D.A. Weighs Action Over Misconduct by Prosecutor

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said Thursday that it is considering whether to discipline a prosecutor who recently was harshly rebuked by the Court of Appeal for misrepresenting evidence to obtain a first-degree murder conviction.

The court said Deputy Dist. Atty. Wendy Widlus told a jury in a 1985 murder trial that Israel Guzman Rangel was stabbed to death in South-Central Los Angeles during a street robbery, even though she knew that the items said to have been taken from him had actually been returned to his family by hospital personnel.

The jury subsequently found Titus Lee Brown Jr. guilty of first-degree murder on grounds that the killing occurred during the commission of a robbery.

“We abhor the conduct of the prosecutor in this case,” the appellate court said in an opinion filed Oct. 26.

‘Primary Objective’

“Zeal to prevail at trial even in the context of the most heinous offenses can never blind the prosecution to the fact that their primary objective is not to secure a conviction but to insure that justice is done.”

Widlus, 36, a deputy district attorney for nine years, did not return a reporter’s phone calls.

Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Gregory Thompson, maintaining that the incident involves a confidential personnel matter, said a review is under way but declined to elaborate.

The case is being reviewed by a senior official in the office, John F. Lynch, director of central operations.

Raising questions about the appeal court’s interpretation of Widlus’ actions, Lynch said: “There are a number of people who feel that the (appellate) opinion was overly harsh; that it did not reflect what actually happened.”

Widlus’ supervisor, Deputy Dist. Atty. Jeffrey C. Jonas, defended her, noting that she brought her own misconduct to light after the verdict was returned by telling the judge about it.

Describing Widlus’ actions as “an error in judgment,” Jonas said, “She crucified herself because she’s ethical.”

Approached Judge

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William R. Pounders, who presided over the trial, confirmed that Widlus approached him on the next court day after the jury announced its verdict and disclosed that she had concealed information about Guzman’s property.

A district attorney’s investigator had told Widlus that the victim’s relatives picked up his gold chains and wallet when they came to the hospital where he was brought by paramedics, the judge said.

Widlus’ disclosures led to a motion for a new trial, but Pounders decided instead to reduce the verdict to second-degree murder. He notified the State Bar of the incident, as required by law, he said.

But in his letter to the Bar, Pounders asked that no discipline be imposed, explaining that Widlus’ misconduct should be attributed to “lack of experience.”

“I don’t think she realized the impact of her misconduct . . . until she talked to the jury,” Pounders said, explaining that jurors told her after the verdict that they had given great weight to the robbery argument.

“If she had an evil intent, knowing what the result would be, she would not have come forward,” Pounders said.

The judge said the Bar did not inform him of the outcome of its investigation, and Bar spokeswoman Anne Charles was unable to provide information about it.

Adequate Remedy

In its Oct. 26 opinion, the Court of Appeal let stand the second-degree murder conviction, saying that it was an adequate remedy for the misconduct that occurred, given that Brown’s guilt as to the killing itself had been proved.

But on Monday the appeal court agreed to reconsider its decision.

“I think the court was legally wrong in its conclusion in this case,” said Brown’s attorney, Michael M. Crain, who is seeking a new trial. “Knowing presentation of false evidence is . . . the severest kind of prosecutorial misconduct.”