2nd Woman Says She Heard Stalker Juror Express Bias

A second witness testified on Friday that she heard a black juror in the impending Night Stalker trial say that he would not impose the death penalty on defendant Richard Ramirez until more Anglos were on Death Row.

That accusation was first made Thursday by a prospective alternate juror in the case, a charge that was vigorously denied by the juror. But Friday’s testimony by the second witness, who also was a prospective alternate juror until she was excused on Thursday, left the controversy unresolved.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael A. Tynan set a further hearing for Tuesday morning, at which time the first witness may be called to re-testify. He also postponed the start of the trial from Jan. 23 to Jan. 30 to allow more time to sort out the juror controversy.

Both witnesses are Anglo women and have said they would like to have sat as jurors or alternates in the case.

Both women also testified that it was their perception that the scores of remaining prospective jurors generally believe that the lawyers are barring Anglos from sitting as jurors. The jury, sworn in Tuesday, is made up of six blacks and six Latinos. Alternates have not yet been chosen.

“It was a common understanding,” the second witness, Deborah A. Drake, testified on Friday.

“It was just so obvious,” she said in reference to the jury’s racial makeup.

Drake added that the issue had become a joking matter in the corridors during recesses. Both blacks and whites have remarked in jest that “you need a tan” in order to sit on the jury, according to Drake, an airline reservations telephone worker.

She said she heard such remarks “every time we were in the hallways.”

Struck Her as Unfair

The apparent exclusion of Anglos from the jury, Drake said, struck her as being unfair and has resulted in a jury that is not a representative cross-section of Los Angeles County. She said she believes that the defense was discriminating against Anglos.

During the earlier phases of jury selection, Ramirez’s lawyers had sought unsuccessfully to make a case that the county’s procedure for selecting pools of potential jurors is biased against Latinos.

Outside the courtroom after Friday’s unusual hearing, co-prosecutor Phil Halpin was asked about Drake’s characterization of the jury’s racial composition. He responded: “I don’t know anything about that.”

Halpin said he intends to recommend to Tynan that “we go forward--one way or another,” but he did not elaborate.

Daniel Hernandez, Ramirez’s lawyer, refused to be interviewed.

Accused of 13 Murders

For now, the issue does not appear likely to adversely affect the prosecution of Ramirez, the drifter accused of murdering 13 Los Angeles County residents.

But the judge and the lawyers now are faced with the question of what to do about the juror accused of making the remark. The man, unidentified in keeping with the judge’s request that jurors’ names not be disclosed in a pending case, has denied under oath making the statement.

Tynan has said he cannot rule out the possibility that the entire jury selection process, which began July 21, may have to start anew.

Both Drake and the other woman, whose name is not being disclosed because she is still technically a prospective alternate juror, said they had been strolling down the crowded courthouse corridor during a court recess last week when they overheard the juror make his remarks to at least two other men.

Under Oath

In addition, Drake said, she believes that the other men may be jurors or potential jurors in the case as well because they were also wearing county-issued juror badges.

The juror said under oath on Thursday that he has never spoken to anyone outside court about the case. And he said his only conversations with other jurors and prospective jurors have pertained to sports and weather, adding that he has made a point of keeping to himself during breaks.

The accused juror was not present for Friday’s hearing. He said on Thursday that he had read a Time magazine story about the disproportionate number of ethnic minorities on Death Row throughout the nation.

And on Oct. 12, during an earlier phase of jury selection that dealt entirely with a prospective juror’s views toward the death penalty, the juror had said during individual questioning by the judge and the lawyers that, based on his readings, he believed that capital punishment in this country was being applied “unfairly . . . as far as race is concerned.”

Believes in Death Penalty

But he also said he believes that there is a general need for the death penalty and that he would not be reluctant to impose that sentence in any specific case as long as the evidence warranted it. “Race would not have any bearing on it,” he said.

The first woman to accuse the juror said she came forward only after Drake had been excused from the case, saying she was “feeling guilty.”

Drake on Friday said she did not report the man’s remarks because she had assumed that the man had made known his views on capital punishment during his October session with Tynan, Hernandez, Halpin and Halpin’s co-prosecutor, Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Yochelson.

Phoned Other Woman

Neither woman was able to recite verbatim what they allegedly overheard. Drake said the man used the term “Hispanic,” but the other witness said she heard the juror say “Mexican.”

Drake also admitted that, after she was summoned on Thursday afternoon to return to court the next morning, she telephoned the other woman at home, hoping to learn the reason for her summons.

But Drake said they did not discuss the substance of the matter--Drake having surmised the reason correctly. The first woman is expected to be asked on Tuesday about that telephone conversation.

Ramirez has been held in County Jail without bail since he was captured by citizens in East Los Angeles on Labor Day Weekend in 1985.

The current flap capped a week during which an increasingly exasperated Tynan has stepped up his continuing admonition to all jurors and prospective alternate jurors not to discuss any facet of the case among themselves or with anyone else, even at home.

As recently as Wednesday afternoon, the judge had to dismiss three prospective alternate jurors for having discussed the apparent mental agitation of another prospective juror who had been excused from the case.