Judge Reviews Jury Conduct in Camarena Case : Courts: He hears jurors’ conflicting testimony about whether they discussed inappropriate matters. Defense attorneys are seeking a new trial.

In an unusual hearing Monday in federal court in Los Angeles, a juror in the Enrique Camarena murder trial said panelists discussed information about the case that had not been introduced into evidence during the trial, which ended in August.

Lawyers for the four defendants are attempting to show that the jurors considered matters they should not have and secure a new trial for their clients, who were convicted and face long prison terms.

Juror William R. Parris of Lancaster testified that the jurors talked about a prior conviction of defendant Juan Ramon Matta Ballesteros and discussed his serving a life sentence and being characterized as a “drug kingpin.”

The panel also discussed alleged corruption in the Mexican government, the juror said.

Parris also said the jury discussed criticisms of their first verdict in the case. He alleged that he heard one of his fellow jurors say she had made up her mind about the guilt of the defendants before the trial began.

The majority of the other 11 jurors in the high-profile case said that, with the exception of the criticism of their first verdict, these matters were not discussed by them. However, there were contradictions in their accounts.

In mid-October, U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie, in response to a motion by defense lawyers, ordered that a hearing be held in an attempt to determine if jury deliberations had been tainted by outside influences.

Rafeedie said jurors definitely had been exposed to a July 27 Los Angeles Times article about the first verdict. The judge had repeatedly admonished jurors during the trial and deliberations not to read or listen to any news media accounts of the case.

The primary basis of the defense motion was Parris’ sworn declaration in mid-August, alleging that jurors had been exposed to information they should not have been.

In late August, federal prosecutors filed papers asserting that Parris’ Aug. 17 sworn declaration was “entirely lacking in credibility” and failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice against the defendants. The prosecutors also asserted that the juror might hold a grudge against some fellow jurors because of disputes that arose during deliberations, leading Parris to resign as jury foreman.

On Monday, Parris reaffirmed the statements in his declaration.

Rafeedie questioned the jurors individually Monday, asking each of them about a dozen questions.

Parris and one other juror, Linda Overholt, said the panelists extensively reviewed their first verdict--a conviction of Matta --after being informed that the verdict had been criticized by Matta’s lawyer and a television reporter.

After Matta was convicted on July 26 on three of four counts against him, his lawyer, Martin R. Stolar, criticized the verdicts as inconsistent. His comments were reported in newspapers and on radio and television.

“We went back over the verdict,” Overholt said. “We reconsidered everything because of what we heard. We wanted to make sure of our feelings.”

Several other jurors said the verdict had been discussed only briefly.

Jo Ann Fredrick testified that the jury simply “had a good laugh” about the criticisms, “and said we were going to move on to the next defendant.”

Robert Espinosa said the discussion had been “very casual.”

Jurors Duane Wood and Myrtle Hines said they had heard no discussion on the point.

The jurors’ testimony on the verdict discussions was so contradictory as to give the impression that some members had not been in the same meeting room.

On virtually every other issue, almost all other jurors gave accounts that contradicted Parris’ statements.

In particular, Peggy Dolan, who replaced Parris as foreman, denied his allegation that she had said during the jury selection process that she thought all the defendants were guilty.

Parris testified that much of the information about Matta’s criminal history was relayed to the panel by juror John W. West. He said Hines had asked West where he learned this information.

Both West and Hines testified Monday that they were unaware that Matta had been convicted in another drug case and had been given a life sentence.

Parris said jurors also discussed “on a number of occasions” allegations that the current Mexican government was corrupt and had been uncooperative with U.S. officials investigating the February, 1985, murder of Camarena, a veteran Drug Enforcement Administration agent, near Guadalajara. All other jurors said there had been no discussions of this subject.