Troubles deepen for Lasaga and Yale

SHAWN CHENG/YH

Dressed in a beige prison outfit and a pair of Converse sneakers, former Saybrook Master Antonio Lasaga was escorted by federal marshals into a sparsely populated courtroom on the fourth floor of the U.S. District Court building in Bridgeport, Conn. on Mon., Aug. 29.

As the marshals unlocked his handcuffs, Lasaga smiled at his wife, Evelyn, and sat down between his two attorneys. For the next hour, lawyers for Lasaga and for the government wrangled over whether Lasaga could be released from the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center, a federal, maximum-security prison in Central Falls, R.I. Lasaga had spent much of August at Wyatt after a federal judge agreed with government lawyers that Lasaga had violated the conditions of his bond by accessing Yale's geology department computer system in an effort to tamper with files belonging to a potential witness in the case.

It was an eerie sight; certainly, no one could have envisioned it a year earlier, when Lasaga was welcoming Saybrook freshmen and preparing for another year as the popular professor of Physical and Environmental Geology. But a 1998-99 academic year that saw authorities slap Lasaga with federal child pornography and state sexual assault charges changed everything.

As soon as University officials learned of the charges against Lasaga, Yale announced that the professor had resigned from his post as Master. In the months that followed, the Administration was upfront about having placed Lasaga on paid leave. It stated that deliberations about his tenure would come at a later date.

But several months have passed since Yale made those statements, and now, as the federal case against Lasaga slowly progresses towards what child pornography experts say will likely be incarceration, Yale faces a decision over what to do about Lasaga's status. And University administrators, who were once open about Lasaga's relationship with Yale, have fallen silent over whether they're still paying the professor—and over what might be done to end his relationship with the University.

Trials and tribulations

DANIEL SILK/YH FILE PHOTO SUMMER OF DISCONTENT: The summer brought good news for former Saybrook Master Antonio Lasaga, who was arraigned on federal child pronography charges in July. Lasaga pled not guilty to all the charges.

At Monday's hearing, Lasaga's attorney, William F. Dow III, argued that Lasaga be allowed to return to his home under house arrest. U.S. Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel agreed and released Lasaga to home confinement, a decision which sustained an appeal by government attorneys on Wed., Sept. 1.

While Lasaga and his wife were visibly relieved by the ruling, Garfinkel told the professor that this was his last reprieve. "This

just has to be the last time this matter can come before me for consideration," Garfinkel said forcefully. "It's sad, but true that Lasaga has continually pushed the envelope of what this court and the probation department have allowed him to do."

Lasaga's latest court woes capped off a busy summer for his federal case. On Thurs., June 17, a federal grand jury indicted the former Master on four counts of receipt and three counts of possession of child pornography. The indictment charges Lasaga with knowingly receiving "thousands of graphic image files" and possessing videotapes, computer diskettes, and a hard drive full of images of child pornography. The materials were discovered by FBI agents in a Fri., Nov. 6, 1998 search of Lasaga's Saybrook quarters.

The indictment was followed by an arraignment hearing on Fri., Jul. 6, at which Lasaga pled not guilty. That day, a federal judge signed a scheduling order for the trial, which will be heard by U.S. District Court Judge Alvin W. Thompson. But while the order mandated that jury selection begin on Wed., Sept. 1, selection has been posponed due to a motion Dow made to suppress evidence.

"It's a big question mark when the jury will be selected," Robert Bonta, a clerk for Judge Thompson, explained. "Nothing is set yet." Bonta said that the motion would likely delay selection until December.

The crystal ball

While the trial's start date is unknown, child pornography legal experts say there is little mystery surrounding what its outcome will be.

"We find that 99 percent of the cases we bring to the courts are guilty verdicts—that's because the evidence is overwhelming," Special Agent Peter Gulotta, media representative for the FBI's Baltimore division, said. Gulotta's division has spearheaded an FBI Internet child pornography sting which has resulted in 322 convictions over five years.

J. Robert Flores, who spent eight years as deputy chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenities Division at the Department of Justice, agreed. "I'm not sure that we've ever lost a child pornography case that's gone to trial," he said.

The experts predict that when all is said and done, Lasaga will be behind bars. "Fines are the least of [Lasaga's] worries....If convicted, there's no way that he will get out from under this with only paying a fine," said Gary Weinberger, an assistant federal public defender in Hartford who has represented several child pornography offenders. "This guy's gonna be looking at years."

Precisely how many years is unclear. Flores predicted that Lasaga would ultimately face more than two years in prison if convicted; Weinberger thought the professor could receive five years or more. According to Flores, the maximum sentence is 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine—a punishment Lasaga could reduce by admitting guilt. "But," Flores added, "my guess is that he goes to jail even if he accepts responsibility." Dow would not comment on whether Lasaga is considering entering a guilty plea.

Of course, with regard to Lasaga's legal woes, the federal charges are just the tip of the iceberg. Mired in pre-trial motions and negotiations, the state case against Lasaga— which carries more serious charges—waits in the wings. In that case, Lasaga faces two counts of first degree sexual assault, two counts of promoting a minor in an obscene performance, and two counts of risk of injury to child.

Flores said that depending on "the nature and the length of the conduct," the state charges could earn Lasaga a prison sentence of 10 to 20 years. Weinberger simply said that the sentence in that case could be "hefty."

Mum's the word

While Lasaga's fate in court will continue to resolve itself in the public eye, his status with Yale University has become increasingly private.

The day of the FBI raid, Yale announced that Lasaga had resigned as Master. Soon after, University President Richard Levin, GRD '74, University Secretary Linda Lorimer, LAW '77, Yale College Dean Richard Brodhead, BR '68, GRD '72, University Provost Alison Richard, and Deputy Provost Charles Long all told the Herald in January that Lasaga was on paid leave. They made it clear that any change in Lasaga's status would come at a later date.

"It will become evident at some particular moment that a decision will need to be made and that his status will need to change," Richard said then. "Is it years away? No. Is it days away? I doubt it."

Moreover, administrators offered some additional insights concerning Yale's course of action. At the time, Brodhead said, "Lasaga has not been convicted of a crime, so there is, in the University's eyes, no reason to stop paying him." Richard reported that if Lasaga were convicted of the charges before him, the University would most likely take steps to terminate his employment.

Trying to get answers to the same questions seven months later proved an acrobatic and impossible endeavor. Every University official who had previously commented on the Lasaga matter was contacted for this story, as were University General Counsel Dorothy Robinson, Lawrence Haas, Yale's director of public affairs, and Thomas Conroy, deputy director of public affairs.

Simply stated, University officials refused to say whether Lasaga is still on Yale's payroll. Levin (through executive assistant Nina Glickson) refused to comment on any aspect of the case and referred all questions to Conroy. Conroy would only say that Lasaga remains a tenured professor on leave. "From my point of view, anything else about his arrangement is between Lasaga and his employer," he said.

Apparently, the circle of people who remain actively involved in the Lasaga matter is shrinking. Lorimer, Brodhead, and Long all said that they were no longer intimately involved in the case, and they wouldn't comment on the professor's status. Long said that Levin, Richard, and Yale's general counsel were the ones "abreast of what's happening." Richard and Robinson didn't return repeated calls to their offices and homes over a five-day span.

In fact, the only published comment that sheds any light on a possible change in Lasaga's status came from Haas, who told the Associated Press on Fri., Aug. 6 that Lasaga's status was "under review." Though he didn't personally return calls for this story, Haas said through Conroy that he would not elaborate further. However, a senior professor in the geology department said he had heard that "[Lasaga] was not being paid anymore."

Uncharted territory

One is left to ponder what Haas's statement means. The University's printed guidelines lend little direction to its course of action. The Faculty Handbook states only that an unpaid leave can be granted if the department chair recommends it and the provost approves it. Geology and Geophysics Chair Danny Rye denied any involvement in a decision regarding Lasaga's status.

In fact, Yale officials have said from the start that the Lasaga case has taken them into uncharted territory. "We're feeling our way through it, doing what seems to us to be reasonable and decent, with no precedents to guide us," Richard said in January. Her statement makes it unclear whether Handbook policies would even apply.

Lack of precedent becomes an even trickier hurdle if Yale takes steps to revoke Lasaga's tenure. "There isn't a standard for revoking tenure," Long said. He mentioned "dereliction of duties" and "certain kinds of behavior that would warrant removal" as general guidelines.

The Faculty Handbook states only that "the [University] Tribunal may be convoked by the President as an appropriate forum for addressing the most serious allegations of misconduct." The Tribunal, which was established 30 years ago but has never been used, does spell out a lengthy procedure for dealing with such allegations. Faculty members brought before the Tribunal are judged by a five-member panel consisting of permanent and "occasional" faculty members. They can mete out sanctions pending approval and adjustment from the University President.

That said, it's unclear whether the Tribunal would be assembled for this case. For one, despite the provisions of its charter, Conroy said that the Tribunal has no permanent faculty members—a reality which Professor Gaddis Smith, PC '54, GRD '61, a scholar of Yale history, saw as a significant roadblock. "Members should be empaneled in advance of every case," he said. "It's a problem to empanel people specifically as judges for a known case." Tribunal guidelines also state that "it is desirable that informal procedures be invoked before a Tribunal panel exercises jurisdiction." University officials would not say whether settlement negotiations are taking place.

But even if it can't reach a settlement, Yale doesn't have to use the Tribunal—the body's own charter puts this decision in the hands of the University President. "If the University chose to use a different forum, it could do so," Long said, "though it would presumably attempt to follow the principles of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)." According to AAUP Associate Secretary Robert Kreiser, AAUP guidelines bar unilateral action and mandate faculty participation in dismissal proceedings.

The waiting game

For now, anyone seeking answers in the Lasaga matter will have to wait. "There will come a point when resolution of his status with the University is warranted," Conroy explained. "As to when that will occur or what it will be, I'm not in a position to speculate or speak authoritatively."

In fact, University officals were wary of assessing the impact of a federal conviction on Yale's course of action. Conroy said only that the move would not be bound by events in court. "I have never heard the Administration say, `Until and if there is a final resolution of criminal matters, nothing can change from our point of view,'" he explained.

In the meantime, Antonio Lasaga sits and waits in his brown-and-white two-story Cheshire, Conn. home. He can only leave, accompanied by his wife, for medical, legal, and religious reasons. He can no longer travel to a colleague's home to work on his research, nor can he enjoy the one night out a week that he was granted prior to his bail violation.

It's a sad story—and one to which there seems to be no happy ending. Lasaga will have his day in court and will likely spend several years in prison. University officals will continue deliberating about what to do with Lasaga's tenure. And the Yale community will sit and wonder how the life of such a distinguished scholar and popular professor went so terribly awry.

Sangeetha Ramaswamy contributed to this article.

Back to News...