Attorneys Present Final Arguments in Johnson Conflict-of-Interest Suit; Case Goes to Jury, Monday, June 29

Councilman Steven Johnson

With the air-conditioning on the blink in Department 8 of the West Covina Superior Court, the people and the defense concluded their closing arguments on a warm Friday afternoon in the conflict-of-interest case involving La Verne Councilman Steven Johnson.

It’s expected that on June 29 at 8:30 a.m., the jury will be handed final instructions for deliberating the case and delivering a verdict.

District Attorney Jonlyn Callahan led off with her closing argument, recounting the issues, facts and pertinent laws of the case. She revisited how Councilman Johnson and then-Councilman Don Kendrick had been advised about potential conflicts of interest were they to vote on the University of La Verne’s master plan because they either leased or owned properties within 500 feet of the University. As such, Kendrick recused himself, but Johnson did not.

“He was reasonable,” Callahan said, noting Kendrick’s decision to disqualify himself from the January 2007 vote.

She again reminded the jury how appraiser Kirk Johnson, Steven Johnson’s brother, had written that the University’s master plan “would not likely have any impact” on the Arrow property where the councilman’s insurance business is located. She argued that the use of “would not likely” and “would not” have different connotations.

The semantic hair-splitting is important because of the so-called “one penny rule.” Under the Political Reform Act (”Act”), a public official has a conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material (important) financial effect on one or more of his or her economic interests. This is sometimes called a “one-penny” rule, since even a penny’s worth of reasonably foreseeable financial effect is material.

She further noted for the jury that the defendant did not have to knowingly break the law to be found in violation of the law. “Mistake of the law is not a defense,” she said.

Callahan also argued that the University of La Verne was integral to the economic welfare of La Verne and that suggested improvements contained in a master plan would impact those properties closest to the campus. She told jurors it was common sense that if they owned a home closer to a place undergoing improvements it would have “a more dramatic effect” than on a home located farther away from the improvements.

“That’s why you should be suspicious of their judgments,” Callahan said, referring to defense witnesses who said the University’s master plan would have no impact on properties near the University.

In his closing statement, Defense Attorney Richard Farquhar countered that Councilman Johnson was elected to express his views and get his “ideas in front of the people,” an opportunity that would be lost by recusing himself. By not participating, Farquhar said, Johnson’s voice would be silenced on such issues as downtown parking and the potential loss of a basketball court used by city youth leagues.

Farquhar admitted that if he had been presented with the same alternative, to vote or not to vote, he, as he suspected most of the jury members would agree, would have “taken the path of least resistance” and followed the city attorney’s recommendation to recuse himself.

He said Johnson, however, researched the law and determined that he could vote if he could show that there would be no impact to his property. With no financial effect, “you’re not committing a crime,” Farquhar told the jury.

Farquhar argued that the University had passed previous master plans with no resulting financial impact on the surrounding community.

“The master plan has never had any effect on the property,” Farquhar said, not “a penny” or “a dollar.” He said people weren’t “clamoring” toward La Verne and opening businesses based on the passing of the University’s master plans.

He added that the two expert witnesses he called had never used the University as a factor in their real estate appraisals because they believed it had never been shown that the campus had a financial effect on nearby properties. He asked the jury why Councilman Johnson would vote and subject himself to risk. “Would he vote to get himself in trouble” or so he could pay a lawyer to defend him, Farquhar asked?

Farquhar reminded the jury again that the University of La Verne’s master plan could not be compared with expansion plans at large universities like Yale or Stanford that have built large research or medical facilities. “We’re not talking Yale, we’re not talking Stanford,” Farquhar said.

Yale and Stanford had become unwitting trigger points in the conflict-of-interest trial because a professional appraiser called by the prosecution had cited the two elite universities as evidence supporting his opinion that the University of La Verne’s master plan would have a “positive effect” on local businesses closest to the college.

Farquhar said he was not disputing the fact that Johnson’s Arrow Hwy. business was within the 500-foot limit or that his client had a financial interest in the subject property. Rather, he wanted to recall for the jury that the Arrow property was separated from the University by a no-parking six-lane highway, railroad tracks and trees. Regarding Johnson’s two rentals on Third St., also within 500 feet of the University, Farquhar said the property was part of an historic area that “isn’t going to change.” Farquhar further noted that the University had completed 37 projects in 20 years. “Where is that boom?” he asked.

Because the government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, District Attorney Callahan was given the final summation. She told the jury that had Johnson wished to speak, he could have recused himself and simply stated his opinions during the public comment section of the council meeting.

She further said that she did not have to prove “financial effect,” only “presumed” financial effect.

She also asked the jury to consider the University’s “entire proposal,” not just the addition of a new student center and other piecemeal improvements. “Was the (Johnson’s) property affected by at least one penny?” she asked.

She told the jury the case it was considering was not about Johnson’s character or payback by “disgruntled” city officials.

She also questioned the accuracy of James Himes’ appraisal review because it was based on 2006 values, not 2007’s when the council voted to approve the master plan. She compared this appraisal process to baking a cake using the wrong measurements.

In closing, she again asked the jury, “Did their (the University’s) proposed change affect the properties owned by Mr. Johnson by even a penny?”

Finally, she rested her case with a statement. “By his own hand, we are here today.”

Monday, the jury will be given its instructions and begin its deliberations of the evidence and arguments presented to determine innocence or guilt.