For example, the papers include the number of visits and calls involving Carradine. They also include a sworn declaration by Pellicano's attorney in previous matters, Don Re, that he represented Pellicano from November 2002 to Dec. 13, 2005. In his declaration, Re also said he did not agree with the government's claim that he might be disqualified from representing Pellicano.
Whether the new details will be enough to warrant a hearing remains uncertain.
In their court papers, prosecutors Saunders and Lally said the government has not decided if it will call Carradine as a witness, and if it does, it will limit her testimony to how Pellicano allegedly wiretapped her ex-husband during their divorce.
In an interview Friday, Carradine's former attorney, Peter Knecht, also confirmed the government's assertion that she was repeatedly told that she was not acting at the behest of authorities when visiting Pellicano.
"They didn't ask her to go in [to state prison], and they made it very clear to her that she was not going in at their request," Knecht said.
But when Carradine went to authorities with information about an alleged plot to harm others, Knecht said, they were obliged to listen. "If she goes inside prison and finds out something that may save a life, what are they going to do, turn their back on it?" Knecht said.
"Besides," Knecht added, "in my opinion they can make this case [against Pellicano] without using anything she told them. I think they have enough evidence against him with words out of his own mouth and tapes and other witnesses."
Criminal defense attorney Thomas Sleisenger, who recently left the U.S. attorney's office after 17 years, said the accusations of government misconduct in the Pellicano case underscore the delicate balancing act for prosecutors whenever they have informants who may figure in a trial.
"Any time you have a cooperating defendant who has access to another defendant, you are always worried about their information and whether, in trying to curry favor with you, they might do something inappropriate under the law," Sleisenger said.
"The most disturbing part of this to me is what was going on between Carradine and Ornellas . . . what did Ornellas know and what did he do with the information she was telling him?" Sleisenger said. "It seems to me that is something that would need to be resolved before the court could make a ruling" about whether Pellicano's rights were violated.
greg.krikorian@latimes.com
