Special Prosecutor’s Selection Is Upheld : U.S. Court OKs Move to Counter North’s Challenge

WASHINGTON — A federal judge today upheld the Justice Department’s parallel appointment on March 5 of special prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh, aimed at countering Lt. Col. Oliver North’s challenge to the constitutionality of Walsh’s appointment by a judicial panel.

Chief U.S. District Judge Aubrey E. Robinson Jr. found that the Justice Department’s regulation making Walsh an independent counsel “was factually and legally valid and that appropriate authority has been vested in him and his associates.”

Robinson made the ruling on the latest challenge to Walsh’s authority to investigate the Iran- contra affair. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here had ordered Robinson to consider whether Walsh’s backup appointment as independent counsel was valid.

Another Issue

But the ruling does not address the constitutionality of the Ethics in Government Act, under which Walsh’s appointment was made by a special three-judge court, and which North also has challenged.

The court fight stemmed from North’s refusal to comply with a subpoena for a sample of his handwriting. North’s attorneys contended that Walsh did not have legal authority as a prosecutor to obtain the grand jury subpoena.

Robinson’s opinion stated that he would file an accompanying sealed order because it “contains matters occurring before the grand jury.”

The sealed order apparently relates to the handwriting subpoena that Walsh is seeking to enforce on North.

Held in Contempt

North had been held in contempt of court by Robinson, a finding that was apparently overturned by the appellate court.

Much of the case is sealed, but court records indicate that North had been held in contempt in May.

Robinson had also been directed to determine whether any relationship between the special court that appointed Walsh under the Ethics in Government Act and the independent counsel’s office required a review of the statute’s constitutionality.

The judge said that he saw no need to make a constitutional ruling of the law.

Robinson cited a 1974 Supreme Court ruling upholding the Justice Department’s authority to appoint the Watergate special prosecutor as a basis for his decision.

‘Almost Identical’

“The authority and independence of the Watergate special prosecutor was almost identical to that enjoyed by Mr. Walsh,” Robinson wrote.

Robinson also rejected arguments by North’s attorneys that Walsh had not properly accepted the backup appointment conferred by the Justice Department.

Walsh’s signature on the appointment form issued by the Justice Department “indicates that he, although independent counsel under the Ethics in Government Act, consented to the attorney general’s appointment of him as independent counsel under the regulation.”

“Mr. Walsh knew that the scope of his authority, the degree of his independence, and the particulars of his office under the regulation are identical with those under the Ethics in Government Act.”