Independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh is being attacked in opposite directions by the Iran-Contra defendants, with one claiming he improperly ignored congressional testimony and the other three saying he illegally used it. Attorneys representing former national security adviser John M. Poindexter, Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and arms dealer Albert Hakim moved Thursday to dismiss the indictment against them, claiming Walsh illegally relied on testimony the three gave last year to the Iran-Contra congressional committees after being granted limited immunity. Because of the immunity grants, Walsh was required to collect all of his evidence independently. North, Piondexter and Hakim claim that, given the massive publicity surrounding the hearings, Walsh's case was inevitably tainted by exposure to their immunized _ regardless of efforts to insulate investigators and grand jurors from that evidence. But lawyers for retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord, the fourth defendant, claim that Walsh unfairly ignored the congressional testimony of North and Poindexter. They say that testimony would have led the grand jury to decline to name their client in the 23-count indictment. Secord, who brokered the arms sales with Hakim, was the lead witness at last year's televised hearings of the House and Senate Iran-Contra committees and testified without any immunity. All four defendants are accused of conspiring to divert profits illegally from the U.S.-Iran arms sales to the Nicaraguan rebels. The so-called ``use immunity'' grants conferred by Congress on North, Poindexter and Hakim prohibit Walsh from using evidence obtained directly or indirectly from their congressional testimony. Walsh imposed special precautions to prevent his staff and the grand jury from being exposed to the extensive publicity surrounding the hearings. Prosecutors and grand jurors alike were told to ignore news reports or conversations with friends about the hearings. Evidence was filed under seal in U.S. District Court to prove that it was obtained independently of the immunized testimony. But in pleadings filed with U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell, lawyers for North, Poindexter and Hakim said those precautions were not enough. ``Never in the history of this nation has the immunized testimony of putative defendants been broadcast live, on all major networks, to tens of millions of viewers and listeners,'' the defense said. ``Given the widespread dissemination of immunized testimony throughout our society, the broad use of immunized testimony has been inevitable, undeniable, and so pervasive that the indictment must be dismissed as a matter of law,'' the defense argued. As an alternative to dismissing the charges, the defense asked Gesell to conduct a hearing to determine if immunized congressional testimony influenced Walsh's investigation. The defense says it wants to question grand jurors to determine if they learned about the congressional hearings from friends, relatives or news broadcasts or from grand jury witnesses. Secord's lawyers are taking a different course. They contend that Walsh unfairly refused to consider the congressional testimony of North and Poindexter, which they contend would vindicate their client of any wrongdoing. The grand jury should have had an opportunity to consider this testimony before returning an indictment against Secord, his lawyers said. ``The independent counsel's decision to exalt prosecutorial convenience above General Secord's Fifth Amendment right to a fair and informed grand jury taints the proceedings against him and requires, as a matter of fundamental fairness, that the indictment be dismissed,'' Secord's lawyers said. Gesell has scheduled a hearing next Tuesday to discuss the immunity issue, which could take months to resolve.
