "because of the same DA misconduct," and on "the basis of retaliatory or selective prosecution."
He also wants the case moved from Santa Maria to Santa Barbara.
The case should be handled by Fair Political Practices Commission, which would levy a fine on Judge Hall if she were found to be in violation of campaign finance policies, Mr. Scott said. "This case does not merit criminal prosecution."
:nav Source: http://news.newspress.com/topsports/083104hall.htm
D.A.'s office recused from Hall case
By Quintin Cushner/Staff Writer
The Santa Barbara County District Attorney's office was barred Monday from prosecuting Superior Court Judge Diana Hall on charges of campaign-finance violations after her defense lawyer alleged the agency "ambushed" her during a previous case.
Retired Orange County Superior Court Judge John J. Ryan, who has been assigned the Hall case, placed the prosecution of the case in the hands of the state attorney general's office. That agency can choose to appeal the recusal or accept the case.
Hall's attorney, Michael Scott, argued for the recusal motion on grounds that his client could not receive fair treatment if the district attorney's office handled the case.
Scott said that during Hall's criminal case, prosecutors deliberately withheld evidence from the defense, prior to questioning the defendant on the stand.
The evidence included an investigator's interview with Hall's domestic partner Deidra Dykeman that took place at the same time as the criminal trial. During the interview, Dykeman spoke of loaning Hall $20,000 for the judge's successful 2002 re-election campaign. That money was allegedly disguised by Hall in an effort to keep her same-sex relationship with Dykeman secret.
When Hall testified at the trial, Deputy District Attorney Kimberly Smith questioned her about the money, apparently without telling the defense or the presiding judge in that case of her plans.
"That's the problem," Ryan said Monday in granting a defense motion for recusal. "They were not put on notice."
Ryan also noted that Hall is a likely witness in a federal lawsuit filed by Lompoc attorney Gary Dunlap against the district attorney's office. Such an arrangement could present a conflict of interest, he said.
Hall, who still presides over civil cases at Superior Court in Santa Maria, said she was "pleased" that the motion was granted.
The 54-year-old jurist still faces eight misdemeanor charges stemming from the alleged campaign violations.
Hall allegedly deposited $20,000 from Dykeman into her personal account, then included the money as part of a $25,000 transfer into her campaign fund. The judge allegedly then claimed on campaign financial statements that she contributed the transferred money herself.
Hall faces a possible sentence of six months in jail and a fine of $60,000 for each of the eight misdemeanor charge against her. If convicted, she would not be permitted to run for public office for four years.
No future court dates were scheduled in the case Monday, and likely won't be, until the attorney general's office makes its decision. Deputy Attorney General Steve Matthews, who argued against the recusal motion on Monday, would not comment on what his office plans to do with the case.
Assistant District Attorney Christie Stanley said her office was fine with Ryan's decision.
"Originally we had asked the attorney general to take this case," Stanley said, noting she anticipated the conflict argument regarding the Dunlap suit.
The previous case against Hall was based on her alleged actions on the night of Dec. 21, 2002, when, after a fight with Dykeman, the judge was arrested while driving intoxicated near her Santa Ynez Valley home.
Hall was convicted on Aug. 28, 2003, of two misdemeanor counts of drunken driving stemming from the incident. She was acquitted of misdemeanor charges of domestic battery and exhibiting a firearm and a felony charge of forcibly dissuading Dykeman from reporting the alleged crimes.
A mistrial was declared on a felony charge that Hall further tried to prevent Dykeman from calling authorities by destroying a telephone, after jurors announced they were deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction. That charge was eventually dropped.
For the drunken-driving conviction, Hall was sentenced to alcohol counseling and three years' probation.
* Staff writer Quintin Cushner can be reached at 739-2217 or by e-mail at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Aug. 31, 2004
:nav Source: http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2004/08/31/news/local/news02.txt
|
|
|
News 
