Tripp's lawyers complain of `tainted'
evidence
They seek dismissal of wiretapping charges
____________________________________________________
By Del Quentin Wilber
Sun Staff
Lawyers for Linda R. Tripp attacked the credibility of former White
House intern Monica Lewinsky yesterday as they asked a Howard
County Circuit Court judge to throw out the illicit-wiretapping case
against their client.
Tripp's lawyers argued in a 36-page memo yesterday that state
prosecutors improperly gathered evidence that was protected by
Tripp's immunity agreement with federal authorities investigating
President Clinton.
They also said the state's key witness, Lewinsky, was "bathed in
impermissible taint" and was out to get their client.
"It is important to understand the motive Ms. Lewinsky has to ensure
that Mrs. Tripp is prosecuted," the memo said. It then describes a
passage from Lewinsky's book, "Monica's Story," that shows
Lewinsky jumping for joy when Maryland prosecutors announce
they are investigating her former confidante.
Tripp was indicted in July on two counts of illegally recording a Dec.
22, 1997, telephone conversation with Lewinsky, and then having
her lawyer disclose the tape's contents to Newsweek magazine.
That disclosure and others exposed a sexual relationship between
Lewinsky and Clinton and led to the president's impeachment in
December 1998.
Tripp's trial is scheduled for July. If convicted, she could receive 10
years in prison and be fined $20,000. In yesterday's filing, Tripp's
lawyers also questioned the credibility of information Lewinsky
provided to state prosecutors in an affidavit in August 1998 and her
detailed testimony during a pretrial hearing Dec. 16.
"Her incredible recall displayed at the time of her testimony on
December 16, 1999, is easily attributed to her motive to carry out
her desire that Mrs. Tripp be prosecuted by the State of Maryland,"
the memo said.
Yesterday's filing follows one by state prosecutors last month in
which they defended their investigation witness by witness.
Judge Diane O. Leasure is scheduled to hear arguments from both
sides March 29. That will be the last chance for lawyers to persuade
Leasure to allow the trial to proceed, to limit evidence or to throw
out the case because of tainted evidence. In December, Leasure held
a weeklong set of hearings into whether state prosecutors gathered
evidence improperly.
Defense lawyers have said they would file other motions to dismiss
the case if they lose this round.
State prosecutors have acknowledged that a "small amount" of their
evidence was tainted, but they say Leasure should allow the case to
proceed to trial.
"There's plenty of independent evidence for the case to go forward,"
Assistant State Prosecutor Thomas M. McDonough said in an
interview.
Tripp's lawyers, Joseph Murtha and David B. Irwin, relied heavily
upon a case similar to Tripp's in their filing yesterday.
In 1990, a U.S. appeals court overturned the conviction of Oliver L.
North, a central figure in the Iran-Contra affair during the 1980s,
who was accused of destroying documents. The appeals court sent
two other convictions back to a lower court to determine whether
highly publicized evidence North gave to Congress under a grant of
immunity affected the prosecution's witnesses.
After one witness testified in a hearing that North's congressional
testimony had "a very powerful impact" on him, prosecutors dropped
the remaining charges.
Tripp's lawyers argue that Leasure should rely on the North decision
that says prosecutors must rely on evidence that is independent of
immunized testimony.
The lawyers said the public disclosure of immunized information
given by Tripp to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and a
federal grand jury affected nearly every aspect of the state
prosecutors' case.
They accused state prosecutors of allowing an intern to create
memos based on Starr's report to Congress, which contained Tripp's
immunized testimony.
State prosecutors conceded that misstep during December's
hearings, but argued that State Prosecutor Stephen Montanarelli and
other investigators in the case did not read it. Prosecutors also say
the intern prepared one memo, not two, as alleged by Tripp's
lawyers.
The lawyers also accused state prosecutors of not taking sufficient
precaution to prevent grand jurors from viewing and reading material
related to Starr's report, which was widely publicized.
The "indictment is the product of an investigation impermissibly
tainted directly and indirectly by the State's use of the immunized
testimony and information of Linda R. Tripp," the memo says.
Originally published on Mar 21 2000