Defense attorneys in Chandra Levy case delving into Gary Condit’s life | McClatchy Washington Bureau

Defense attorneys for Ingmar Guandique, the man convicted of killing Chandra Levy, are now homing in on former San Joaquin Valley congressman Gary Condit as they prepare for a second trial in the case.

In new filings, attorneys revealed plans to depose three women who said they had affairs with the married former congressman while he was in the House. The proposed depositions underscore an aggressive defense strategy that fingers other potential suspects and mark the latest turn in an extraordinary investigation that isn’t over yet.

“We need to keep the ball rolling,” defense attorney Jonathan Anderson, said at a pre-trial hearing Friday.

Prosecutors, though, want to block the depositions of the three women, in part, they say, because the women have nothing relevant to say about Levy’s death in 2001.

“None of the deposition witnesses listed were present in the District of Columbia when Chandra Levy was killed,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines noted in a May 12 court filing. “None of the listed deposition witnesses knew the defendant. None of the listed deposition witnesses knew the decedent.”

Bret Peace, an attorney and friend of the Condit family, blasted the defense tactics in a statement.

“Defense attorneys, paid by taxpayers, are once again flying around the country interviewing people who know nothing about Mr. Guandique or Ms. Levy,” Peace said. “How much money between law enforcement and the public defender’s office has been spent chasing a known dead-end? Are U.S. citizens receiving the same level of funding from the public defender or is this a special case?

“Nobody believes that Mr. Condit had anything to do with Ms. Levy’s tragic murder,” Peace added. “At this point, had he been given the benefit of being charged, he would be the most renowned and deserving client of the Innocence Project. Instead, here we go again with an incredulous third-party defense strategy that affords Mr. Condit none of the rights to defend himself that have been afforded to the accused.”

The deposition fight, in turn, precedes a trial scheduled to start in October that already looks different from the November 2010 one that resulted in Guandique’s conviction.

Then, a jury concluded Guandique had killed Levy in Washington’s Rock Creek Park shortly before the 24-year-old former Bureau of Prisons intern was to return to her family’s Modesto, California, home.

Prosecutors summoned Condit to testify at Guandique’s first trial, where he said he had nothing to do with Levy’s disappearance or death. He repeatedly declined at the time to elaborate on his relationship with the much younger woman, though a prosecutor declared Condit was “having an affair” with Levy.

“I didn’t commit any crime, and I didn’t do any harm,” Condit testified.

Though Guandique’s original defense team pressed Condit on cross-examination, they did not build their case around him as an alternative suspect. The new defense team showed its different approach with a court filing May 10.

In the notice, attorneys said they would be deposing Anne Marie Smith, a flight attendant who went public in 2001 with allegations that she had an affair with Condit. Last week, defense attorneys declared they would also be deposing a former Condit staffer, Joleen McKay, who in 2001 allegedly said she, too, had had an affair with Condit.

Defense attorneys have likewise declared their intentions to depose Sue Borges Rossi, who told the National Enquirer in 2001 that she had had an affair with Condit.

Judge Robert E. Morin, of the D.C. Superior Court, did not entirely tip his hand Friday about whether he would allow the defense depositions to proceed, though he noted “the government has raised some legitimate concerns.” A follow-up hearing next Thursday could resolve the issue.

The defense attorneys did not elaborate Friday on their specific reasons for wanting to question the three women, but it appears consistent with their broader investigation that’s been spelled out in past requests for documents from prosecutors.

Earlier this year, for instance, the defense attorneys asked for documents that include Condit’s bank, telephone and credit card records, as well as “any records from Mr. Condit’s gym” around the time of Levy’s disappearance.

The inquiries appear aimed at buttressing what lawyers sometimes call a “third-party culpability” defense, in which they raise a “reasonable possibility” that someone other than the defendant may be guilty.