Judge Bars Ex-Intern Evidence in Jones Case

WASHINGTON —  As the judicial wheels that will ultimately determine President Clinton’s fate began to turn, a federal judge ruled on Thursday that the allegations of sexual impropriety and possible perjury by Clinton and former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky are not essential and will not be used in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual-harassment lawsuit.

At the same time, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright rejected a request by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr to put the Jones case on hold while his criminal investigation goes forward. Starr argued that Jones’ lawyers were interfering in his inquiry by subpoenaing potential witnesses.

Halting the Jones case would have given Starr the field all to himself, but legal analysts differed Thursday night on what the ruling’s larger effect might be.

Some suggested that the ruling excluding the Lewinsky statements might be devastating to Starr’s investigation. If the sworn statements that Clinton and Lewinsky gave to Jones’ lawyers are not admissible in the case, then they cannot be used as a basis for possible perjury or obstruction of justice, those experts said.

Other analysts, however, insisted that Wright’s decisions had no such implications on the criminal investigation, which has been considered far more threatening to Clinton and his presidency than Jones’ civil suit.

The independent counsel’s prosecutors believe the ruling would not preclude criminal charges, according to people familiar with the matter.

A spokeswoman for Starr, Deborah Gershman, declined to say whether he would appeal Wright’s decision to allow the Jones case to proceed. “We don’t comment on motions until we file them,” Gershman said.

For the immediate future, the rulings contained good news and bad news for the president. The good news was that removing the Lewinsky matter narrows the field of battle in the Jones case and may make it easier for Clinton to defend himself if the case comes to trial as scheduled on May 27.

The bad news is that the president must continue to fight a two-front war. And from Clinton’s perspective, at least, the two proceedings have had a dangerous synergy in recent weeks. It was Jones’ lawyers, after all, who helped force into the open almost all the allegations concerning Clinton and Lewinsky that now form the heart of Starr’s inquiry.

In sworn statements given to Jones’ lawyers, both Clinton and Lewinsky denied having an intimate relationship. The secret tape-recordings of Lewinsky’s conversations about her alleged affair with Clinton were made by a co-worker, Linda Tripp, who had also been subpoenaed in the Jones case.

Clinton Job Rating at 73%, Poll Shows

Meanwhile, there were these other developments:

* Public approval of the way Clinton is handling the country’s business continued to rise. A CBS News poll taken after a week of lurid allegations showed his approval rating at 73%, the highest ever for his presidency and higher than for any recent chief executive at this stage.

* Apparently warned off by such poll numbers, conservative political leaders meeting here avoided direct criticism of the president. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) went no further than mentioning “the difficulties we see developing around the White House” as a reason why conservatives and their GOP allies should take a positive approach rather than simply attack their foes.

* Prospects that Starr would give Lewinsky immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony appeared to fall. Her attorney, William Ginsburg, met with Starr in person for nearly an hour and emerged unusually tight-lipped:

“I have no comment on the meeting that took place this morning,” Ginsburg told The Times. “I will say only this: We are now making progress on preparing Monica’s defense.” On Wednesday, Ginsburg had said that he hoped to “have a deal or no deal” by week’s end.

In Little Rock, Ark., Wright’s order excluded any evidence regarding the Lewinsky matter from being used in the Jones lawsuit.

The judge was reacting to Starr’s complaint that lawyers for Jones were “shadowing” witnesses that the special prosecutor has begun taking before the federal grand jury in Washington.

Lawyers Sought to Bolster Case

Jones’ lawyers had hoped to buttress their harassment case with allegations of other Clinton improprieties.

But Wright sided with Starr by ruling that relevant evidence may be excluded from a case for a number of reasons, including if it is unfairly prejudicial or confuses or delays a lawsuit.

“The court would await resolution of the criminal investigation currently underway if the Lewinsky evidence were essential to the plaintiff’s case,” the judge said. “The court determines, however, that it is not essential to the core issues in this case.”

The judge added: “Admitting any evidence of the Lewinsky matter would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and would undoubtedly cause undue expense and delay.”

Wright also said, pointedly, that other evidence that suggests improper activity by the president might still be allowed during the trial.

Jones’ lawyer, Donovan Campbell Jr. of Dallas, responded by saying he “forcefully disagrees” with Wright’s decision about Lewinsky and will appeal it.

“This,” he said, “is clearly erroneous and represents plain error and an abuse of discretion.”

In Pasadena, Susan Carpenter-McMillan, Jones’ spokeswoman, rejected Starr’s allegations of interference. “Just because we collided in our pretrial discovery, that doesn’t mean we are shadowing their witnesses,” she said. “It’s just that the trains are crossing the same track right now.”

Complications Seen for Prosecutor

Paul M. Rothstein, professor of law at Georgetown University in Washington and an author of several texts on federal laws of evidence, said he believes Wright’s ruling could seriously complicate any move by Starr to prosecute Lewinsky or Clinton for making false statements in the Jones case about their relationship.

Federal law requires that a statement be not only false but “material” in order for a perjury prosecution.

On that basis, Clinton’s lawyers could argue that his deposition statements are no longer material, Rothstein said.

The argument “is not airtight, but at the very least it strengthens the president’s hand in all this,” he said. “There’s a good argument that it is no longer material.”

Laurie Levenson, associate dean of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former prosecutor, disagreed. The judge’s language in the ruling “says the stuff is still relevant, but it’s not worth the hassle” to have it in the case, she said.

Because of that “it is still material.”

But, Levenson added, “it raises some thorny issues” and is “not open and shut.”

In the CBS poll, while 73% of those surveyed approved of the way the president is handling his job, 24% said they disapproved. Responses on what those surveyed thought about Clinton personally reflected the sharp distinction Americans appear to be making between his personal life and his professional performance: only 48% said they had a favorable opinion of Clinton.

Muted Voices From the Right

The continuing strength of public support for Clinton’s presidency was the chief factor muting the voices of right-wing political activists who attended the 25th annual conservative political conference here Thursday. Most were the sort of conservative movers and shakers that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton presumably had in mind when she complained of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband.

Former Tennessee governor and presidential hopeful Lamar Alexander spoke fleetingly of recent events in the White House amounting to “a national embarrassment.” But when asked to elaborate he would only say: “It’s a national embarrassment that speaks for itself.”

“In a sense, no one in Congress or elsewhere knows what did or did not happen,” David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, said. “This is a peculiarly personal problem. It has political implications. But what he [Clinton] might have done in a personal sense is not the same thing as what he did in his State of the Union speech.”

But Rep. David M. McIntosh (R-Ind.), while granting Clinton the presumption of innocence on the facts of the case, rejected the distinction between public responsibility and private behavior. “If you would cheat and lie to those you love, you would cheat and lie to the American public,” he declared.

Times staff writers Robert L. Jackson, David Lauter, Robert Shogan and Elizabeth Shogren contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Paula Corbin Jones Case

Key events in Paula Corbin Jones’ sexual harassment case against President Clinton:

1994

May 6: Jones files a civil suit against Clinton, seeking $700,000 in damages. Clinton is accused of “sexually harassing and assaulting” her, then defaming her with denials.

Aug. 10: Clinton files a motion to dismiss Jones’ suit on grounds of presidential immunity.

Dec. 28: U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright rules that a trial cannot take place until Clinton leaves office, but fact-finding procedures can proceed.

****

1995

Jan. 17: Jones asks the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to reverse the decision postponing a trial.

Feb. 24: Judge Wright delays fact-finding in the case, pending a ruling by the appeals court.

Sept. 14: An appeals court panel hears Clinton’s lawyers argue that allowing Jones’ case to proceed while the president is in office would distract him from more important matters. Jones’ lawyers argue she should have the same rights as anyone else bringing a lawsuit.

****

1996

Jan. 9: The panel rules 2-1 that Jones’ lawsuit can go to trial.

May 15: Clinton asks the Supreme Court to delay Jones’ case until he leaves office.

June 24: The Supreme Court agrees to consider whether Jones’ lawsuit should be delayed until Clinton leaves office; lawsuit on hold until after the November election.

****

1997

May 27: The Supreme Court rules that lawsuit can move ahead.

Aug. 22: Wright sets a May 28, 1998, trial date but dismisses the claim that Clinton defamed Jones.

December: New defense team ups settlement demands from $700,000 to $2 million.

****

1998

Jan. 17: Clinton questioned by Jones’ attorneys in his lawyer Robert S. Bennett’s office.

Jan. 29: Judge rules alleged affair with intern cannot be allowed as evidence in Jones case.