Latest Moves in Olson Bomb Trial Cloaked in Secrecy

By ANN W. O’NEILL

Oct. 2, 1999 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

As the Sara Jane Olson bomb plot case heads to trial, prosecutors and defense attorneys seem to have reversed roles: The prosecutors are acting secretive and defensive, while the defense attorneys say that they welcome an open, public trial.

On Friday, as the attorneys met in court to discuss exchanging evidence, they retreated to the chambers of Judge James M. Ideman. When they emerged half an hour later, the lawyers and judge spent three minutes talking about the case in open court.

Through a court spokeswoman, the judge later explained that he considered the meeting merely to be an informal discussion between him and the lawyers.

What they apparently decided out of public earshot was the following:

Within three weeks, the prosecutor, Michael Latin, will file a brief under court seal outlining the witnesses and evidence in his case.

Still cameras will be permitted in the courtroom, but the judge has barred television cameras.

The defense plans to challenge the 1976 indictment charging Olson, then known as Kathleen Ann Soliah, with conspiring with members of the radical Symbionese Liberation Army to kill police officers by planting nail-packed pipe bombs under squad cars. A hearing has been set for Oct. 29.

At her next court appearance, Olson has agreed to give investigators handwriting samples.

Olson allegedly became active in the group after six SLA members were killed in a shootout with Los Angeles police during the spring of 1974. The alleged bombing attempts occurred in August 1975, allegedly in retaliation for the SLA deaths.

Olson, 52, was arrested near her St. Paul, Minn., home in June. During 23 years as a fugitive, she married, had three daughters and become known in her community for her charity, church and theater work. She was freed from jail when her friends and neighbors raised her $1-million bail.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Latin is trying to maintain a low profile in a high-profile case.

The prosecutor cut short reporters’ requests for an explanation of why the brief will be sealed, saying, “There are no grounds.” He urged them to “get the transcript” of the meeting in the judge’s chambers, but the court stenographer said no transcript was made because the session was off the record.

Later, district attorney’s spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons elaborated on Latin’s behalf: “He’s sealing it for [Olson’s] protection,” Gibbons said. “He’s going to outline the evidence against the defendant. He doesn’t want it in a public forum.”

Douglas E. Mirell, a Los Angeles lawyer who specializes in free speech and court access issues, observed that it is usually the defense that seeks to keep secret information damaging to a client.

Olson’s attorneys were not impressed by the prosecutor’s expressed concern for her.

“This has nothing to do with our client’s rights,” said defense attorney Stuart Hanlon. He vowed, “This case will be conducted in a public, open manner. Our client has a constitutional right. This will be a public trial.”

Some legal experts said the district attorney’s office may be concerned about losing another high-profile case, especially during an election year for boss Gil Garcetti.

“We all know this is a difficult case for them,” Mirell said. “Their reticence to disclose the information they have may bespeak a lack of confidence in their ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Prosecutors deny that. But Latin has previously acknowledged that the case is hardly “a slam-dunk.” Several key witnesses have died, memories have faded and Olson’s alleged co-conspirators may prove to be uncooperative.

Appellate courts, Mirell and other legal experts say, have held repeatedly that documents cannot be sealed, or courtrooms closed, without a showing that there is a compelling reason to keep the information out of the public eye.

That apparently did not occur on Friday. A court spokeswoman said Ideman did not state any reasons for sealing the brief.

According to Mirell, Latin’s statement that “there are no grounds” to seal the documents means Ideman should not have ordered the document sealed.

“If there are no grounds, then there is no basis,” Mirell said. “The court seems to have overstepped its authority.”

He added, “It’s a highly disfavored act.”