ASHINGTON - Kenneth W. Starr's office today will begin its first trial in a matter related to the Monica Lewinsky investigation. But rather than put any administration official on trial, the independent counsel is going after a minor figure, Julie Hiatt Steele, in a tangential matter.
The charge: Steele lied when she cast doubt on Kathleen Willey's assertion that President Clinton had made an unwelcome sexual advance. Now, even some of Starr's supporters have said the case against such a marginal player as Steele is shaky, and they wonder why it has been brought.
''I think indicting Steele was a big mistake,'' said Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University. ''It is simply abusive.''
But Clinton was acquitted by the Senate of impeachment charges, and an Arkansas jury cleared presidential friend Susan McDougal on obstruction of justice charges. Thus, the Steele case remains as one of the last traces of Starr's $40 million inquiry into Clinton's role in the failed Whitewater land deal and his White House misbehavior. Starr also is pursuing a fraud case against former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, but a judge delayed that trial last week from June to August.
In the 21/2 months since Clinton's impeachment trial ended, Starr's office has become a shell of itself. Three of his top aides, including Jackie Bennett, the deputy who was a driving force behind the Lewinsky investigation, have resigned. Three aides already working in the office were promoted as replacements. Starr appeared recently on CNN's ''Larry King Show'' and sounded as if he longed to leave town. When asked how often he feels sorry that he did not accept a 1997 offer to become a dean at Pepperdine University, Starr responded: ''Daily.''
Last month, Starr testified before Congress that the independent counsel law, under which he was appointed, should be abolished.
While all of this indicates that Starr is winding down his efforts, the prosecutor still has some fight left, to the apparent consternation of the White House.
Starr may have been emboldened after US District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark., recently found Clinton in contempt of court for lying in his deposition about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky and ordered him to pay additional court and lawyer costs.
In the Steele trial, expected to last a week in US District Court in Alexandria, Va., prosecutors probably will ask Willey to testify about her allegations against Clinton. There may also be testimony from a Newsweek reporter who interviewed Steele and Willey, a judge ruled last week.
In the Hubbell case, prosecutors might seek testimony from Hillary Rodham Clinton about her Whitewater dealings, which could prove troublesome as she decides whether to run for the Senate in New York state.
But given that the Willey and the Whitewater allegations already are well known, it is far from clear whether the trials will prove more embarrassing for the Clintons or for Starr.
The McDougal case demonstrates the problem for the prosecutor. McDougal's strategy was to put Starr on trial, asserting that she refused to testify before the grand juries only because Starr wanted her to lie about her dealings with Clinton. On April 12, an Arkansas jury acquitted McDougal, a former partner with Clinton in the Whitewater land deal, on the charge that she obstructed justice. The jury deadlocked on two counts of criminal contempt related to her refusal to testify before two grand juries.
Starr then sought court permission to talk to the jurors to determine whether it would be worth retrying the criminal contempt case. But a judge ruled Wednesday that Starr could not examine the jurors. Starr has two months to decide whether to retry the case.
Steele, in her trial, is expected to follow McDougal's strategy, attempting to make Starr the issue, but her lawyers declined to be interviewed. The case is an outgrowth of the Lewinsky investigation.
After allegations surfaced that Clinton had made an unwelcome sexual advance to Willey in 1993, Willey asked Steele to back up her story. So Steele, in what she now says was a lie, told a Newsweek reporter in 1997 that Willey had told her the story of Clinton's advance shortly after it happened.
Steele later signed an affidavit saying that Willey had asked her to lie to the reporter. Steele repeated her explanation to a grand jury. Starr believed Willey's version of events and charged Steele with obstruction of justice and making false statements.
Steele has said she faces more than $500,000 in legal bills and that her life has been turned upside down.
Steele's backers, meanwhile, have painted Willey as not telling the truth and Starr as a zealous prosecutor with a vendetta. McDougal's lawyer, Mark Geragos, has said Steele passed a lie detector test, while Willey failed one. But Willey reportedly passed a later polygraph examination.
Meanwhile, Hubbell faces trial on fraud charges related to Whitewater dealings. Mrs. Clinton, a former law partner of Hubbell, is mentioned 36 times in the Hubbell indictment, spurring speculation that either the prosecution or defense will call her to testify.
Starr himself is under investigation by the Justice Department for allegedly leaking grand jury material to reporters. The Justice Department also is investigating whether Starr followed procedure in expanding the Whitewater investigation to include Lewinsky and in her initial questioning by Starr's prosecutors at a Virginia hotel.
In addition, Starr put his spokesman, Charles Bakaly, on leave after an investigation found Bakaly was a source of a story in The New York Times that said Starr believes he could try to indict a sitting president. Starr referred the matter to the Justice Department.
