Judge to Decide if Baugh Must Stand Trial

SANTA ANA — Municipal Judge William Evans is expected to rule today on whether Assemblyman Scott R. Baugh (R-Huntington Beach) must stand trial on charges that he intentionally falsified campaign and financial disclosure documents in a key election for control of the California Assembly.

The ruling will come almost two years to the day that voters recalled Republican Doris Allen and replaced her with Baugh, whose vote elevated Assemblyman Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) to the speakership.

Baugh is charged with five felony perjury counts and 13 misdemeanor violations of the Campaign Reform Act for allegedly falsifying five state-required financial disclosure forms related to the 1995 campaign.

Prosecution and defense lawyers gave their closing arguments Tuesday, and Evans promised to decide within a day whether there is “reasonable cause” to believe Baugh committed the alleged crimes.

Evans also could dismiss the charges or refer the matter to the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which could impose fines.

The hearing, which began in mid-September, covered 10 days of testimony but was extended by a series of court delays.

Prosecutors allege Baugh purposely misreported tens of thousands of dollars in contributions and loans relating to the campaign.

*

At the heart of the case is the prosecution’s contention that Baugh falsified several reports to “keep the voters from knowing of his active involvement in placing decoy Democrat Laurie Campbell on the ballot to split the Democratic vote and help ensure his own victory over three other Republicans in this plurality election.”

Assistant Dist. Atty. John Conley called the alleged crimes “a serious breach of trust,” while acknowledging that placing Baugh’s friend Campbell on the ballot was not illegal.

“It is kind of like Watergate,” he said. “It is the cover-up that is the problem here.”

Baugh has conceded that he made mistakes in campaign reporting, but he has maintained that he broke no laws and that the reporting errors were largely the result of mistakes and bad advice by campaign treasurer Dan Traxler.

In his argument, defense lawyer Allan Stokke attacked the evidence, the law and the motives of the district attorney’s office.

He said Orange County Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi is using the case to boost his campaign to be the Republican candidate for state attorney general.

Stokke also said the prosecution had failed to prove Baugh had knowledge of the Campbell candidacy and even if “it were true, that does not prove he intended to lie on campaign documents.”

“This case is busted, and everyone knows it,” he said.

The major flaw in the prosecution’s case, he said, is their failure to call Traxler.

*

Calling Baugh “naive, a novice, a first-time candidate,” Stokke said his client relied on Traxler for advice in the way a taxpayer relies on his accountant at tax time.

Stokke also argued that Baugh could not be charged with the 13 misdemeanors at all because the members of the legislature in 1984 had amended the Political Reform Act to protect themselves.

In effect, he said, the legislature had barred criminal prosecution of any office holder, limiting penalties to FPPC fines.

Conley called such an interpretation “absurd” and inconsistent with the intent of the act and court opinions.