Tyson ‘Subdued, Reserved’ : Jurisprudence: He is said to be cooperative during pre-sentencing interview. Probation officials plan to interview ex-wife.

Mike Tyson presented himself to the Marion County Probation Department Tuesday for a routine pre-sentencing interview, the morning after a jury found him guilty of raping a beauty pageant contestant in his hotel room July 19.

Tyson, guilty of one count of rape and two counts of criminal deviate conduct, was interviewed for 1 hour 20 minutes about his “family and social history,” according to an official who attended the session.

A report from the interview will be presented to Judge Patricia J. Gifford, who Monday ordered Tyson to appear before her on March 6 for sentencing.

Steve Wills, head of Marion County’s Probation Department, said Tyson was “subdued and reserved, but very cooperative--he answered all the questions. It was a routine procedure following any felony conviction, and we treated him like anyone else.”

Wills also said his office will attempt to interview Tyson’s former wife, Robin Givens. He said all civil litigation Tyson has been involved in would be examined, as would his juvenile records.

“Normally, judges rely heavily on our pre-sentencing report because they have no way of knowing the defendants’ backgrounds,” Wills said.

“Our job is to compile as much information as possible, verify it and then give it to the judge.”

Tyson’s legal team is expected to appeal the decision at the former heavyweight champion’s sentencing--unless he is given a suspended sentence.

According to the prosecutor’s office, Gifford’s average sentence for those found guilty on three class B rape counts was 12.6 years during her 13 years on the bench.

The minimum sentence Tyson, 25, could be given is six years. Part or all of that could be suspended.

Tyson will not be allowed to fight while in prison because Indiana law prohibits it, said William Vanorman, administrator of the Indiana Boxing Commission.

“I don’t know of any state that would allow it,” Vanorman said.

Tyson was scheduled to challenge Evander Holyfield in a bid to regain the title last November--after being indicted--but that bout was canceled when Tyson injured a rib. It was not rescheduled when the trial began Jan. 27.

Should Tyson be sentenced to prison, his attorneys probably would ask Gifford for an appeal bond, so he can remain free while his case is appealed to the Indiana Appellate Court.

“It would take the Appellate Court about a year to hear the case,” said Rob Smith of the Marion County Prosecutor’s office. “If he loses there, then he could appeal to the state Supreme Court, and now you’re looking at a one to three-year period--if the Supreme Court chooses to hear it at all.”

During the trial, Tyson’s chief attorney, Vincent Fuller, seemed to be laying groundwork at times for an appeal.

He made much of the fact that the clothing worn by the woman in the alleged attack had been “materially altered” by both the woman’s family and by the Indianapolis police detective investigating the case.

The detective, Thomas Kuzmick, admitted in testimony that two of nine sequins cut off the garment had been lost by the police.

Also, Gifford denied Fuller’s motion to call three witnesses who, he said, had “stepped forward” during the trial. It was said all three would testify that they had seen the woman and Tyson “all over each other” during the limousine ride to his hotel.

Marion County prosecutor Jeffrey Modisett said he met Tuesday morning with the 18-year-old Rhode Island college freshman who brought the charges against Tyson.

“She was kind to come to our office, to meet everyone and thank everyone who had anything to do with the prosecution team,” Modisett said. “She’s relieved it’s all over and anxious to get on with her life.”

Jurors in the case said they voted three times by secret ballot before agreeing, 12-0, on Tyson’s guilt.

“We were pretty much split down the middle the first vote, then the more we went over the evidence and testimony, the closer we got to a guilty vote,” one juror said.

One element in the case, several jurors agreed, weighed heavily--the fact that the woman took her camera with her when she met Tyson in his limousine outside her hotel. The prosecution argued that the woman was under the impression that they would “see the sights” of Indianapolis, and that she wanted a picture of herself with Tyson to show her father.

Of the rape itself, a male juror said: “When you look at all the testimony and all the evidence, we saw clearly consent was not given.”

When jurors were asked if they felt Tyson lied on the stand, one responded: “We didn’t think of it that way. It just seemed like the plaintiff’s case was a much stronger case than his.”

Tyson’s defense--that he was a crude womanizer whose accuser knew from the start that he wanted sex, and consented--didn’t stand up to the victim’s story and the physical evidence, jurors said.

“The accusing witness made a very convincing case. We looked at not only a moment in the bedroom but a chain of events that evening,” said the jury’s foreman, a 37-year-old IBM marketing representative and ex-Marine.

“It was an accumulation of evidence,” said the foreman, who refused to give his name.

The jurors seemed relieved that their 13-day trial was over.

Summed up a 25-year-old male hardware store manager: “It was an awesome responsibility, to decide if someone should be sent to prison, and I don’t want to ever have to do it again.”

WHAT THEY JURY HAD TO SAY: A partial transcript of a news conference with members of the Tyson rape trial jury. C12