Juror Alleges Misconduct in Camarena Case

A juror in the recently concluded Enrique Camarena murder trial alleged in a sworn statement Friday that jurors frequently ignored the judge’s instructions to avoid news accounts of the trial while it was in progress, and said a federal marshal urged the panel to return a quick verdict on one of the defendants.

The statement, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleged that during deliberations, jurors skimmed newspaper headlines about the case on a daily basis and discussed information they had heard on television about the trial.

Juror William R. Parris of Lancaster said the Camarena jury also viewed a Drug Enforcement Administration agent, who was a prosecution witness, as an American “hero” after learning that Mexico wanted him extradited because of his role in the abduction of a Mexican doctor, who is a suspect in the case. Parris said jurors worried about the agent’s safety when they did not see him in courtroom.

Parris’ statement describes a litany of possibly improper conduct by jurors and U.S. marshals, who served as their bailiffs, in the highly publicized case. Four defendants were convicted earlier this month of involvement in the February, 1985, murder of DEA agent Camarena in Guadalajara.

Jury forewoman Peggy Dolan of Laguna Hills denied Friday that there was any jury misconduct. She contradicted virtually every statement Parris made in his declaration.

In a interview with The Times, Parris said he decided to sign the declaration after he was interviewed by a private investigator for one of the defendants and after consulting with his attorney.

He said he had “big questions in my mind” about some of the guilty votes he cast. Parris said that early in the deliberations, he had been the juror who had expressed the most doubts about the guilt of the defendants.

On Friday afternoon, defense lawyers served a motion for mistrial on the prosecutors, citing Parris’ declaration, according to Brian Culligan, one of the attorneys for defendant Ruben Zuno Arce. Culligan said the motion would be formally filed Monday.

In his declaration, Parris said the jury discussed in detail a July 27 story in The Times that described the first verdict in the case and a lawyer’s criticism of the verdict. He said the discussion occurred even though one of the jurors reminded her colleagues at least twice that they were not supposed to be looking at newspapers.

Parris, a manager with an aerospace company, also said that during jury selection in May, he overheard Dolan, who was later elected the jury forewoman, tell another prospective juror that “she did not understand why they would want her on the jury because she thought all of the defendants were guilty.”

Dolan denied making any such remark. “It’s not true,” she said Friday. “That hurts my feelings.”

Attempts to reach other jurors Friday were unsuccessful.

Among Parris’ other allegations were:

The jury, contrary to judge’s orders, talked about matters that had not been introduced in evidence, including the fact that defendant Juan Ramon Matta Ballesteros was a convicted “drug kingpin” and already had been sentenced to life in prison. He said one of the jurors informed his colleagues of the conviction, but it was unclear how the juror knew.

“This information influenced how I and, I believe, how other members of the jury, viewed Matta and the other defendants during our deliberations,” Parris said.

The jurors talked about the Mexican government’s desires to extradite DEA agent Hector Berrellez to stand trial in Mexico on charges that he had facilitated the kidnaping of Dr. Humberto Alvarez Machain of Guadalajara, who is a suspect in the Camarena case. Berrellez is the head of the DEA team investigating Camarena’s murder. He testified during the trial and, on most days, sat at the prosecution table.

“Because of our understanding of the Mexican government’s attempt to extradite and arrest agent Berrellez, he was viewed by me and, I believe, by other members of the jury, as a United States hero,” Parris said.

” . . . If agent Berrellez was not present during a trial day, jurors would express concern that he might have been kidnaped,” he continued. “We also discussed that the Mexican government was trying to punish agent Berellez and that the present Mexican government was neither happy nor cooperative with the prosecution of the four defendants against whom we returned guilty verdicts.”

One of the U.S. marshals who served as a jury bailiff during deliberations told them they ought to reach a verdict rapidly on the fourth defendant, Javier Vasquez Velasco, so the marshals could provide better security to the defendants because they had “received death threats.”

Charles Almanza, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshal’s Service in Los Angeles, declined to comment on Parris’ allegations, citing pending legal proceedings.

In arguing for a mistrial, defense lawyers contend that a reasonable possibility exists that jurors were influenced by information that was improperly brought before the panel.

Parris’ declaration was filed a week after a federal grand jury investigation began into possible jury tampering.

Thus far, the FBI, working on behalf of the grand jury, has focused attention on court stenographer Julie A. Churchill, who first told U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie on Aug. 2 that there were newspapers in the jury room, and on defense attorney Martin R. Stolar of New York.

The FBI has interviewed Churchill, according to her lawyer, Marilyn Butler Bednarski, and expressed interest in interviewing Stolar. His lawyer, Stanley Greenberg, said this week that he told FBI agents that Stolar would be willing to talk about certain matters after he returns from vacation in about two weeks.

The FBI probe began after an Aug. 10 hearing, in which Rafeedie said he wanted an investigation. He made this statement after Stolar refused to answer questions about any “social contacts” he had with Churchill during the eight-week trial or 16 days of jury deliberations.

At an earlier hearing, Stolar told the judge that some time after his client, Matta, was convicted on July 26, Churchill came to the West Hollywood hotel where Stolar was staying to deliver a transcript. He said that she dropped off the transcript to him at the swimming pool, had a soda and stayed 15 to 20 minutes.

The judge fired Churchill as his reporter earlier this month. He said he was very upset that she told two other defense lawyers in the case about seeing newspapers in the jury room before she told him.

Churchill has declined comment since the controversy arose. But in an interview this week, her lawyer said Churchill is “innocent of any wrongdoing.” Churchill remains an employee of the Los Angeles Federal Court system, according to Donna Stephenson, the court reporter coordinator.

Some of Churchill’s colleagues said they were disturbed about what was happening to her. They said there was nothing unusual about a court reporter delivering a transcript to an attorney. For example, court reporter Richard Fischer said he delivered transcripts to Stolar’s hotel when Stolar represented Matta in a federal drug case last year.

In addition to preparing official records of court proceedings, court reporters also have private businesses where they sell transcripts to attorneys and other private parties.

Most vocal in defense of Churchill was Susan A. Lee, a veteran Los Angeles court stenographer, who has worked with her since last October and was the reporter during part of the recently completed Camarena trial.

Lee believes that Churchill has done nothing wrong. She said that right after Churchill saw newspapers in the jury room while she was rereading testimony to the jurors, she attempted to inform Rafeedie. “Julie was told by the judge’s staff that he was unavailable,” Lee said in an interview.

“The only mistake Julie made” was in not pushing harder to see the judge before telling a lawyer about what she had seen, Lee said. Rafeedie, through one of his law clerks, declined comment when asked about Lee’s statement.

The FBI went to Churchill’s house Aug. 10 and she answered questions, according to her lawyer. The attorney said that Assistant U.S. Atty. William Fahey told her that the government was investigating whether Churchill had improperly observed jury deliberations or whether she had influenced a juror.

“Julie was ordered in there to read back testimony,” Bednarski said. “She is absolutely innocent of these suspicions the government has cast on her.”

Bednarski also said that after interviewing Churchill, FBI agents gave her a grand jury subpoena for records that Churchill made during the trial. Bednarski and several other sources said those records were seized by the clerk of the court.

Fahey declined to confirm or deny whether an investigation was being conducted. An FBI spokesman also declined comment.