San Diego – Three San Diego city councilmen and other defendants are scheduled to appear in federal court this morning for the first round of debates on legal matters related to the City Hall corruption case.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys for Councilmen Ralph Inzunza, Charles Lewis, Michael Zucchet, council aide David Cowan and strip club lobbyist Lance Malone are expected to argue issues related to the sharing of evidence, trial dates and whether the case should be split in two.

But a motion alleging government misconduct, which was introduced Monday by attorneys for the councilmen will not be discussed at the hearing. The motion was rejected by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller yesterday, according to court records that did not specify the reason.

The judge may have filed a “deficiency notice” because the defense motion was submitted after the filing deadline. In that case, it’s possible the judge will allow the submission later.

The motion claimed that the government improperly used a San Diego vice detective and an FBI spy to “set up” the three councilmen by convincing them that vice detectives favored a repeal of the no-touch rule at strip clubs because they would rather be fighting crime than policing strip clubs.

A grand jury issued an indictment Aug. 28 alleging that Cheetahs strip club owner Michael Galardi, Cheetahs manager John D’Intino and Galardi lobbyist Lance Malone paid the three councilman to help repeal the no-touch rule at strip clubs. Strip clubs and dancers likely would make more money if the no-touch law were repealed.

The councilmen and Malone have pleaded not guilty and said any money was legally reported as campaign contributions. Galardi and D’Intino have pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against the others.

Also scheduled to appear at tomorrow’s hearing is Charles Tappe, who is charged in an alleged machine-gun trafficking plot with D’Intino out of Cheetahs.

Attorneys for the councilmen and Cowan are asking the judge to divide the case so that their clients are separated from defendants who admitted paying off the vice detective in exchange for warnings of police raids. They said their clients had no involvement in or knowledge of that aspect of the case.

However, the prosecution said in court papers that the two matters are intertwined because they are part of the same plan. The vice detective who took the payments was actually working with the FBI.

The defense also has asked the judge to dismiss the case because it says the charges are based on a statute that is ambiguous. Prosecutors have countered that the case is not vague and that the details of the alleged conspiracy are spelled out in the indictment.

The judge is expected to decide whether the case will be designated as “complex” based on its complicated nature, the number of defendants and the volume of pretrial information that has been compiled, which is likely to amount to thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations. If the case were designated complex, the trial would be delayed.