Jurors in Scientology Case Accused of Pretrial Bias

Prompted by what he calls a “sense of justice,” a Glendale engineer has stated in a sworn declaration that jurors who recently returned a $30-million verdict against the Church of Scientology of California improperly speculated among themselves that the organization was guilty before hearing any evidence.

The declaration of John Reynolds, once a prospective juror in the Scientology case, has been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court as part of a move by church lawyers to quash the huge damage award made in July to Larry Wollersheim, a disaffected member who claimed that the group intentionally wrecked him financially and mentally.

Church attorneys contend that Reynolds’ disclosure, along with other examples of alleged jury misconduct, establishes jury bias and is serious enough to warrant a new trial.

Two jurors interviewed by The Times, however, denied any improprieties during the five-month trial.

A hearing is scheduled Thursday on the church’s bid for a new trial. Besides the alleged jury misconduct, the church contends that its religious beliefs were unlawfully put on trial and that the evidence did not support the sizable award, which exceeds 160% of the California church’s net worth.

In his declaration, Reynolds said several jurors made prejudicial remarks while he was with them in a private room at the County Courthouse. At the time, Reynolds said, the 12 regular jurors had been picked and he was being considered as an alternate. He later was rejected by Wollersheim’s lawyer.

Despite an instruction by Superior Court Judge Ronald Swearinger that they not talk about the case, Reynolds said, the jurors discussed the fact that Wollersheim’s attorney, Charles O’Reilly, did not challenge or reject many potential panelists during the pretrial selection process.

“One of the two men at the head of the table (in the room) stated that O’Reilly must be really confident of his case. The other man said that he agreed and further added that the Scientologists must be guilty,” Reynolds said in his declaration.

“One of the women asked what he meant. The man at the head of the table said, ‘Because O’Reilly doesn’t challenge anyone. He thinks that anyone who hears the case will find Scientology guilty.’

“The other man to his right said, ‘Yes, they (the Scientologists) must have done what the guy (Wollersheim) said they did.’ The women across the table from him each nodded and said things like, ‘Oh,’ ‘I haven’t thought about that,’ ‘Do you really think so?’ ‘I guess that must be the case.’

“At this point, a third man . . . stopped the conversation by saying that we were not supposed to be talking about this. He continued talking, saying we were supposed to hear the evidence and then decide. At which point, everyone in the room stopped talking about Scientology being guilty.”

In his declaration, Reynolds described the appearance of one juror, but did not identify any by name.

In a telephone interview with The Times, Reynolds said he alerted church attorneys after reading newspaper accounts of the jury’s award to Wollersheim, who charged that he was harassed and driven out of business after he criticized the controversial group.

“I have a sense of justice,” Reynolds said. “It seems reasonable to conclude that there were certain persons who had a preconceived notion before hearing any evidence. . . . I think it is unfortunate that myself or somebody didn’t say something sooner.”

Reynolds, declining to explain why he did not come forward earlier, said he was not paid for the declaration and had no prior relationship with the church. “I don’t know anything about the Church of Scientology,” he said, “outside of what I read in the newspapers.”

Scientology attorney Earle C. Cooley said Reynolds’ declaration shows that certain jurors violated the judge’s order against discussing the case before the start of deliberations and “had a mind bent against the Church of Scientology before any evidence was even received.”

Probe Suggested

At the minimum, Cooley said, the court should initiate an immediate investigation to determine the validity of Reynolds’ statements.

Two jurors interviewed by The Times insisted that the conversation recounted in Reynolds’ declaration never took place.

“That is absolutely not true,” said juror Terri Reuter. “I never heard the jurors discussing the case.”

Said jury foreman Andre A. Anderson: “We were very cautious about that because we knew the significance of the trial and the amount of time we were going to be spending. I personally did not want to see that time wasted. . . . We went by the rules.”

In their court papers seeking a new trial, Scientology attorneys cited another instance of alleged jury misconduct.

Facts Withheld?

They accused Reuter of withholding important facts on a background questionnaire designed to identify possible prejudices and conflicts of interest among prospective jurors. Church lawyers say Reuter lied when she stated that no members of her family had ever worked for a law enforcement agency.

Church attorneys said that Reuter’s former husband, whom she divorced nearly 10 years ago, worked for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office at a time when the office was locked in litigation with Scientology and had undertaken an investigation of the organization. Reuter’s husband was not part of the probe, which was conducted during the 1970s.

Church attorneys also said that Reuter failed to identify her former husband’s occupation when specifically asked to do so on the questionnaire. That information, the attorneys said, would have helped them discover before trial that her ex-husband committed suicide with a handgun--a crucial fact in light of a claim by Wollersheim that he contemplated killing himself with a gun.

‘Bias and Prejudice’

Had these facts been known, the attorneys wrote, “her bias and prejudice would have been detected . . . and defendant (Scientology) would have had an opportunity to excuse her before her prejudice contaminated the jury room.”

Reuter said she did not lie or withhold information. She said she believed the questionnaire sought information only about current, not past, family members who had worked in law enforcement.

Reuter said she listed her former husband’s job as “deceased” because “if they are dead, they don’t necessarily have an occupation.”

The Wollersheim verdict has triggered an outpouring of protests by Scientologists, who contend that their religious rights are being trampled by the courts.

Taken to the Streets

Since the jury returned its verdict, hundreds of Scientologists have been parading through the streets of the Los Angeles Civic Center, singing civil rights songs from the 1960s and carrying American flags and placards stating, “Your church could be next.” They have dubbed themselves “The Religious Freedom Crusade.”

The Scientologists have also erected an elaborate concert stage on vacant state-owned property across from City Hall. They have a permit to remain there through Sept. 15.

Last week, they journeyed en masse to Northern California, sailing in a fleet of boats from San Francisco to Sacramento, where they voiced their support for a bill that would outlaw punitive damages against religious organizations. In the Los Angeles court case, the jury ordered the church to pay $5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.