Jurors Who Urged Death Penalty Get Court’s Protection

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge Thursday barred investigators from the public defender’s office from contacting members of the jury that last month recommended the death penalty for a gang member convicted in the brutal murders of four members of the family of former professional football player Kermit Alexander.

After hearing complaints that jurors are “very fearful” because some have been telephoned by the investigators, Judge Roger Boren modified an earlier order giving the defense team for Tiequon Aundray Cox permission to contact the jury.

In February, Boren had approved a defense request that a team of 16 investigators be allowed to contact jurors, seeking information that would support their arguments for a new trial for Cox, 19. The jurors’ phone numbers and addresses were not to be given to Cox.

Deputy Public Defender Edward Cook said some jurors have already been contacted, but Boren placed a limit on defense efforts to interview the jurors.

Not Blaming Anyone

While he emphasized that he was not “blaming anyone” for the fact that some jurors were upset, Boren said, “I do believe in light of the fears being expressed that this is the kind of situation that could cause considerable problems with jurors in the future.”

Many of the jurors who convicted Cox live in the same South-Central Los Angeles neighborhood where the killings occurred and reportedly were upset by the notion that Cox or fellow gang members might be able to locate them.

The jury in January convicted Cox in the 1984 execution-style murders of Alexander’s mother, sister and two nephews. Attorneys for Cox have said that they will file a motion for a new trial in the case March 18, the day Cox is to be formally sentenced.

Although questioning jurors at the conclusion of a case is fairly routine, Deputy Dist. Atty. Sterling E. Norris argued Thursday that he should have been notified before the defense investigators began calling panel members at their homes and businesses on Wednesday.

‘Very Fearful’

Norris said he learned the calls were being made when a “very fearful” juror telephoned him to complain.

“Their addresses never should have been released,” Norris said. “That (says) to them if you sit on that jury . . . they’re going to know where you are.”

But Cook argued that it was Norris who was intimidating jurors by implying that there was reason to be fearful.

“There’s been no evidence we did anything wrong,” Cook said. “It’s interfering with our right to see if this procedure was properly conducted. . . . It’s customary after a trial to talk to jurors. I’ve never had a D.A. object to it.”

‘Misconduct’ Possible

Cook said one woman juror who was contacted and interviewed at length indicated there may have been “grievous misconduct” in the case.

Cook would not specify what the misconduct might have been, but he suggested that jurors may have been intimidated and under duress during deliberations.

Although Boren’s order bars defense investigators from directly contacting additional jurors, it does not preclude questioning of those jurors by impartial court personnel. Should defense attorneys request it, Boren’s court clerk will be allowed to contact the jurors and ask them a pre-approved list of questions.

Jurors who already have agreed to be interviewed may be contacted directly by Cook and his investigators.