Apologetic Juror Avoids Citation for Misconduct

A Woodland Hills juror escaped a contempt of court citation Thursday when he apologized for trying to persuade fellow jury members that they didn’t have to follow a judge’s instructions if they felt the law was wrong.

Van Nuys Municipal Court Judge Ruth Essegian said she was satisfied with the apology from Jerry R. Douglas, 48, a computer programmer who was dismissed as a juror during a spousal abuse case June 11.

If cited for contempt of court for jury misconduct, Douglas could have been sentenced to a maximum of five days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Outside the courtroom, Douglas said he apologized for bringing into the deliberations a document that purported to support his notion that a jury can “nullify” a law and find a defendant not guilty if the jury disagrees with the law.

But he said he still believes that he doesn’t have to follow the judge’s jury instructions if he believes the law is wrong.

Douglas supports a national effort to create state laws that would require judges to instruct jurors that they have a right to judge the law as well as the facts in a case. Douglas said four states have passed such laws and eight others are currently considering it. He said a similar effort in California last year died in committee.

Prior to his court appearance Thursday, Douglas was joined by about a dozen supporters who carried placards in support of the so-called Fully Informed Jury Amendment and the Libertarian Party, which endorses the proposed amendment as part of its party platform.

Douglas said he is a member of the Libertarian Party and an elected board member of the Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Conservation District, a non-regulatory public agency that conducts research and advises other agencies and private firms in resource management and other environmental issues.

Last Thursday, four jurors notified Essegian that Douglas had brought into the deliberations a document that purported to support his notion that jury instructions could be ignored.

Deputy City Atty. Jeffrey M. Harkavy, the prosecutor in the spousal abuse case, said the four jurors felt uncomfortable about Douglas’ actions and said they felt a “moral obligation” to notify the judge.

Douglas said he was uncomfortable with the portion of the spousal abuse law that defines the crime as a “willful act” to cause injury. He said that if the defendant did not intend to injure his wife, then regardless of whether or not she was injured, the husband shouldn’t be convicted.

The jury--without Douglas--found the defendant guilty of two counts of violating a restraining order to stay away from his wife, but could not reach agreement on the abuse charge, voting 8 to 4 for acquittal.

Harkavy said he does not believe Douglas’ actions had any bearing on the jury’s inability to reach an agreement on the abuse count. He said his office has not yet decided whether to refile the charge.