Nightmares, Stress Among the Trials of Smith Jurors : Penalty: The case left panelists ‘ragged’ and ‘uptight’ before they recommended the gas chamber for a boy’s killer.

The jury’s forewoman had nightmares that confessed child killer Gregory Scott Smith was stalking her.

Another juror said he kept thinking about how he would have felt if his son had been tortured as 8-year-old Paul Bailly of Northridge had been.

And other jurors said the last holdout against the death penalty prayed and consulted with God before reversing her stand.

By the end of Ventura County’s most dramatic murder trial in years, the 12 citizens who ruled Tuesday on Smith’s fate were “ragged . . . uptight and stressed to say the least,” said juror Randy Yanez.

Yet it took just six hours of deliberations for the panel of seven women and five men to agree that Smith’s act of kidnaping, raping and murdering young Paul, then setting his body on fire, was heinous enough to deserve the maximum penalty.

Their recommendation: Send Smith to the gas chamber.

In separate interviews in the days that followed, jurors echoed the same phrase, a phrase used by the prosecution in closing arguments.

As juror John Fiecko put it, “If the crime against Paul Bailly did not call for the death penalty, I don’t know what crime would.”

Nine jurors came to that conclusion after only 1 1/2 hours of discussion on Jan. 24, a Friday afternoon that marked the start of jury deliberations after the two-month penalty trial.

“I think most of the minds were made up before we went into deliberations,” Fiecko said.

Several jurors took more time to come around, taking into consideration the mental state of Smith, 23, a former child-care aide from Canoga Park. They wondered if they should take mercy on Smith’s family and spare him.

Those who testified in Smith’s defense argued that he has an abnormal brain, the mind of a child trapped in the body of a man and borderline mental retardation.

The prosecution, however, contended that Smith possesses an average intelligence, that his crime was planned months in advance and enacted with cold calculation.

When the jurors returned Tuesday morning after a long weekend recess, they had all thought hard about the case.

As deliberations resumed, juror James Moore listed the aggravating evidence on a chalkboard for the three who were still leaning toward a life sentence without possibility of parole, Fiecko said.

“I think he wanted to show Phil, George and Judy that we were called to weigh the evidence,” Fiecko said.

Witnesses had testified that Paul was handcuffed, gagged with four or five layers of duct tape wrapped around his head, sodomized and strangled. His face and lower body were then doused with gasoline and his body was set on fire. The body was found in Simi Valley.

Faced with a choice between recommending life in prison and death for Smith, the forewoman, who asked not to be identified, said she knew from the beginning that she had to pick the latter.

“This man was going to (enjoy these) memories for the rest of his life, and that really bothered me,” she said, referring to the sexual pleasure the prosecution claimed Smith had felt during the killing.

Philip Pratt and George Monterrosas changed their positions later that morning.

“It was not a crime of impulse,” Pratt said. “I guess I was trying to see it in some light where it could have been an impulsive crime, but it just wasn’t. It was meticulously planned and carried out. His disability was greatly exaggerated.”

Pratt added: I think I felt a lot of sympathy for the family, and that’s why I really struggled to find a way to spare them and come up with a different verdict.”

Judy Wentlinger remained unconvinced at that point, other jurors said. In fact, she seemed so steadfast in her belief that Smith should spend life in prison, some jurors expected a hung jury.

“She could have hung us easily,” the forewoman said. “I think she just managed to keep her mind open enough.”

While the other jurors broke for lunch, Fiecko said Wentlinger went home, “said some prayers, asked God for some guidance and He told her what to do.”

Still unsure when the panel reconvened, Wentlinger was asked by the other jurors if it would help to listen again to the testimony of psychologist Christopher Hatcher, an expert in child-molestation cases and sexual sadism.

The two hours of repeat testimony cemented the beliefs of the other jurors and finally helped to change Wentlinger’s position, jurors said.

The forewoman said Wentlinger assured the other jurors that, if she broke down and cried when the verdict was read, it wasn’t because they had coerced her.

“She told us that she felt OK about the decision.”

The group did not pressure Wentlinger, jurors said.

“There was never any yelling,” the forewoman said. “It was always very methodical thinking and no arguing among jurors. It was, ‘This is how I feel, how we feel.’ ”

After the verdict was announced, Wentlinger was the only juror who left the courthouse without discussing the case with the prosecutor and the victim’s family, jurors said.

Asked to discuss the verdict in a telephone interview the following day, Wentlinger’s voice broke as she said, “No, I’m sorry,” and hung up.

But the case, with its gruesome testimony and graphic photographs, took a toll on all the jurors.

“What I was having trouble with is I have a son--he’ll be 8 in a couple weeks,” said Yanez, one of two jurors who initially was not sure how to vote.

Yanez said he wanted to make sure he was not swayed by how he would feel if his son had been Paul Bailly.

Pratt had a similar experience.

“I have a son the same age as the victim. That was difficult,” he said. “But on the other hand, I had deep sympathy for the defendant’s mother and two sisters. They seemed like very nice, decent people, and they didn’t deserve this. But there was nothing I could do to change what was.”

Nancy McKinley, one of the seven who favored the death penalty early on, said the trial brought back bad memories about an incident involving her daughter. She declined to elaborate.

“It was heart-rending,” McKinley said. “It hurt. Both families have undergone a terrible tragedy. . . . It’s a terrible shame.”

“It almost seemed like a movie to me,” Yanez said. “Sometimes I felt anger, sometimes I wanted to cry.”

Neither Yanez nor the forewoman slept well the night after the verdict.

“I haven’t slept well since I can’t remember how long,” the forewoman said.

When she did fall asleep, she had nightmares about Smith stalking her. She kept thinking about how her blond 2-year-old son could grow up to resemble the victim.

The jurors said they supported the death penalty, but none of those interviewed said they would want to witness the execution.

“It’s a law I’m willing to live under,” Pratt said. “I’m willing to accept the fact that if I or a member of my family did something then we would be subject to the same law.”

For the forewoman, one of the hardest parts of the experience was signing the verdict.

“The feeling that my name was going to be there. . . . Even though I knew we did the right thing, my name is on a document that sentenced someone to death.”