Email this page
Print this page
del.icio.us
digg
FeedGuilty by Association
Photo by Darren Thompson
But surely you remember Strippergate. That cast included three San Diego city councilmen: Charles Lewis (who died before the federal trial began), Ralph Inzunza (who had a press liaison whose job seemingly was to not return media calls) and Michael Zucchet.
Inzunza and Zucchet were convicted by a jury, found guilty of conspiring with a strip club owner to ease local laws against laying hands on professionally nude ladies. Inzunza is busy preparing an appeal. But what happened to Zucchet?
After the jury conviction, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller took the highly unusual step of essentially reversing Zucchet’s guilty verdict. Seven of nine counts were rescinded by Miller, who also indicated evidence supporting the remaining two counts was shaky at best.
The San Diego U.S. Attorney’s office wants to appeal Miller’s reversal. The final decision to go forward with a prosecutorial appeal is in the hands of the federal Office of the Solicitor General in Washington, D.C. That decision is expected in April.
Local U.S. Attorney Carol Lam’s office would not comment on the pending decision. Her office must expect Washington to okay the appeal. But Zucchet’s lawyer is optimistic that won’t happen.
“I always believed we could win Mike’s case in court, but not necessarily in front of a jury,” says attorney Jerry Coughlin. “And even after the conviction by the jury, I believed it would be overturned.”
Coughlin says the jury was swept up in a “heightened, hysterical view of public officials.” Meaning any public official in the ethically challenged San Diego political landscape was guilty of something.
In the written words of Judge Miller: “. . . the court finds that a grant of a new trial for defendant Zucchet is in the interest of justice. While the record amply shows that Zucchet engaged in deceitful conduct with the [committee meeting] charade and took no official action to address his suspicion of corruption within the vice unit of the SDPD, the court concludes that the evidence sufficiently preponderates against the verdict such that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred as a result of the guilty verdicts for Zucchet. . .”
The judge isn’t exactly offering a call for Zucchet’s reelection. Ignoring corruption and engaging in deceitful practices aren’t supposed to be politics as usual. But Miller does indicate that the evidence does not show Zucchet broke the law.
“IF THERE’S NO APPEAL, technically, yes, you could say Zucchet lost his job for no legal reason,” says former state Assemblyman Jeff Marston. “The whole thing is tragic—he may have given it all up for nothing.”
The case against Zucchet hinges on proving a quid pro quo—that Zucchet acted to repeal a “no-touch” rule in strip clubs in return for campaign contributions and/or evidence of a surprise cash bribe possibility introduced mid-trial.
Judge Miller ruled that, unlike his co-defendants, taped recordings showed Zucchet did not appear to be “on board” with a plan to repeal no-touch. In the two counts the judge did not reverse, he believes “evidence barely suffices” that Zucchet might have accepted a cash bribe in exchange for getting a strip club zoning issue brought before the city’s Public Safety & Neighborhood Services committee.
A man named Dave Waddell stood before Zucchet in that committee and asked that strip-club zoning be discussed. The man was a stooge who lived in Las Vegas and was put up to the task by the strip club owner’s lobbyist. Waddell gave a fraudulent address and said he lived in San Diego.
Zucchet admits he knew “someone” was going to bring up strip club zoning that day. But he insists he was told the person would be a legal resident of his district.
Marston says this is common political practice. “When I was in the legislature, I would sit down with folks who had a view I agreed with, but I knew their view wouldn’t be warmly met,” he says. “So I would say, ‘Have your constituent write me a letter.’ You are almost expected to do that. But you can’t make it up.
“That’s why I feel sorry for [Zucchet], because this kind of stuff—politics—happens all the time. I don’t know him well, but I find him a class act. He seems conscientious, and he’s definitely not stupid.”
City Council president Scott Peters sat next to Zucchet during council meetings. Peters is anxious for all of the city’s legal woes—underfunded pension, et cetera —to disappear. “We’ve had a cloud over our collective head for years,” he says. On Zucchet’s case: “If it ends up with no charges against him, it will have been a huge shame and a waste of resources. It will have ruined the political career of someone who is very smart and provided leadership.”
YOU MIGHT DETERMINE ZUCCHET got sucker punched. On the day those three city council offices were raided, Zucchet sat down and talked to the FBI for three and a half hours. Without an attorney. Doesn’t he watch The Sopranos?
He doesn’t regret his naiveté. “If you’re asking my advice today, it would be ‘Never, ever, ever, ever cooperate,’ ” he says. “Every attorney I talked to said, ‘Are you an imbecile?’ But my thought at the time was that I’d had some conversations with some crazy characters, and I’ll do what I can to help law enforcement.”
These days, the 36-year-old Zucchet is a consultant, and a project manager at Utility Consumers’ Action Network. He owes his lawyer hundreds of thousands of dollars. But he’s making considerably more money in the private sector than he did in public service.
Zucchet and his wife, Teresa, moved from a two-bedroom house in Loma Portal to a three-bedroom in Sunset Cliffs in December 2004—they upgraded months before his trial began. Their first child, Molly, was born a month after the FBI raid. Teresa is pregnant again; the couple is expecting a baby boy in April.
In a post-conviction letter to Judge Miller, Teresa shares her frustration regarding the perception of her husband’s involvement with the strip club industry. She notes they both have long wanted to rid Loma Portal of strip club Les Girls (a point Michael Zucchet has repeatedly made in explaining why he ever agreed to meet with a strip club lobbyist).
“Les Girls is a horrific eyesore,” Teresa writes. “We were so embarrassed by Les Girls that if out-of-town visitors were coming to see us, we would give them directions to exit Sea World Drive instead of Rosecrans . . . We did not want an unsightly strip club to be the first thing our visitors saw when they exited the freeway.”
Teresa believes “much of Mike’s feelings were generated from my constant pestering and pleading with him to do something.”
“I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S ZEN or whatever, but obviously the universe didn’t want me being a politician in San Diego,” says Michael Zucchet. “Now, I’m on a completely different path. I have faith it’s for the better. There’s just a shocking amount of good things that have come out of this whole hellacious experience.
“Now, I’m positive about the future. I would have been much nastier in an interview four months ago. It used to really bother me. I would flip the TV to channel 24 and watch a televised council meeting and go, ‘This is really screwed.’ I think that I absolutely got screwed, but I’m getting over it quicker than I thought I would.
“Do I think every politician is guilty of something? No. Do I think any prosecutor could successfully prosecute any elected official in front of a jury? Yes.”
Recall that on the day the jury convicted him, Zucchet had just been named acting mayor. His tenure was shorter than Britney Spears’ first marriage. “Yeah, being cheated out of that job—that is what I’m most bitter about. My one day as deputy mayor was no fun.”
Does commiseration for Zucchet equal sympathy for the devil?
For what it’s worth, in this specific case, I don’t think so.
Do you like what you read? Subscribe to San Diego Magazine »
