Lawyer Pays for Putting Football Before Murder Trial : Court: James Blatt wanted, among other things, to attend his son’s bowl game. He’s fined $1,000 after a prosecutor complains.

An Encino attorney has been fined $1,000 for delaying a Ventura County murder trial so he could, among other things, attend his son’s college football bowl game.

Ventura County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Storch imposed the sanction this week on James Edward Blatt, attorney for Scott M. Kastan. It was the maximum fine under a Penal Code section that states that both the public--represented by prosecutors--and criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial.

Kastan was scheduled to go to trial Nov. 16--already more than five months after he and another man allegedly killed 20-year-old Jennifer Jordan of Thousand Oaks during a drive-by shooting.

But on Nov. 12, Blatt asked Storch to postpone the Kastan trial until this month, saying he was tied up with two trials in Los Angeles County. In addition, Blatt told the judge, he had a prepaid vacation planned from Dec. 20 to Jan. 1.

In subsequent court papers, Deputy Dist. Atty. Donald C. Glynn said Blatt wanted to “attend his son’s Dec. 27 college football game in Florida.” Blatt’s son, Jason Blatt, a former Montclair Prep defensive lineman, is a freshman tight end on the University of Colorado football team, which lost to Alabama, 30-25, in last month’s Blockbuster Bowl.

“I am doing everything in my power to resolve my trial agenda,” Blatt wrote in his request to delay the Kastan trial.

But in his response, Glynn said Blatt had “deliberately agreed to the setting of trial dates in Los Angeles County that conflicted with trial dates in this case.”

For example, Glynn wrote, on Oct. 17 Blatt agreed to delay a Los Angeles case until Nov. 6, even though the Kastan trial was then scheduled to begin on Nov. 4. Blatt failed to notify the Ventura County court of the conflict within two days, as required by law, and made no mention of the scheduling problem at an Oct. 24 hearing on the Kastan case, according to Glynn’s motion.

On Nov. 6, Blatt agreed to reschedule a second Los Angeles County case until Nov. 19, even though the Kastan trial was then scheduled to begin on Nov. 14.

Glynn wrote that Blatt’s travel plans were not a valid reason to postpone the trial, but he added that if Blatt had been ready for trial in November, “I feel we could complete this case in time for Mr. Blatt to take his vacation.”

On Nov. 16, Storch agreed to postpone the trial but said that Blatt should cover the district attorney’s costs of issuing new subpoenas to witnesses. In papers filed this week, Glynn said it cost $2,529.30 to mail or serve subpoenas to 130 potential witnesses. But under the law, the maximum penalty that Storch could assess this week was $1,000.

Blatt did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Glynn said it was the first time in his 17 years as an attorney that he has seen such a sanction imposed on an attorney.

George C. Eskin, a veteran criminal defense attorney, said attorneys often schedule more than one matter for the same period in the belief that one of the cases will or can be postponed. But when an attorney has good reason to believe a case will begin and he knowingly schedules a second case for the same time, “the first court might very well consider that action to be contemptuous,” Eskin said.

“I guess what’s unusual here is that the district attorney decided to investigate the facts of the conflict” and report them to the judge, Eskin said. “Ordinarily, counsel attempt to accommodate each other.”

Glynn said the three attorneys on the case already had made concessions to one another in June, when Kastan was arraigned.

When Blatt “suddenly came up with this case that has to go to trial in L.A., it was real irritating,” Glynn said. “Maybe the other D.A.’s don’t do it, but I’m going to check up on stuff like that.”

Jury selection in the Kastan trial finally began Thursday and will resume on Monday. Investigators say that Kastan and co-defendant Patrick H. Strickland were trying to kill two rival gang members when a bullet struck Jordan in the head and killed her.

The victim’s father, Charles Jordan, said the delays have added to his family’s grief. “Until this is put behind us, it’s fresh every day,” he said.

He said he also worries that the delays may affect the outcome of the trial. “One witness is pregnant,” he said. “Another has moved out of state. The more time drags on, the weaker people’s memories get, and the less they care.”

Jordan, who attended several pretrial hearings on the case this week, said it bothers him that “nobody has mentioned my daughter’s death. It’s all about the poor defendants’ rights.

“People tend to forget that she was murdered for no reason at all.”