FBI Official Backtracks on Mormon Favoritism Charge

A top FBI official who claimed he once confronted the head of the FBI’s Los Angeles office with charges of Mormon favoritism in the treatment of Richard W. Miller retreated from his testimony Thursday after an assault on his credibility by a federal prosecutor.

Bernardo (Matt) Perez, now the second ranking official in the FBI’s El Paso office, reversed his position during a tough cross-examination by U.S. Atty. Robert C. Bonner outside the presence of the jury in Miller’s espionage retrial.

Perez concluded by saying that he was “confused” and could no longer recall if the confrontation had ever taken place.

The defense case is pegged in part to the claim that Miller, an admitted bungler, was first coddled and then abused by Mormon superiors at the FBI’s Los Angeles office, where he worked as a counterintelligence agent until his arrest on Oct. 2, 1984, on charges of passing secret documents to the Soviet Union.

Bonner preceded his cross-examination by asking that Perez leave the courtroom. He then warned U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon, “I don’t want Mr. Perez to commit perjury or make a false statement to this court,” noting that Perez had “flatly contradicted” testimony he gave at Miller’s first trial during a private courtroom huddle with the judge and lawyers on Wednesday.

Perez had testified privately under oath Wednesday that he had personally accused Richard T. Bretzing, head of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, of showing favoritism to Miller while Perez served as Bretzing’s top administrative aide. Bretzing is a Mormon bishop.

The prosecutor cited conflicting testimony last Oct. 2 during Miller’s first espionage trial, when Perez had answered, “No, sir,” when asked if he had ever privately accused Bretzing of Mormon favoritism toward Miller.

Responding to Bonner, Kenyon at first expressed reservations about permitting the questioning of Perez to take place outside of the jury’s presence.

“It does appear that maybe we are favoring a witness from committing possible perjury where we would not favor another witness,” the judge said. “I don’t see the harm in doing it outside the jury, but I do not think it’s fair to tip him off.”

When Perez returned and took the witness stand, Bonner asked:

“Do you actually recall speaking to Richard Bretzing and accusing him of protecting Mr. Miller because he was Mormon?” “Yes, sir,” Perez said. “Miller and others.”

“What did you state to Mr. Bretzing?” Bonner demanded.

“I do not recall the words,” Perez said. “I did not accuse him of protecting Mr. Miller. I accused him of giving him favorable treatment . . . not recommending that he be fired. That’s different.”

As the questioning continued, Perez referred to other charges he made against Bretzing in formal complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility in Washington in 1983 and 1984.

“It was an incident we call the Mormon guard detail--it looked as if FBI officials were being used to guard a high Mormon official who was in Los Angeles,” Perez said, describing one of his charges. “I said if this was so, it appeared to be against the law. We are not allowed to perform guard duty on or off duty.”

During his cross-examination, Bonner disclosed for the first time that the complaint by Perez to the equal opportunity commission has been judged to be “unfounded” and that his other charges to the FBI have also been dismissed as invalid. He said the allegation of a “Mormon guard detail” had also been disproved.

“The fact is you never accused Bretzing of showing Mormon favoritism to Miller, isn’t it?” Bonner asked as Perez appeared to be faltering in his testimony.

“I can’t recall,” the FBI official responded.

After the exchange outside of the jury’s presence, Kenyon reversed a tentative ruling made Wednesday that would have allowed Perez to introduce the allegations of Mormon favoritism in his testimony as a defense witness for Miller, an excommunicated Mormon.

‘Matter of Relevancy’

“I agree it has some degree of relevancy--if the matter would not totally confuse the jury,” Kenyon said. “But by the time you get through, you could have a can of worms that could go on forever.”

Kenyon’s ruling set the stage for Perez to repeat his initial charges of favoritism toward Miller in front of the jury without referring to the Mormon religion.

“Did you ever accuse him (Bretzing) of favoritism to Mr. Miller for any reason ?” defense lawyer Stanley Greenberg asked.

“Yes,” Perez said, returning to his original position.

Bonner, taking an even tougher tone toward Perez in front of the jury, then continued his cross-examination by asking him if he could remember when and where he made the accusation and whether he could recall if anyone else was present.

Can’t Recall

“I don’t recall,” Perez said repeatedly to Bonner’s rapid-fire series of questions.

Although he had already succeeded in minimizing the impact of Perez’s testimony by persuading Kenyon to ban any mention of the Mormon issue, Bonner proceeded to challenge Perez’s motives by asking him if Bretzing had rated him as “minimally acceptable” in two categories in a July, 1983, performance rating.

“Yes,” said Perez.

“And in December, 1983, didn’t Bretzing put you on notice that your performance had deteriorated to an unsatisfactory level?” Bonner continued.

“Yes,” Perez replied.

Kenyon afterwards permitted the defense to get on the record the fact that Perez had lodged his personnel complaint against Bretzing in October, 1983, two months before Bretzing gave him his most negative review.