After not impressing His Honor, government witness defends his honor

"You're way out of line," Steve Barket said in a phone message. "You need to call and get my side of the story."

On Monday, I did. I called Barket, the key government witness whose testimony in the recent money laundering trial of Ricardo Bonvicin was called "incredible" by U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones. Based in part on the quality of Barket's testimony, Jones dismissed all charges against Bonvicin despite the presence of some troubling recordings that appeared to link the 15-year law enforcement veteran and former chief marshal of the North Las Vegas Municipal Court to Barket's government-authorized money laundering scheme.

In dismissing all six counts against Bonvicin on April 28, Jones said the government had more than Barket's credibility working against it. "But for the record," he added, "there is a finding on my part that he is totally incredible."

By the time I returned Barket's phone call Monday I possessed yet another strange court document linking the government informant to questionable activity. This time, it came in the form of a lawsuit filed by Ismail Amin on behalf of Kimberly Hart, who claims Barket failed to pay a $40,000 promissory note. A copy purporting to be the note bears Barket's signature.

When asked about the note, Barket indicated it was fake and said, "You show me where the money went to me."

Add to that the recent interviews I conducted with people who claim to have been victimized by Barket, who speaks with pride of testifying more than 77 times for the government in the past 25 years in cases brought by the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement entities, and you start to wonder whether federal prosecutors will re-evaluate their relationship to the longtime informant. By Barket's count, he's made more than $150,000 in exchange for his efforts on behalf of federal law enforcement.

Although sources tell me he's often bragged about his status with the FBI, when asked Monday he said most of his courtroom appearances were related to his technical skill as a recording specialist and not in the role of a confidential informant. He's no professional snitch, he says, just a legitimate guy who was out to do the right thing.

In more than 77 trips to the witness stand over 25 years, he said, "My testimony has never been impeached."

There's always a first time. Barket looked bad under cross-examination by Bonvicin's attorney, Tom Pitaro. By the end of the pummeling, it was no surprise Judge Jones determined the prosecution's star witness was "incredible."

"The only thing that I did is what they told me to do," Barket said. "I didn't invent the crime. I didn't lay out the crime. I sat there. This guy's been on the radar obviously for other things ... I answered my questions the best that I could. Bonvicin, I have no ax to grind against him."

But now it seems witness Barket is the one taking the heat. When an anonymous, May 12 e-mail to Pitaro claimed Barket intended to hire a private investigator to follow Pitaro and defense investigator Tom Dillard and their families, both men responded with terse letters to case co-prosecutor Assistant U.S. Attorney Crane Pomerantz.

"As I consider Mr. Barket to be a potentially dangerous individual given his involvement in criminal activity over the last twenty-five years ... I am concerned about him stalking my family," Pitaro wrote.

Dillard wrote, "I will not tolerate any harassment or stalking of my family members and have no qualms taking the appropriate legal action ... I consider Mr. Barket an unstable individual and potentially dangerous based on my investigation and interviews with his victims."

Pomerantz responded in a letter to Dillard: "Having performed a fulsome investigation of Mr. Barket in the lead-up to the Bonvicin trial, I think you recognize that there is nothing in his background to suggest he is 'potentially dangerous,' as you suggested in your letter." The veteran prosecutor did, however, forward the letters to the FBI case agent.

Barket said the whole thing was designed to make him look bad, and Dillard was the one practicing the intimidation.

"I accept responsibility for who I am," Barket said, sounding frustrated. "I don't have to be convincing. I just told it like I saw it."

Obviously, Steve Barket failed to impress at least one federal judge.

John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0295. He also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/smith/.