Jones’ Lawyers Offer Court a Deal to Delay Clinton Trial

WASHINGTON —  Attorneys for Paula Corbin Jones revealed Tuesday that they would be willing to delay their May sexual-harassment trial against President Clinton if they could use evidence obtained in the independent counsel’s investigation of the relationship between former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky and the president.

To accomplish that goal, Jones’ lawyers asked the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to overturn U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright’s order precluding evidence in the Lewinsky matter from the Jones trial.

Thus far, Jones’ attorneys have been moving steadily toward trial, now set to begin May 27. Their new filing reflects their eagerness to bolster a case that faces a tough challenge in meeting the precise requirements of sexual-harassment law.

Jones’ lawyers said they believe the Lewinsky evidence is so important that their trial can wait until after independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr completes his criminal investigation into whether Clinton had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky and encouraged her or others to lie about it under oath--an inquiry that could take months.

Jones’ attorneys said in court papers that Wright, in disallowing the Lewinsky evidence, helped Clinton politically and made it harder for Jones to prove her allegations of repeated misconduct by the president.

“The district court concluded that it is more important to protect Mr. Clinton’s stated political desires than to permit Mrs. Jones to present her claims with crucial supporting evidence,” they said.

Robert S. Bennett, the chief attorney for Clinton in the Jones matter, did not have an immediate reaction to the appeal filed in St. Louis. In the past, Bennett has sought to limit any Lewinsky evidence from being included in the Jones case and has asked for a speedy trial.

The Jones request to the appellate court accused Wright, who would preside over the trial, of favoring the president.

Her lawyers also complained that Wright first allowed them to collect evidence about the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship, then ordered it excluded when Starr’s criminal investigation burst into the public spotlight.

If Wright’s order is not overturned, Jones’ lawyers told the appellate court, “Mrs. Jones will be forced to go to trial without significant evidence which [Wright] has repeatedly held is relevant.”

To prove that Clinton sexually harassed Jones, her lawyers are trying to build a case showing that whereas Jones rebuffed Clinton’s alleged advance, women who did not were rewarded with new or better jobs. They allege that Lewinsky had an affair with Clinton and received job placement assistance from Clinton advisor Vernon E. Jordan Jr.

“In effect, [Wright] has adopted and elevated White House damage control to constitutional heights. It is apparent that [Wright’s] orders were to benefit the person currently holding the office of the presidency, not the office of the presidency itself, ignoring the distinction . . . between citizen Clinton and the office of the president.”

In Little Rock, Ark., meanwhile, Wright issued an order apparently aimed at Jones’ lawyers, saying they may have violated her order against publicly releasing court filings that identified a “Jane Doe” or that she had not yet received.

Jones’ attorneys on Saturday filed a motion in Pine Bluff, Ark., that Wright said in the order she had not yet seen, and issued a press release about it. The filing and the release named a woman that the lawyers said had been sexually assaulted by Clinton.

On Monday, Clinton’s lawyers unsealed court transcripts in which the woman denied having been raped by Clinton 20 years ago. Lawyers found in contempt of the judge’s orders would be “subject to the full range of sanctions,” Wright said in her order Tuesday.

Meanwhile, another woman the Jones team has sought as a witness acknowledged that she had consensual sex with Clinton in 1983 when he was governor of Arkansas. Elizabeth Ward Gracen, a former Miss America, told the New York Daily News:

“I had sex with Bill Clinton but the important part to me is that I was never pressured. We had an intimate evening. Nothing was ever forced. It was completely consensual.”

Gracen is a television star in the series “Highlander” and posed for Playboy magazine after being named Miss Arkansas. Earlier she had denied any liaison with Clinton. She has been dodging subpoenas from the Jones lawyers.

She said the sexual encounter with Clinton occurred in a Little Rock apartment when both were married. She said they had flirted during a ride in his limousine. Their evening rendezvous came a few days later.

“He’s a very charming, handsome man,” she said. Clinton later pursued her with phone calls but she broke off the relationship, she said.

Jim Kennedy, a White House spokesman, offered a one-sentence response to Gracen’s statements: “We’re not commenting about a 15-year-old story.”

Also Tuesday, two White House aides made return visits to a grand jury in Washington that is reviewing evidence about Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky.

First to testify was Nancy Hernreich, who, as director of Oval Office operations, has been the chief gatekeeper for people who want to visit with Clinton. Hernreich, whom Starr’s prosecutors have questioned several times before the Lewinsky grand jury, left the federal courthouse in Washington without commenting.

The day’s other witness, longtime Clinton friend Marsha Scott, is the No. 3 staff member in the presidential personnel office. Scott, who had testified twice before, has been of interest to Starr in part because of her close friendship with the Clintons and Webster L. Hubbell, the convicted former associate attorney general.

As she left the courthouse, Scott questioned whether prosecutors are interested in the truth. “It is designed to be very intimidating and very frightening, also very isolating,” said Scott. “They have preconceived notions of what they want us to say and do. I refuse to participate in that. I and my other colleagues are trying to find the truth. I don’t feel that necessarily is what they [prosecutors] are trying to do.”

Times staff writers David Willman and Tom Schultz contributed to this story.