|
Condit subpoenaed { March 26 2002 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16957-2002Mar25.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16957-2002Mar25.html
Rep. Condit Subpoenaed By Grand Jury
By Allan Lengel and Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 26, 2002; Page B01
A grand jury investigating the disappearance of Chandra Levy has
subpoenaed Rep. Gary A. Condit to testify in early April, according
to law enforcement sources.
The D.C. Superior Court grand jury is looking into what happened
to the missing 24-year-old intern and probing allegations of
obstruction of justice involving Condit (D-Calif.) and possibly others,
the sources said.
The grand jury also plans to call other witnesses, including Levy's
friends and acquaintances and members of Condit's staff, the sources
said. Attempts last night to reach Mike Lynch, Condit's chief of staff
in Modesto, Calif., by phone were unsuccessful.
The decision to issue grand jury subpoenas comes nearly a year after
Levy mysteriously vanished May 1 while making plans to return to
California for her graduate school commencement ceremony at the
University of Southern California in Los Angeles. She had just
finished an internship at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons in Washington.
After more than a thousand interviews and thousands of tips, officials
say investigators still have no clue as to what happened to Levy.
Two D.C. police detectives and two FBI agents continue to work on
the case.
"There have been no new leads, but still there's a lot of information
that's being sorted through," said D.C. Police Chief Charles H.
Ramsey. "That's what our detectives are doing along with the U.S.
attorney's office."
Law enforcement sources say it is not unusual at this stage of an
investigation to call witnesses before the grand jury to get their
testimony on the court record before they forget details in a probe
that could go on for years.
The grand jury can also be used to get witnesses to be more
forthcoming because they are testifying under oath, sources said.
Witnesses can invoke their Fifth Amendment right not to testify if the
testimony is potentially self-incriminating.
Authorities, who searched Condit's apartment, took DNA samples
and subpoenaed his bank, credit card and phone records, have said
repeatedly that he is not a suspect. But they publicly complained that
he was less than forthright in some of their meetings with him.
Condit, who this month lost his primary race in central California
seeking reelection, has admitted to investigators that he and Levy
had an affair. But he has denied knowing anything about her
disappearance. The grand jury subpoenaed records in November
from his congressional office, including telephone message slips,
calendars and constituent mail.
Linda Zamksy, an aunt of Levy's, said she was pleased "that they are
going to keep the investigation going and do a grand jury. Anything
that will find Chandra will make me happy."
The grand jury, according to law enforcement sources, is concerned
about allegations that Condit and others may have intentionally
deceived investigators. In one instance, a former United Airlines flight
attendant, Anne Marie Smith, has said Condit tried to get her to sign
an untruthful affidavit denying that she and Condit had an affair.
"If they bring him in, they would want to ask him about anything and
everything," said David Schertler, a former assistant U.S. attorney
who is not involved in the case. "They can talk to him about different
investigations, including the disappearance of Chandra as well as his
version of what happened with Anne Marie Smith."
But Schertler was skeptical about whether there is anything more to
learn from Condit.
"I don't think Gary Condit will have any more to say in a grand jury
room than he said in a conference room with detectives and
lawyers," he said. Investigators will be using the grand jury not to get
more out of Condit but "to get certain other people to talk."
Without a body or signs of foul play, Levy's case is still considered a
missing persons case, not a homicide. But that classification hasn't
changed the thoroughness of the probe, authorities say.
"It couldn't be more comprehensive than it's been," Ramsey said.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
|
|
