Baugh Bill on D.A. Evidence Rule Signed

SACRAMENTO — In a case of politics following personal experience, a lawmaker indicted last year by the Orange County Grand Jury got a bill signed into law requiring prosecutors to reveal evidence that might prove a target’s innocence.

The measure by Assemblyman Scott Baugh (R-Huntington Beach) was sparked by what the lawmaker said was unfair treatment he received at the hands of Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi.

“There have been a series of abuses by some district attorneys who fail to present all the evidence,” Baugh said Wednesday after learning Gov. Pete Wilson had signed the bill. “Most D.A.s are honorable, but every now and then you get someone who crosses over the line.”

Last year, Baugh was indicted for election wrongdoing during his successful campaign to replace recalled Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress). Since then, he has complained that Capizzi and his lieutenants presented a lopsided case to win multiple felony and misdemeanor indictments.

Baugh said his attorneys gave the district attorney letters identifying witnesses who could prove his innocence, but those people were not called before the grand jury.

Some of the grand jury charges against Baugh were thrown out by a Superior Court judge, who agreed with Baugh’s attorneys that prosecutors failed to inform the grand jurors that Baugh’s principal accuser had made conflicting statements.

But Capizzi refiled most of the dismissed charges, and a preliminary hearing is set for this summer. Capizzi did not return a phone call for comment Wednesday.

Baugh’s measure, approved overwhelmingly in the Assembly and Senate, would require any prosecutor presenting a case before a county grand jury to reveal exculpatory evidence that might prove the innocence of someone suspected of wrongdoing. Failure to do so could result in dismissal of the charge.

Currently, there’s no hard and fast rule in the penal code requiring such a presentation.

The state prosecutor’s association took a neutral stance on Baugh’s bill, saying it merely enshrines in the penal code a 1975 state Supreme Court decision that called for prosecutors to present conflicting evidence when appearing before a grand jury.

But the prosecutors group says instances of district attorneys veering into unethical territory while arguing cases at the grand jury is very uncommon.

Two other Baugh bills awaiting action in the Senate would allow targets of grand juries as well as witnesses to be accompanied by attorneys when they testify.

“I won’t deny that I didn’t know about the need for these changes until I had my own problem,” Baugh said. “These bills do not affect me in any way. This protects innocent people in the future. . . .”