Charges in Sign Protest Case Dismissed : Oxnard: Jury fails to reach a verdict involving homeowner’s painting on house. The city can still seek a second trial.

An Oxnard homeowner on trial for painting gaudy protest signs on her house claimed victory Friday after the jury was unable to reach a verdict and the judge dismissed the charges.

“God, yes, it’s a victory,” said Lynda Paxton, a 48-year-old widow who was charged with changing her house’s color in violation of a city permit. “I feel wonderful.”

Ventura County Municipal Judge Kenneth W. Riley said he dismissed the charges rather than order a new trial because he believes it would end in another hung jury.

But because the signs remain on the house, city officials are free to file a new complaint and ask for a second trial, Riley said.

Assistant City Atty. Charles P. Wessler, who prosecuted the case, said that will not be decided until he discusses the case with City Atty. Gary Gillig. The City Council, which meets Tuesday, is expected to make the final decision.

Wessler said he was encouraged by the 7-5 split in favor of convicting Paxton. “She can claim whatever she wants,” Wessler said. “At least they’re leaning on the side of the prosecution.”

The mistrial came after an unusual and costly prosecution that was launched shortly after Paxton and her brother painted the signs in May, 1990. Paxton said they painted a skull and crossbones on her garage and a sign proclaiming “Our Own Love Canal” on the west wall of the house to warn about the presence of an oil-waste dump beneath her 100-parcel subdivision.

The state Department of Health Services concluded last year that the dump poses no health risks to residents, but a pending lawsuit filed by 175 Oxnard Dunes property owners and residents contends that they were not told of the contamination.

City officials said they received numerous complaints about the garish signs, which are visible from busy Harbor Boulevard and from the pricey Oxnard Shores subdivision across the street. But they said the content of the signs--and the fact that the city is a defendant in the lawsuit--did not influence their decision to prosecute Paxton.

“The city does not look at these as signs but as a change of color,” Wessler said.

But in her closing argument, Paxton’s attorney, Kate Neiswender, said that two city officials had disagreed about what would constitute an illegal color change.

Richard McIntosh, city code enforcement officer, testified that the issue would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but City Planner Matthew G. Winegar testified that painting one square centimeter a different color would be illegal unless the homeowner had his permission.

One of the jurors who voted for conviction said the panel “felt their law was weak” in not specifying what constitutes a change of color.

Another juror, who voted for acquittal, said she was “surprised they brought this to court.”

The jurors--who included a nurse, grocery store clerk, retired real estate broker and an insurance salesman--deliberated less than three hours before announcing that they were deadlocked after five ballots. Riley said he did not ask the jurors to keep trying because it was essentially a one-issue case and because there appeared to be no movement toward agreement.

Paxton, who faced up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted, said the battle to publicize the ground contamination in her neighborhood has been worth the trouble.

“I’ve gone through a lot of grief over that sign,” she said, “but somebody has got to recognize that that ground is dangerous.”