Pedophile’s case taxes jury system

Sonny Morper wasn’t the least bit daunted when his Orange County jury mates voted him foreman as they prepared to decide whether a convicted pedophile should be released from a state hospital. A retired middle school principal from Lake Forest, Morper, a firm believer in the system, was pulling his first jury duty.

But by the time the jury told the judge last month that it had deadlocked 8 to 4 on whether to release Sidney Landau, Morper had become convinced these kind of cases are best suited for someone other than jurors.

Morper, 64, said the deliberations were respectful and thorough but admits to being troubled by the four votes to set Landau free.

“I think the guy is a danger,” he says. “I believe he’s a predator likely to re-offend. I believe if he was set loose without someone monitoring him, he’s going to pick up where he left off. That’s how strong I felt the evidence was.”

A jury in 2006 voted 11 to 1 to release Landau from a state mental hospital where’s he been since 2000. Last month, Morper’s jury voted 8 to 4 to keep him under wraps. The wildly divergent votes suggested to me, as I wrote in a column last week, that this kind of case may be better decided by someone other than jurors. Same guy, same case, I argued -- huge swing in juror opinion.

A forensic psychologist agreed, saying judges experienced in such cases would be a better way to go.

The district attorney’s office disagreed, telling me this week that the differing votes reflected a stronger emphasis in the second trial on evidence portraying Landau, even at 68, as a threat to re-offend if released. Jurors in the first trial apparently were influenced by testimony that, at his age and with his medical history, he’d be a much-reduced threat to society, says Orange County Assistant Dist. Atty. Rosanne Froeberg.

Now, after a five-week trial and a few days of deliberations, Morper favors something along the lines of a review board made up of psychiatrists, other medical professionals and social service workers with expertise on pedophiles and their behavioral patterns.

He’s contacted an assemblyman to see if the state Legislature could get involved in designing a new way to handle such cases.

Froeberg said that would be problematic, if not impossible, because of the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial.

Landau was convicted for a second time in 1988 and served eight years. After his release in 1996, he was jailed twice for violating terms of probation -- once for hitting a photographer and another time for having in his possession family photos of him with his grandnephews.

Before his scheduled release in 2000, prosecutors petitioned to keep him in custody, where he’s remained.

He has admitted to molesting 10 boys.

Morper said the four jurors in the minority weren’t browbeaten by the other eight. Their reasons for favoring release, he says, apparently stemmed from satisfaction with testimony of Landau’s sister-in-law that he could live with her family in New York and under their watchfulness. In addition, the four jurors put more stock than did the other eight in the testimony that indicated older men, like Landau, were less likely to re-offend.

Interpreting evidence like that, Morper says, is what convinces him that juries aren’t the best arbiters in such cases.

While the majority was convinced Landau was dangerous, the others weren’t and felt it was unfair to keep him in custody. Morper says the evidence showed that Landau has consistently resisted hospital programs for pedophiles, claiming that he has taught himself not to re-offend.

“I asked one of the four if Landau were set free and moved in next door to her,” Morper says, “and next door to her on the other side was her own sister with two boys of the age he was interested in, would she feel compelled to tell her sister. She said no, it would be Landau’s responsibility. I thought, ‘Honest to God, you’ve got to be kidding me.’ ”

Morper’s first jury duty didn’t sour him on it. “It didn’t change my mind about the jury system at all,” he says. “And I’m not blown away by the mistrial.”

But he doubts that any jury will reach a unanimous verdict in a case like Landau’s. That theory will be tested later this month, when a third trial is set to begin March 17.

Despite two hung juries, Froeberg, who supervises the D.A.’s sexual assault unit, isn’t among those looking for a better way.

Cases like this are difficult for prosecutors, she says, noting that the 8-4 vote to keep Landau in custody was a big leap forward from the first trial.

“I think juries for the most part do an excellent job,” she says. “I think you’re getting into uncharted territory when you get to people who are getting older and you have experts saying that that impacts their opinions” on the likelihood the person will re-offend if released.

Beyond that, she says, the fundamental question of whether to deprive people of their freedom or return them to society should remain in the hands of juries, as the Constitution guarantees.

I can’t muster fierce opposition to that, but neither can I salute a system that keeps someone in custody on an unprovable belief that he’ll re-offend.

When a person pays his debt to society, it’s supposed to mean something. And as long as juries keep deadlocking -- even 11 to 1 to release him -- Landau could remain in the hospital forever.

Ideally, I’d settle for something like this: If one or two or three juries can’t decide unanimously on a person’s fate in cases like this, an “expert” panel would then be brought in.

Ain’t gonna happen, so we live with what we’ve got.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. He can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana.parsons@latimes.com. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.