Ex-Officer’s Murder Conviction Is Vacated : Courts: Appeal panel calls for hearing. It cites the possibility of jurors’ misconduct in trial over the killing of a Northridge man.

In a ruling that brought a sharp protest from a dissenting judge, a state appeal court panel has vacated the first-degree murder conviction of a former Los Angeles police officer in the contract slaying of a Northridge businessman whose wife wanted him dead.

A three-member panel of the state Court of Appeal found that at least two jurors in the trial of Robert Anthony Von Villas may have engaged in misconduct, but that there was not enough evidence to merit an immediate reversal of Von Villas’ conviction.

Instead, the judges voted 2 to 1 to order the trial judge in the original case to hold a hearing on the misconduct issue and put jurors under oath to determine if a retrial is necessary.

Attorneys for Von Villas argued that jurors had heard information they were not supposed to hear, and that the former detective had been convicted unfairly. One of the judges agreed, charging in a dissenting opinion that the failure of the other two judges to grant Von Villas an outright reversal of his conviction failed to meet the standards of justice.

Von Villas of Simi Valley and a fellow Devonshire Division officer, Richard Herman Ford of Northridge, were convicted in 1989 of first-degree murder and conspiracy in the case of Thomas Weed, a small-business owner who disappeared in February, 1983, and whose body has never been found.

Prosecutors said the two Devonshire Division officers killed Weed, 52, and buried his body in the desert in exchange for $20,000 from Weed’s ex-wife, Janie E. Ogilvie. The men were tried separately, and both were sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Ogilvie was allowed to plead guilty to a second-degree murder charge in exchange for her testimony that she paid Von Villas and Ford to kill her husband. She was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

Von Villas is in Folsom State Prison serving sentences for several crimes, and will remain there.

In a 147-page ruling made public Tuesday, the justices voted unanimously to uphold the conviction of Ford. Attorney Mark D. Greenberg said he will appeal Ford’s conviction to the state Supreme Court.

But there was much dispute among the justices about the case of Von Villas, 48.

In Von Villas’ case, defense attorneys contend that at least two jurors--Betty Cornick and Kathryn Brown--knew and discussed with fellow jurors the fact that both officers had already been convicted of attempting to murder an exotic dancer to collect her $100,000 life insurance policy and of robbing a Northridge jewelry store. Attorneys also said jurors knew Ford had just been convicted of Weed’s murder in a separate trial and that at least one of them had concluded that Von Villas “must be guilty too.”

The lawyers’ accusations were based on statements that Cornick and Brown allegedly made to a defense investigator. At least one of the women denied making such a statement.

As part of a motion for a new trial in 1989, the trial judge--Superior Court Judge Darlene E. Schempp--conducted a hearing on the jury misconduct allegations. She denied the new trial motion after several jurors cited their Fifth Amendment right not to discuss what they knew on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves on possible perjury or misconduct charges.

In their Nov. 16 ruling, Acting Presiding Justice Earl Johnson Jr. and Justice Pro Tem Paul Flynn said they were concerned about the allegations of jurors’ misconduct. Nevertheless, they wrote, simply ordering a reversal of Von Villas’ conviction “would not serve the interest of justice.”

“We are convinced that the trial judge must be allowed the opportunity to at least test the credibility of jurors Cornick and Brown,” Johnson and Flynn wrote. If the judge is then convinced that there was misconduct, and that it hurt Von Villas’ case, “then a new trial must be afforded Von Villas,” they held.

Such a hearing is necessary, they wrote, so prosecutors can argue that even if there were jury misconduct, it was insufficient to affect their verdict. Also, in order to ensure that all the facts are brought to light, the justices said, the jurors should be granted immunity from prosecution on misconduct or perjury charges.

Justice Fred Woods, however, strongly disagreed, saying the majority decision was “fundamentally flawed.”

Woods wrote that Von Villas proved three years ago during the first hearing on the misconduct issue that biased jurors unfairly hurt his case, and that the justices are now unfairly ordering him to prove it again. Woods accused his fellow justices of shirking their responsibility to order a new trial for Von Villas, based on what he said was clear evidence of misconduct.

Reading the majority opinion, Woods wrote: “. . .one has the impression that its author knows reversal is required but just can’t bring himself to say so. Such a disposition may be called many things. Justice is not one of them.”

In an interview Tuesday, Woods said it would be a “gross violation of the judicial code of ethics” to discuss the ruling, since all parties have 30 days to appeal. “But it’s a very interesting case,” he said.

Russell Iungerich, Von Villas’ lawyer, said he was happy that the justices did not uphold his client’s conviction, but said he agreed with Woods that Von Villas deserved a new trial.

“What was shown at the trial was clear jury misconduct,” Iungerich said. “While we think it should have been a complete reversal, nevertheless we’re pleased. Half a loaf is better than none.”

Iungerich said he planned to ask the appeal court to reconsider reversing Von Villas’ conviction, and that he planned to take the matter to the state Supreme Court if unsuccessful.

Prosecutors had little comment. Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, said a new prosecutor will be appointed for the hearing since the original prosecutor has since become a judge. Dave Puglia, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, which represents the state in the appeal, said, “We don’t really have any comment at this point. We just got the decision and have to take a look at it.”