Mistrial Is Sought in Camarena Case : Courts: Jury misconduct is alleged by a lawyer for businessman convicted of conspiracy in drug agent’s death. He says jurors discussed newspaper article.

Alleging jury misconduct, lawyers for a wealthy Mexican businessman convicted earlier this week of conspiring to kidnap and murder U.S. drug agent Enrique Camarena asked a federal court judge in Los Angeles Friday to declare a mistrial in his case.

The motion, filed on behalf of defendant Ruben Zuno Arce, contends that jurors in the politically sensitive trial discussed among themselves information about the case that was not placed in evidence.

Zuno’s attorneys specifically argue that juror William Parris admitted to U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie in a closed hearing Thursday that jurors “discussed at length” a July 27 article in The Times about the conviction of another defendant in the case.

Rafeedie, after a brief hearing Friday afternoon, said that he would not hold a hearing on the motion until the jurors have concluded deliberations on the final defendant in the case, Javier Vasquez Velasco. The jury is scheduled to resume deliberations Monday, having earlier returned guilty verdicts against three other men.

The Times article, which ran on the front page of the July 27 edition, reported that jurors had convicted Juan Ramon Matta Ballesteros on three charges, including conspiracy, stemming from Camarena’s 1985 abduction and slaying. The jury, however, acquitted Matta of murder.

The article also reported comments of Matta’s defense lawyer, Martin R. Stolar, that the verdicts were “inconsistent.”

Last Monday, Rafeedie ordered the lawyers in the case not to make any further comments until the jurors concluded deliberations on all defendants.

Zuno’s lawyer, Edward M. Medvene, said in a declaration filed Friday that he had been informed the night before that juror Parris told the judge that the jury discussed the Times article on Matta’s conviction at some length “because it indicated that their decision was inconsistent.”

The motion further asserted that “it is clear that any consideration by the jurors of information outside of the record and not in evidence is improper and may well have affected their deliberations and/or verdict” regarding Zuno, who was convicted three days after Matta.

Medvene’s declaration objects to the fact that Zuno’s lawyers were not asked to attend the hearing Rafeedie convened in his chambers Thursday afternoon, contending they were entitled to be there because jurors had discussed matters that may have affected their deliberations regarding Zuno.

On Friday, Rafeedie told Medvene in court that he had not summoned him to Thursday’s hearing because it was his understanding that the incident which precipitated the hearing had occurred Wednesday, one day after Zuno was convicted. The judge also said that a transcript of the hearing was being prepared and would be made available to defense lawyers as soon as possible.

Medvene’s motion did not disclose the source of his information, other than to say in his declaration that it was not obtained from court staff. Rafeedie questioned him on the source of the information and said he would have to present stronger evidence than he had thus far.

A brief shouting match ensued during which Medvene said it had been “outrageous” for the judge to hold Thursday’s hearing without asking Zuno’s lawyers to participate. Rafeedie retorted: “Don’t tell me what took place. You weren’t there. Tone your comments down. You’re getting out of control.”

The judge told Medvene that after talking to the jurors he decided that there had been no impropriety in regard to the deliberations on Vasquez. The judge also said “the jury appears to be working exceptionally hard . . . painstakingly going over the evidence in the case.”

Rafeedie also said that he found it “ironic” that a defense lawyer in the case was raising a claim that a defendant’s rights might have been injured by publicity because prosecutors have not been commenting about the trial and a defense lawyer had. He then gave Stolar a tongue-lashing for holding frequent press conferences during the trial and for his extensive comments after his client was convicted.

Stolar said he had followed the judge’s order about issuing comments to the news media. “I have not stepped over the line,” Stolar declared.

Medvene’s motion also stated that he had been informed that “certain (U.S.) marshals” who escort the jurors entered and exited the jury room “on a regular basis and that one of the marshals asked one or more of the jurors on one or more occasion when they were going to come back with (a) verdict.”

Zuno’s lawyers asked the judge to declare a mistrial or hold a hearing at which they could question the jurors about any newspaper articles they had discussed or any communications they may have had with federal officials, including marshals.

Additionally, Zuno’s lawyers asked that a judge other than Rafeedie conduct the hearing in order to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety.

Zuno, the brother-in-law of former Mexican president Luis Echeverria Alvarez, was convicted Tuesday of the same three charges as Matta. The counts included committing a violent act in aid of a racketeering enterprise, conspiring to kidnap a federal agent and aiding and abetting the kidnaping of a federal agent because he was performing his duties.

The mistrial motion was filed by Zuno’s lawyers on the 15th day of jury deliberationsin the high-profile trial stemming from the February, 1985, abduction and murder of Drug Enforcement Administration agent Camarena in Guadalajara, Mexico.

Thursday afternoon, Rafeedie called each of the jurors into his chambers and interviewed them for a total of 40 minutes in the presence of federal prosecutors and Vasquez’s lawyer. After the interviews, jurors resumed deliberations and all the lawyers said the judge had ordered them not to speak to the press about what had been discussed in chambers.

At the end of deliberations Thursday and Friday, the jury was summoned into open court by Rafeedie and he repeated to them warnings that he had made several times earlier that they are not to read any newspaper stories or watch any television news about the case.