WASHINGTON -- Kenneth Starr's prosecutors did not forbid Monica Lewinsky to call her lawyer when they first confronted her at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Jan. 16, and in fact gave her several opportunities to call anyone she chose, a federal judge concluded in a finding unsealed this week.

Contrary to that finding, issued last April but kept sealed until now, President Clinton's lawyers and House Democrats have argued that prosecutors mistreated Lewinsky by repeatedly refusing her the opportunity to call her lawyer, Francis Carter. They maintain that the incident illustrates Starr's overzealousness, perhaps even misconduct.The ruling, by Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, part of a ream of documents ordered released this week by a federal appeals court, sheds further light on the controversial episode at the Ritz-Carlton, which occurred five days before the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal became public.

The independent counsel's prosecutors approached Lewinsky there to try to win her cooperation in an investigation of whether Clinton or others had lied under oath to cover up his affair with her.

In her ruling, Judge Johnson expressed concerns that prosecutors' talks with Lewinsky about a possible immunity deal had occurred outside the presence of her lawyer, but she said she would take no action. She said lawyers and agents from Starr's office had not barred Lewinsky from calling her lawyer and had "acted within the ethical rules in questioning Lewinsky without her attorney present."

The decision, issued under seal on April 28, this week drew the interest of Clinton's legal team, which is preparing to present its defense against impeachment of the president next week to the House Judiciary Committee. On Wednesday, White House lawyers demanded that the panel permit them to examine all decisions "addressing the question of whether Ms. Lewinsky was denied access to her counsel."

James Kennedy, a White House spokesman, said lawyers had not reviewed the newly unsealed documents and would have no comment on Thursday.

Starr's spokesman, Charles G. Bakaly III, said: "This is an example where our prosecutors did not discuss rulings that would have helped us to respond to attacks against the office. We were prohibited from discussing it because it was under seal, and we adhered to that."

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.