Outside Judge Will Decide Citron Sentence

The fate of former Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. Citron will be decided by a judge who lives outside of Orange County, a judge decided Friday.

Presiding Superior Court Judge Theodore E. Millard said the Orange County judges’ battle with the county government over court funding might pose potential conflicts of interest if one of the judges were to sentence Citron. Millard asked California Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas to name a new judge.

“The general public could easily blame the Orange County bankruptcy and continuing financial crisis on Robert Citron,” Millard wrote in a four-page order. “The Superior Court is directly impacted by this bankruptcy.”

Citron has pleaded guilty to six felonies stemming from the December 1994 bankruptcy. He is scheduled to be sentenced Feb. 23, which Millard ordered unchanged.

The ruling represents a victory for Citron, whose lawyers argued he might not get a fair hearing in front of Orange County’s judges. Citron’s attorney, David W. Wiechert, argued that the local judiciary’s recent demand that Orange County make up its funding shortfall created potential conflicts of interest for any local judge.

Wiechert declined to comment on Friday’s decision. Citron has pleaded guilty to six felony counts stemming from the bankruptcy and faces up to 14 years in prison. He has been cooperating with prosecutors, and a recent probation report recommended that he receive less than a year in jail.

Friday’s ruling was the second time Millard has disqualified the entire Orange County bench from hearing a bankruptcy-related case. Earlier this month, California’s chief justice appointed a Superior Court judge from Los Angeles County to preside over the civil misconduct cases of three Orange County elected officials.

In December, Orange County’s judges made a formal demand that the county government make up a $31.6-million deficit to offset state budget cuts. The judges said they would have to shut courthouses this spring if they don’t get the money they need.

Given the county’s financial problems, Millard said that any local judge presiding over a bankruptcy-related prosecution might appear to have a conflict of interest.

“The trial courts are the cornerstone of the criminal justice system, and their shutting down would result in chaos and seriously jeopardize our communities’ public safety,” the judge wrote.

Millard said he found another potential conflict of interest. Millard said that one of the attorneys for the law firm that is representing the judges against the county might be called to testify in the Citron sentencing. The judge did not name the lawyer, and no one at the firm, Morrison & Foerster, could be reached late Friday.

“When these factors are all considered together they create the appearance of a conflict that requires this Court to recuse all the sitting judges of this Court from hearing Robert Citron’s sentencing proceedings,” Millard wrote.

*

Assistant Dist. Atty. Wallace J. Wade, who is prosecuting Citron, said he wasn’t sure what impact, if any, a new judge would have on the case.

“All this means is that another judge will do the sentencing,” he said.

In a related case Friday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John W. Ouderkirk put off a ruling on a defense request to disqualify the Orange County district attorney’s office from pursuing civil misconduct charges against Orange County Supervisors Roger R. Stanton and William G. Steiner and Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis. The three elected officials are charged with willful misconduct in connection with the bankruptcy: neglecting their official duties in failing to oversee Citron’s investments.

Lawyers for Stanton, Steiner and Lewis argue that local prosecutors should be barred from the case because of potential conflicts of interest by Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi. The district attorney helped run the county in the immediate aftermath of the bankruptcy filing.

Capizzi vigorously denies any conflict. Lawyers for the office criticized the request for disqualification as “speculative” and without merit.

Ouderkirk urged both sides to try to resolve their differences on requests by Stanton, Steiner and Lewis for information relating to Capizzi’s role in county government following the bankruptcy. He urged the defense to refine its motion.

The two sides are at loggerheads: While Capizzi’s office deems the defense’s motion to disqualify as vague, the defense lawyers say they need more information from the district attorney to build their case.

“It’s a chicken-and-egg thing,” said Allan H. Stokke, the attorney for Steiner.

The judge told the parties that he would not let the motion to disqualify stall the case. He told both sides to get ready for trial.

“The district attorney is not on trial here,” he said.