2 Jurors Are Summoned in Conduct Probe
Saturday, November 18, 2000
The jury foreman and an alternate juror have been asked to appear
in court next week as part of an expanding investigation into alleged
misconduct among jurors who convicted three Los Angeles police officers
of framing gang members.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jacqueline A. Connor has summoned the
two jurors to appear in her courtroom Wednesday to respond to testimony
Friday by Wendy Christiansen, another alternate in the case.
Christiansen, who disagreed with the guilty verdicts, said Victor
Flores, who was later chosen as jury foreman, told her and the other
alternate on the first day of trial that he believed the defendants were
guilty.
Flores' comment "was to the effect that he felt they were guilty,"
Christiansen told the judge. Christiansen said Flores made the comment
while she and the other alternate were having lunch with him.
When Connor asked if Flores had heard any testimony when he made the
comment, Christiansen replied: "None at all." She also complained that
jurors made snide comments about defense attorneys.
Reached after the hearing, Flores denied Christiansen's charges that
he made up his mind before testimony began. "Absolutely not. That's
totally wrong," he said.
"We were talking about how the defendants were staring at us and how
the lawyers had nice suits," Flores said. "But that was all we talked
about. Is that wrong?"
The second alternate, an accountant who left the trial early to take a
CPA exam, could not be reached for comment.
Defense attorneys, meanwhile, were optimistic Friday that
Christiansen's testimony could help them win new trials for Sgts. Edward
Ortiz, 44, and Brian Liddy, 39, and Officer Michael Buchanan, 30.
Attorney Harland W. Braun cited a 1976 California Court of Appeal
ruling involving the case of a doctor charged with welfare fraud. In that
case, the court granted a new trial because a juror remarked that he
thought the defendant was guilty before the prosecution finished its
case.
"If the foreman was to come in here and admit that he made that
statement, then the court will have to give us a new trial," Braun said
of Flores.
If Flores denies it, Braun said, the defense will still have the
testimony of the second alternate, who also was part of the conversation.
It will be up to the courts to decide who is telling the truth.
Defense attorney Barry Levin said, "Now, we'll see the code of silence
in action" among jurors called to testify. Jurors, including Flores, have
said they believe the police witnesses had trouble recalling facts
because they were protecting one another.
Christiansen's complaints surfaced shortly after the jury convicted
the officers Wednesday.
The alternate, who had not been privy to the deliberations, complained
to reporters that she witnessed improper juror behavior.
Soon after, Christiansen phoned Connor's office to complain, prompting
Friday's hearing. Attorneys for the defense and the prosecution said
Friday they had not spoken to Christiansen or suggested that she call the
judge.
Christiansen tried to complain Nov. 9, the second day of
deliberations, but she never followed through when Connor's clerk told
her to turn in a written complaint.
Christiansen had apparently written out the complaint but never gave
it to the clerk. She brought the letter to court Friday, but Connor
refused to release it to reporters until the issue of juror misconduct is
settled.
Initially, Connor planned to hold the hearing in private but agreed to
hold it in open court after lawyers for The Times objected.
