Councilman Johnson Exonerated in ‘Conflict’ Case

Councilman Steven Johnson with Defense Attorney Richard Farquhar outside the West Covina Superior Court building.

La Verne Councilman Steven Johnson will be celebrating Independence Day a little early after the jury today at about 11:30 a.m. issued a not guilty verdict in the conflict of interest case that had played out over the past week in the Department 8 courtroom at the West Covina Superior Court.

The jury’s verdict was vindication for Johnson who maintained that his January 16, 2007 decision to vote on the University of La Verne’s master plan was based on his belief that the two properties he owned within 500 feet of the University would not benefit financially from any proposed campus improvements, thus negating any conflict of interest.

Johnson appeared at once relieved by the burden of uncertainty that had suddenly been lifted from his shoulders after living with a case that took more than two years to come to trial. There was no gloating or “I-told-you-so’s” upon the news of his exoneration. There appeared as much a sense of exhaustion as elation. Had Johnson lost the case, in addition to having to pay a reported $10,000 fine, his membership on the council and local boards he sits on, as well as his very livelihood as an insurance agent, could have been impacted.

“Building up to this, there’s been just the relief of this two-and-a-half years finally coming to a conclusion,” Johnson said outside the courtroom moments after the jury’s decision was announced. “I felt from the very beginning the University of La Verne’s master plan was not going to affect my property. I thought I brought the proper documentation to the council meeting to support that. Through the trial, we brought that evidence to support my decision to stay in the meeting. I’m glad the jury felt the same way.”

Interestingly, the case seemingly turned on the expert witnesses called by both the prosecution and defense.

“We had Kirk (Johnson), who is an honest individual that was supported by Councilman and Mayor Kendrick, Steven Johnson said, “and Kirk restated his opinion with a little more clarity in the court. And we had another independent appraiser who does court work, and he also substantiated what Kirk said. So I think that’s what it came down to … the experts in the case supported by the decision to stay in.”

Johnson’s attorney, Richard Farquhar, said he grew more confident about the jury’s not guilty verdict when the jury only asked to hear back from appraiser Steven Smith, a witness called by the prosecution. “I think the jury was actually listening to us when we told them that they hadn’t presented any evidence that could show that there was any change of valuation on his property,” Farquhar said.

“So when we walked in this morning, I had a pretty good feeling. It’s always great when the jury actually understands the law and follows the law.”

Kirk Johnson, Councilman Johnson’s brother and a professional appraiser, had never appeared as a witness before in any trial, so when he was called to the stand in a case directly involving his brother, it was a unique family moment indeed.

“I felt a lot of pressure because I felt partly responsible for him even being in this situation, although going back to that date, I gave an honest opinion. I’m glad it all worked out.” Kirk Johnson had testified that the University’s master plan was not likely to have an effect on the councilman’s properties.

District Attorney Jonlyn Callahan accepted the jury’s decision.

“Obviously we’re disappointed in the verdict, but I respect their decision, and understand they had a problem with the issue of whether or not we were able to prove that there was this financial impact given the state of the economy,” Callahan said.

“That’s what they just told me,” added Callahan, who had just finished talking with jurors about their decision. “They felt the defense expert was a stronger expert than my expert.

“I suppose the only thing I could have done was maybe get an expert that was stronger, but I didn’t know, obviously, how my expert would testify. I only knew what the written report was. You don’t know how the person is going to be on the stand; you don’t know how they are going to appear on the stand.”

Had the case been too technical for a lay jury to understand given all the real estate, appraisal, Fair Political Practices Commission and Political Reform Act rules surrounding the case?

“I’m not sure it it’s too technical or maybe it’s just a decision that they felt was fair and just,” Callahan said. “I’m not sure. I can’t speak for the jurors. It is not a typical case where they have experience in this area. When you think about it, this is an unusual case. Political corruption is not something that somebody deals with on a daily basis, and so they wouldn’t know the elements of it as versus a petty theft or a robbery or something else that’s more commonplace.”

Brandon Jones was the jury foreman.

“The case was based on the appraisal of houses and properties,” said Jones, a Glendora graphic artist who was a La Verne resident for 19 years. “That was a little more difficult to tell in the light of the economy and all the other things that could affect it. There’s lots of variables going on right now. It’s hard to isolate the effect of the University from the effect of anything else on the market right now.”

Jones said it was difficult for the jury to reach a consensus.

“We felt the councilman had acted improperly. They spoke a lot about the appearance of impropriety. We felt that was there, absolutely. Ultimately, what it came (down) to, there is a special jury instruction that said that if you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the University plan would have an effect on the properties around (the University), we had to find the defendant not guilty. Ultimately, the evidence was just not in court.”

Jones also said the jury was specifically given instructions not to look at Johnson’s “intent” for voting.

“That’s kind of a dangerous territory in a jury room,” Jones said. “You could speculate lots of different reasons. You could get into conspiracy theories. We really didn’t want to go there. We just tried to go by our instructions as jurors.

“We were specifically told in our special instructions that if there was not the proof there in the evidence, we had to go ‘not guilty,’ he added. “That’s what it came down to.

“There wasn’t a lot of different things to talk about in there (the jury room), so we talked about the same things until everybody felt good about their vote.”

During the trial, Johnson had many friends and supporters watching the courtroom proceedings. Johnson’s wife Lori was outwardly calm and hopeful.

“Inside it was turmoil, it was nerve-wracking,” she said.

How were she and the councilman going to celebrate the rest of the day, finally free and independent of all legal wranglings?

“We get to leave and never come back,” Mrs. Johnson said.

After more than two years, from left, Lori Johnson, Steven Johnson, Attorney Richard Farquhar and Kirk Johnson can put the councilman's conflict of interest case behind them. Moments earlier a jury had exonerated Johnson of conflict of interest charges.