The lessons of the Carona verdicts

I promise not to spend the rest of my career writing about former Orange County Sheriff Michael S. Carona dodging a bullet (make that five bullets) last week, when a federal jury acquitted him on all but one of the six corruption counts.

But in a case that proved to be less than neat and tidy, I want to resolve one of my own conflicting thoughts.

I suggested way, way back that the government would have some explaining to do if it lost this case. That stems from a still-troubled part of me that says if the government brings its weight down on someone, it should have a case that’s pretty air-tight.

No, I’m not saying it should be 100% when it brings a case. But let’s take the Carona matter. While clearly exultant last Friday, Carona noted that he’d had a $3-million defense. True, he didn’t pay a dime for it, because some as-yet unknown benefactor picked up the tab. Whether it was the Jones Day law firm that represented him or some other outsider, we don’t know.

But let’s assume Carona hadn’t been so lucky. After being charged, he’d have been left with this choice: come up with a million-dollar defense (he wasn’t destitute) or, most likely, agree to a plea bargain just to avoid going broke.

That isn’t much of a choice. And because we now see how much the government misread the strength of its case, it makes the dilemma for a defendant all the more troubling. Go broke or go to the penitentiary, even if you eventually could have beaten the charges.

So, I was prepared to blast the government for overreaching.

Enter the conflicting thought I mentioned above.

Let’s assume for a moment that the only charge brought against Carona had been witness tampering, which was the lone count on which the jury convicted him last week.

The former sheriff convicted of witness tampering? That would have been a pretty big deal. And after a few days of sober reflection, it is a big deal.

There’s something else the government did, however unwittingly, that deserves our thanks: it got Carona out of office.

Remember, he was still the sheriff in August 2007 when, according to the jury, he tampered with a potential federal grand jury witness.

I think we can all agree the standards for Orange County’s sheriff ought to be a tad higher than that. Also recall that Carona had no intention of stepping down after his indictment in October 2007 until it became clear he couldn’t get the free defense without doing so.

The government’s case, however flawed in its ultimate effect on the jury, also exposed the tawdry dealings of Carona’s two handpicked assistant sheriffs, Don Haidl and George Jaramillo. Jurors discarded the government’s conspiracy charge against Carona (and which allegedly involved the other two), but did not dispute that the three engaged in some improper actions.

One of the jurors told me Monday that Carona shouldn’t feel especially proud of his acquittals.

“His personal life was disgusting to everybody,” said the juror, who didn’t want to be identified because he didn’t want attention drawn to himself. “I had no doubt in my mind he knew about the illegal campaign contributions [during his 1998 run for office], and I think most on the jury agreed with that. And he took some money from Haidl, no doubt about that. But whether he took all the money [alleged by the government], we were not certain of that.”

Jurors found themselves ensnared in some legal nuances that complicated their deliberations. Even while believing Carona did some things that were improper or even illegal, the juror thought his official actions weren’t necessarily tied to them. For that reason, the juror said, he wouldn’t go so far as to say that Carona presided over a corrupt administration.

That demonstrates the mixed-bag nature of the case. The juror said there was “no sympathy” for Carona, despite the multiple acquittals, with the prevailing jury sentiment being that “he was out of office and that was probably good, because of all the stuff that came out.”

With that assessment lingering in my mind, I’ll temper my objection to the government’s case. Five acquittals out of six counts is troublesome, given the immense resources available to the government when it takes on a single person.

But the juror eased my mind a bit. I specifically asked if there was a palpable sense of outrage over the government’s case -- given the jury’s rejection of most of it -- and the juror said there wasn’t.

Asked if he had any advice for Carona, the juror said, “My advice to him would to become more humble. He’s been pretty cocky. And to correct his personal life.”

--

[email protected]