Conflict of Interest Rattles Crime Lab Case

Revelations in court Friday severely rattled the massive Ventura County crime lab case, jeopardizing a smooth resolution for more than 620 questionable drunk-driving arrests.

One of the four lead defense attorneys withdrew from the case after revealing that the district attorney’s office subpoenaed him because he discussed the case with former colleagues there.

That defense lawyer, former Deputy Dist. Atty. Kevin DeNoce, declared he has a conflict of interest, and Judge Steven Z. Perren agreed to appoint new attorneys for Perren’s 11 clients.

The legal fallout threatens to make an already unwieldy and time-consuming case into an even bigger burden on Ventura County’s courts.

Details of DeNoce’s discussion with Dist. Atty. Investigator Michael McKendry will remain secret until the two testify about it Aug. 29 in a closed hearing.

But DeNoce’s fellow defense attorneys argued Friday that his discussion may have tainted their own attorney-client relationships, exposing them to potential conflicts of interest because they had revealed intimate details of their cases to DeNoce.

“There may be a conflict of interest pertaining to Kevin DeNoce in representing any of the class of defendants in any of the so-called ‘Crime Lab Hearings,’ ” stated a letter that defense attorney Louis Samonsky Jr. presented to Perren on Friday on behalf of the defense lawyers.

The letter states that in McKendry’s internal memo about the discussion, “Mr. DeNoce reveals his opinion as to whether there is any responsibility to be placed on Deputy Dist. Atty. John Cardoza in failing to disclose the crime lab problems, saying there is none. In addition, Mr. DeNoce shared with McKendry unspecified information he had shared with ‘other members of the defense team in this case.’ ”

*

The letter also cites a memo that DeNoce wrote when he was still a prosecutor.

DeNoce’s July 24, 1996, memo tells Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury that the defense would be entitled to read another memo from crime lab chief Norm Fort describing legal problems at the lab.

But the defense community did not learn of licensing problems and alcohol-testing irregularities at the crime lab until April 10, 1997.

And the DeNoce memo--dated five months before Fort resigned and the lab’s licensing woes began--could further load the crime lab case with several hundred more defendants claiming new grounds for dismissal.

The case centers on whether the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department crime lab was complying with state licensing law when it conducted hundreds of blood-alcohol tests between Fort’s retirement and April 10.

The new wrinkles in the case forced Perren to stall the matter for a week while attorneys informed hundreds of clients about DeNoce’s declared conflict.

Before DeNoce testifies next Friday, new attorneys will be appointed to represent his 11 clients and two clients represented by his law partner, Brenda Andrade.

At a hearing on the matter Friday, attorney after attorney told Perren they were worried that DeNoce’s discussion had already threatened their clients’ rights.

*

Assistant Public Defender Jean Farley said, “If Your Honor calls Mr. DeNoce as a witness, it is our intention to object to every single question. We object . . . when the issue is a waiver of attorney-client privilege and . . . the prosecution is present in the courtroom.”

Defense attorney Jay Johnson said he agreed in May to have DeNoce and three other lawyers serve as the lead defense team, but had never expected one of its members to declare a conflict of interest.

“I have talked to Mr. DeNoce about my clients’ cases,” added defense attorney Ronald Jackson, who represents a dozen drunk-driving case clients.

“I have expressed opinions to him about my clients’ cases with the understanding that it was in the strictest of confidence,” Jackson told the judge, his voice rising. “And if he is allowed to testify about what I said to him . . . I might have to withdraw.”

Then Deputy Atty. Gen. Steven Matthews--who might replace the district attorney’s office in the case if the judge rules on another conflict of interest complaint aimed at prosecuting attorneys--began to speak.

“One moment,” Perren interrupted with a grimace. “The court demands the time to think.”

After a few minutes, Perren let the attorneys continue and the hearing grew even more heated.

“The public defender moves for a protective order,” Farley said. “We request an order for Mr. DeNoce not to communicate about any of the information received in the case with any other individual. . . . I personally have communicated substantial confidential information to Mr. DeNoce.”

*

After hearing several more comments, Perren retired to his chambers to compose his orders.

Fifteen minutes later, Perren returned to the bench. “This is either a tempest in a teapot or a hurricane at sea. I don’t know what it is,” he said.

Perren asked defense attorneys to return to court at 9:30 a.m. next Friday to report on the status of their cases once their clients have been told about the possible conflict of interest.

He also imposed a gag order on DeNoce, forbidding him to discuss his involvement with the district attorney’s office in the case.

And he ordered a hearing for 1:30 p.m. that day--open only to attorneys in the case--in which DeNoce and McKendry will testify about details of their discussion. Perren said he will later release all information about the hearing that he does not deem to be confidential.

After the hearing Friday, attorneys gathered in the hallway, shaking their heads over the state of one of the biggest cases ever to hit the Ventura County courthouse.

“This is out of the ordinary. This is ‘Twilight Zone’ stuff,” Jackson said.

Honoring the gag order, DeNoce declined to comment.

Times staff writer Scott Hadly contributed to this story.