Deputy’s comments on gang case taint jury panel, sparking investigation

As prospective jurors milled about in a court hallway recently to see if they were going to serve on a gang case, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy assigned to the courtroom apparently had no qualms sharing his views of the defendant.

“You can look at him and just see he’s guilty,” one juror heard him say.

The deputy suggested the case was a waste of time, another juror said.

“I don’t know why we’re here anyway,” the second juror quoted the deputy as saying. “He’s guilty.”

The deputy, the juror added, also had some advice for the assembled group: Try to get out of jury service.

The two jurors reported what they had heard to the judge overseeing the case, prompting her to excuse the entire panel of jurors and triggering an internal affairs investigation into the deputy’s conduct.

Superior Court Judge Elaine Lu described the deputy’s behavior as “unprofessional and inexcusable” as she dismissed the jury panel, according to a transcript of the Jan. 26 hearing.

At that point, jury selection had been underway for two days in the trial, which involved a gang member accused of violating a civil injunction.

Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said the deputy works in patrol at the Pico Rivera station but was temporarily assigned to Lu’s courtroom for the day. Most deputies are required to work shifts on unfamiliar assignments as part of an effort to cut down on overtime costs, he said.

“We take this very seriously,” Whitmore said of the jurors’ allegations. “Is it inappropriate to say this? Absolutely. You don’t need training to know this is not what you say.”

L.A. County Public Defender Ron Brown called the alleged comments “outrageous,” saying his office formally complained to the Sheriff’s Department. He said such remarks jeopardize the integrity of criminal cases and can result in expensive new trials for defendants.

“It’s harmful to the justice system ... and it costs the taxpayers money,” Brown said.

Brown’s office identified the deputy as Gregorio Oseguera. Oseguera, a 10-year department veteran, did not return calls seeking comment.

A court spokeswoman said any estimate of costs for restarting jury selection would have to include staffing the courtroom with a judge, a bailiff, the defense attorney and prosecutor for the extra days involved, as well as other expenses. She said there were no plans to calculate how much that was in this case.

One of the jurors who reported the comments said he had been shocked and felt uncomfortable remaining on the jury if the bailiff continued to work in the courtroom.

“I think you can ... see by my body language, I’m very uncomfortable,” the juror, identified in court records only as Juror 7, told the judge. “He’s got my name or he knows my name, and he knows the names of the other jurors there, so it’s an awkward situation.”

The juror said he could continue on the case if another deputy were assigned to the courtroom.

Juror 7 reported what had happened to the judge, the defense attorney and the prosecutor on the case. According to the juror’s account, the deputy also questioned prospective jurors about how long they were expected to serve on the trial. One replied that the estimate was seven days. Juror 7 said that the deputy responded: “Oh well, so just try and get out of ... the panel.”

“To me,” Juror 7 told the judge, “that indicated that he was suggesting that we ... do whatever, say whatever possible or whatever we wanted to try and get dismissed.”

It is unclear from court records whether the two jurors who reported the remarks to the judge had been chosen for the jury or were still awaiting possible selection.

The prosecutor and defense attorney agreed that the remarks had tainted the jury group and that a new panel of jurors was needed.

“I don’t think it’s at all appropriate,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Damiana E. Mundorff said of the deputy’s remarks, according to the transcript. “I think it’s poisoned the panel, unfortunately.”

The trial involved misdemeanor charges against Francisco Javier Hernandez, an alleged Florencia 13 gang member accused of violating a civil gang injunction. A jury was selected from a new panel of jurors, and Hernandez was found guilty. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

jack.leonard@latimes.com