Denny Juror Dismissed; Deliberations Start Over : Trial: Other panelists say she did not seem to understand the proceedings. Defense lawyer calls the move improper.

A juror in the volatile Reginald O. Denny beating trial was removed by Judge John W. Ouderkirk over strenuous defense objections Monday after the 11 other members of the panel complained that they have not been able to work with her.

By taking the unusual step of excluding that juror, Ouderkirk has forced the panel--which began deliberating eight days ago--to scrap its earlier considerations of evidence against two men accused of trying to kill Denny and begin again.

“We have tried patiently to talk and work with her, all to no avail!” the jury forewoman said in a note to Ouderkirk. “She doesn’t use common sense.”

Tensions among members of the panel prompted the judge to send the sequestered jurors back to their hotel rooms Saturday after only 45 minutes of deliberations. Ouderkirk gave them the rest of the weekend off in an effort to let tempers cool before deliberations resumed Monday.

But the contentiousness apparently persisted. Monday’s note from the jury said other panel members were unanimous in their belief that Juror 373, a middle-age black woman, “shouldn’t continue in the deliberations.”

In her note to Ouderkirk, the jury forewoman--also an African-American woman--said Juror 373 “cannot comprehend anything that we’ve been trying to accomplish.” The note went on to say that “just when we’ve made progress and final decisions, she is (totally) oblivious to what we’ve discussed and decided.”

Complaints about Juror 373 have “nothing to do with her views on issues or (with) her personally,” the note said.

On Saturday, Juror 373 asked if panel members could take their trial notes to their rooms instead of leaving them with a bailiff. She said: “None of us want to make a mistake. We want to do the best job we can. We can’t do that unless we know what we are doing.”

Answering questions during jury selection, Juror 373 said she had studied business law, probate law and psychology. She has a friend who is a sheriff’s deputy, and her former pastor works for the Los Angeles Police Department, she said.

The juror was replaced by an Asian-American woman who appears to be in her 20s. She was selected by lot from the remaining three alternates. The jury is now composed of three African-Americans, four Latinos, three Anglos and two Asian-Americans.

Three jurors had been removed earlier--two for illness and another for alleged misconduct. That juror, a middle-aged black man, allegedly discussed the case with neighbors and announced that he would vote to convict the defendants even before he heard the entire defense case. He was replaced by an African-American woman who appears to be in her 30s.

Ouderkirk said he found “good legal cause to remove Juror 373 because she is failing to deliberate as the law defines it.”

Attorney Edi M.O. Faal, who represents defendant Damian Monroe Williams, called the judge’s action “wrong and improper.” He requested--and was denied--a mistrial. He also told Ouderkirk that he would seek to have two other jurors removed from the panel but did not elaborate on his reasons.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that this juror failed to deliberate,” Faal said outside court. “I think this is the basis for a mistrial or a new trial.”

He said Ouderkirk “has no authority whatsoever to remove this juror.”

Legal experts disagreed.

“There’s no question he has the power to do it,” said Robert Pugsley, a Southwestern University School of Law professor. “But it’s done rarely enough that judges are loath to do it. This is really an unusual example.”

Pugsley said it appears that Ouderkirk was as careful as possible not to remove the juror arbitrarily. He listened to the concerns of the jurors and met with three of them individually, including Juror 373, before announcing his decision.

“The point here is that this judge is not making an unjustified decision,” he said. “He has made a reasonable decision to remove a juror so that they can move this process along.”

Under state law, a juror can be discharged if the court determines there is good cause that the juror is unable to perform his or her duties. The grounds for dismissing a juror are a matter of debate and are not always clear, legal scholars said.

“You can’t dismiss a juror because they’re stubborn or have a difficult personality,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a USC School of Law professor. But if the judge had good reason to believe that this juror was not comprehending what was going on or was incompetent to be able to participate, he acted properly, he said.

“The danger here is that under our system, one juror always has the right to hold out. The judge can’t take that away by dismissing the one who disagrees. But if the juror was incompetent, then he acted properly.”

The dismissal of a juror in the midst of deliberations is extremely rare. The most common examples are for physical illness or misconduct, such as a juror deciding a case before all the evidence is heard or discussing the case with others.

The jury is weighing the fate of Williams, 20, and Henry Keith Watson, 29, who are charged with premeditated attempted murder in the beating of Denny at Florence and Normandie avenues, a flash point for rioting last year.

Williams is also accused of aggravated mayhem--intentionally causing permanent disability or disfigurement--for allegedly hitting Denny in the head with a brick. Attempted premeditated murder and aggravated mayhem carry maximum penalties of life in prison.

The two men also are charged with assaulting or robbing seven other people at the intersection as rioting broke out after the not guilty verdicts in the Rodney G. King beating trial in Simi Valley.

When court reconvened after lunch, Faal asked that the transcript of a closed meeting between Ouderkirk, attorneys for both sides and the three jurors be unsealed. “I see no legitimate reason whatsoever for keeping that transcript sealed,” he said.

Ouderkirk asked Faal if unsealing the transcript would be a “betrayal to those jurors if we reveal all the information they’ve just provided.”

Faal said he did not think it would because the jury is sequestered. Karen Ackerson, who represents Watson, said the transcript should be unsealed because it is the only account of Juror 373’s version of events.

Because the complaints about Juror 373 were publicly released, Ackerson said, “we should disseminate her response.”

Karlene W. Goller, representing The Times and New York Newsday, joined the defense request to unseal the transcript, arguing that “secrecy is frustrating the broad public interest in this case.”

Ouderkirk said the hearing was closed and the transcript sealed to preserve “the sanctity of the jury deliberation process. I will not unseal any of these items until there is a verdict in this case.”