Ortiz Acquitted on All Counts

Former San Diego County Registrar of Voters Ray Ortiz was acquitted by a Superior Court jury Thursday on 27 counts of grand theft, misappropriation of public funds and falsifying public records.

The acquittal was a dramatic ending to what Ortiz called “a year of hell,” which cost him more than $100,000 in legal fees and lost income.

A co-defendant, Escondido elections consultant Lance Gough, also was found innocent of a single theft charge.

Emotional Moment

Ortiz, who was charged with improperly using public funds to finance trips and other personal expenses, wept softly and hugged his sobbing wife, two sons and his attorney moments after the verdicts were announced late Thursday afternoon before Judge David M. Gill.

“I’m just happy it’s over,” a red-eyed Ortiz said outside the courtroom. “I can’t hold any animosity for anybody. I just want to get my life started, my family back together and move forward.”

Ortiz, who had been registrar for seven years until his resignation last fall, was indicted last year on charges alleging that he diverted thousands of dollars to himself via falsified contracts that he directed a Los Angeles printing company executive to submit to the county.

Prosecutors argued that Ortiz, 52, stole $7,300 from the county in six transactions from 1984 to 1986, and an additional $4,000 from Jeffries Banknote Co., which printed election data for the county.

Defense attorney Merle Schneidewind acknowledged that Ortiz had been reimbursed by Jeffries for trips to election conferences, but he argued that there was no attempt to conceal those funds and that Ortiz’s motivation was simply to save the county money.

To a large extent, the three-week trial turned on whether jurors accepted Ortiz’s explanations or those of the prosecution’s key witness--Lynn Kienle, Jeffries’ vice president for sales.

Key Witness

Testifying under a grant of immunity, Kienle claimed that Ortiz orchestrated the falsification of invoices that the firm sent to the county for reimbursement and ordered him to pay consulting fees to Gough and Maria Caldera, a longtime Ortiz friend, for work that may have never been done.

In interviews, several jurors said that though they had some questions about Ortiz’s behavior and judgment, those doubts were overwhelmed by their disbelief of Kienle’s testimony.

“It was more or less who you chose to believe in the case,” jury forewoman Cyntree Day said. “And we chose to believe Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Kienle did not have as much credibility as Mr. Ortiz. His testimony left a lot to be desired.”

Juror Theresa Armstrong added: “If anybody could believe that man (Kienle), then I guess they believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.”

Thursday’s verdicts, which followed two days of jury deliberations, came amid a tense, poignant courtroom scene that lasted an agonizing 16 minutes as a court clerk read the 27 verdicts, one by one.

As the verdicts were announced, Ortiz nervously wrung his hands in front of his face and, on several occasions, dabbed his eyes. When the clerk read, “Not guilty,” on the fifth count, the only one facing Gough, Ortiz slapped the Escondido man on his arm as Gough sighed and smiled in relief.

After the final verdict was announced, Ortiz slumped forward and cried softly, while his wife and two sons, seated directly behind him, wept and hugged each other.

‘Year of Hell’

“It’s over!” Ortiz said, choking on the words as he left the courtroom. “It’s been a year of hell. I’ve got to get my family back together, pick up the pieces and try and get some work.”

In response to a question, Ortiz said that despite being exonerated of the charges, he has no regrets about having resigned the $54,000-a-year registrar’s job shortly before he was indicted.

“I think I did the best thing for the county and the people,” Ortiz said. “I didn’t want any tarnish at all on the registrar of voters while I was there. I would have done the same thing over again.”

However, defense attorney Schneidewind argued that Ortiz’s resignation allowed the San Diego County district attorney’s office “to win even though they lost in court.”

“I think it’s unfortunate that it went this far, because I think the district attorney wins either way,” Schneidewind said. “Mr. Ortiz is no longer our registrar of voters, he’s financially devastated by all of this, and his family has been strained to its limits. But now, at least it’s over, and I hope he can start getting his life back together.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Douglas Gregg, who prosecuted the case, left the courtroom quickly after the verdicts were announced, leaving Steve Casey, the district attorney’s spokesman, to comment on the outcome.

“The jury evaluated the evidence; we evaluated the evidence differently,” Casey said. “We haven’t had time to even digest what this 27 to zip means.”

Casey added that the district attorney’s office intends to pursue the prosecution of Caldera, who is to be tried separately on three grand theft charges in September.

Focal Point

The focal point of the trial--Ortiz, the attorneys and the jurors agreed--was Kienle’s testimony.

Kienle told the jury that Ortiz often suggested the amount and the phraseology to be used on the invoices that the firm submitted to the county--even though, on occasion, those descriptions bore little resemblance to the purpose for which the funds were actually used.

At Ortiz’s suggestion, Kienle testified, expenses related to trips that Ortiz and his associates made to New Orleans, Chicago and Redding were listed on the invoices under categories such as “ballot generation,” “mock elections” or “customer alteration.” Kienle also said Ortiz directed him to pay consulting fees to Gough and Caldera for work related to Jeffries’ printing contracts--work that Kienle said he generally had no independent proof had actually been done.

During two days on the witness stand, Ortiz vigorously disputed those allegations, which defense attorney Schneidewind persistently characterized as lies stemming from Kienle’s anger over Ortiz’s cancellation of a contract that cost the printing executive more than $100,000 in commissions.

Ortiz admitted that the language on some of the invoices was false but insisted that it was Kienle who “wanted special language” on the bills. Similarly, Ortiz acknowledged instructing Kienle to pay Caldera and Gough but denied ever telling him to bill the county for those and other disputed expenses.

“No doubt about it--it had to be one on one,” Ortiz said of the clash between his testimony and that of Kienle. “They didn’t have any proof. They had to consider his testimony. We said all along that the man was telling a falsehood so we went out and proved it.”

Double-Billing Admitted

In his testimony Ortiz admitted that he had double-billed Jeffries and another organization for one business trip. But attorney Schneidewind described the additional $238 that had been kept by Ortiz as a “windfall” that did not result in the loss of any public funds.

Almost from the moment deliberations began, it was clear that the jurors unanimously accepted Ortiz’s version of events and believed that Kienle’s “motive was keeping himself out of jail because of what he had brought upon himself,” jury forewoman Day explained.

Juror Donna Palm added: “If there was wrongdoing, it was probably Kienle. Actually, we thought he was a crook.”

Buford Wylie, Gough’s attorney, added that Gough may file a lawsuit against Kienle “because of these false allegations . . . that have left my client broke.”

Day admitted that she and some other jurors questioned Ortiz’s judgment in regard to some of the transactions--and in accepting funds from a firm that did business with the county--but felt that the evidence was not clear enough to warrant a guilty verdict.

“Personally speaking, I really didn’t feel in all honesty that Mr. Ortiz was entirely innocent of absolutely no wrongdoing whatsoever,” Day said. “There were questions where maybe his judgment was not the best. But there was no reason for a conviction based on his lack of judgment. So, going on the evidence that was presented, it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that these things did or did not occur. There was a lot of doubt, so we had to go with that.”

Ortiz, meanwhile, said that his legal bills and lost income exceed $100,000. He is currently unemployed, but Ortiz said he hopes to eventually resume work “in the elections field,” though not in the registrar’s office.

“That’s what I’m best at and that’s what I know best,” Ortiz said. “I think that I can contribute something to the United States somewhere in the elections field . . . But I’ll start worrying about that tomorrow. Today, I just want to try to forget this.”

Times staff writers Nancy Reed and Kathie Bozanich contributed to this story.