Reynold's defense seeks dismissal of entire DA’s Office from trial

When a short string of profanities launched across a Kings County courtroom Thursday, Attorney Mark Coleman was trying to illustrate a point. Coleman was directly quoting some of the languages anecdotally used in the past by District Attorney Ronald Calhoun in a public display of abhorrence against Jan Reynolds, former Hanford city manager currently awaiting trial on felony perjury charges.

"High-ranking members of the police force said, 'Ron Calhoun tells us that Jan Reynolds is a (expletive) liar,'" Coleman said. "To me these statements are stunning. It's just unbelievable."

Coleman also said some grand jurors and other prominent individuals have provided him with affidavits stating Calhoun's grudge against Reynolds is clear.

"These are people who have standing in the community, deal with Mr. Calhoun and are at a great peril to themselves, yet came forward and provided these declarations that these things were said," Coleman said.

The theatrics were part of Coleman's last-ditch effort to convince the judge to dismiss the entire Kings County District Attorney's Office based on his argument that Reynolds was framed by Calhoun's age-old personal animosity against his former boss.

Reynolds, 58, is accused of lying under oath to the grand jury during its investigation into a lucrative $200,000-plus severance package he negotiated with the city council, when he was pressured into retirement in 2005. Grand jury findings led to his prosecution.

Visiting Judge David Allen listened to arguments from both the defense and prosecution on the defense's recusal motion. It was the culmination of several months of grueling pre-trial motions, hearings and arguments on the Jan Reynolds case, which has been marked by numerous delays.

On Thursday, the defense once again sought a continuance, but Allen denied the motion and had the attorneys go ahead and present their arguments instead. A representative from the state Attorney General's Office was also present to argue that the defense's motion lacks evidence and the dismissal of the District Attorney's Office from the case is unwarranted.

Allen said he would issue his ruling in writing by June 26.

As Coleman gave scathing arguments, Kings County Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Reinhart was unswayed, dismissing Coleman's arguments as lacking factual basis. The duel continued for nearly 90 minutes.

Coleman argued the outcome of the grand jury investigation was "preordained" by Calhoun, adding that Calhoun used the grand jury to gather evidence to charge Reynolds.

Reinhart said Coleman provided no evidence to support his inference that Calhoun was out to "get" Reynolds and controlled the grand jury investigation.

"Not one shred of evidence do we have that Mr. Calhoun went in and interjected himself into this investigation or prosecution -- not one shred," Reinhart said. "The most they have is a memo from (then-Chief Deputy District Attorney) Pat Hart asking the grand jury, citing the constitutional language, about a gift of public funds and making a statement simply, 'You may want to look at that.'

"That's hardly the demanding, chest-beating, vociferous Calhoun that is trying to impose upon this court demanding the grand jury to do this," Reinhart said.

Not only did Coleman argue Calhoun has an inherent bias toward Reynolds, but also he argued Reinhart -- the prosecutor in the case -- has a conflict of interest in the case. Reinhart, who assisted the grand jury investigation and interviewed numerous individuals, will be called as a witness during the trial, and that would be a conflict of interest as a prosecutor, Coleman said.

"Even if Mr. Reinhart is recused, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that somebody else should be allowed to prosecute Mr. Reynolds," Coleman said.

In 2005, the Kings County grand jury investigated what might have led the city council to give Reynolds more severance pay than it would have under his original contract in 1990.

The charges stem from allegations that Reynolds lied about the existence of his original employment agreement to the grand jury and council members. Reynolds allegedly told the grand jury that he had handed copies of his old contract to city council members during his termination negotiations. All city council members denied the receipt of such a document, according to the grand jury report.

Under the 1990 agreement, Reynolds would have received six months severance pay, less than half of what he was given through the new contract.

Coleman says what Reynolds testified was that he had provided each council member with a copy of the 1990 agreement when he or she was first sworn in, while Reinhart argues the issue was whether or not Reynolds told the city council of his original employment agreement at any time during his tenure.

The reporter can be reached at 583-2429.

(June 13, 2008)