Denny Juror Fears for Safety, Judge Is Told

One juror in the Reginald O. Denny beating trial has expressed fear for her personal safety, the jury’s forewoman said Tuesday, telling Superior Court Judge John W. Ouderkirk “it’s possible” that the woman’s fear could affect the panel’s ability to reach verdicts on two deadlocked counts.

The forewoman, Juror 431, said the juror did not elaborate on her feelings. With the other jurors out of the courtroom, the forewoman said: “One juror has expressed fear for herself and her family.”

When Ouderkirk asked if the juror’s fear was an obstacle to reaching verdicts on the remaining counts, the forewoman said: “I don’t want to speculate. It’s possible.”

Ouderkirk urged the panel to find the courage to make “the right decision for the right reasons” and ordered jurors to continue their efforts to break their impasse on the undecided counts.

But the pressures of deciding the volatile case apparently have begun to take their toll. One juror complained of high blood pressure shortly after afternoon deliberations began, and the panel was excused for the day. Back at their hotel, a second juror became ill and needed medical attention.

As reporters awaited word on the jury’s progress before it was excused for the day, a bomb threat--which turned out to be a hoax--was called in to Ouderkirk’s courtroom. A media room had been targeted, according to the threat.

The jury is in the midst of unusual deliberations that continue after verdicts were announced Monday on 13 of 15 counts against Damian Monroe Williams and Henry Keith Watson, accused of attempting to kill Denny and assaulting or robbing others as rioting erupted last year.

Watson was found not guilty of the attempted murder of Denny and convicted instead of simple assault, which carries a six-month jail term. Williams was convicted of the reduced charge of mayhem, which carries a maximum eight-year prison sentence, and four misdemeanor assault counts. The maximum sentence he could receive if the verdicts remain the same is 10 years. Both had faced possible life terms on the most serious charges.

The jury deadlocked 11 to 1 on the charge of premeditated attempted murder against Williams, and 9 to 3 on an assault with a deadly weapon charge against Watson. It did not indicate whether its votes favored guilt or innocence.

While praising the work of prosecutors handling the trial, Los Angeles County District Atty. Gil Garcetti said Tuesday: “We are disappointed with the results thus far.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Janet Moore, one of two prosecutors, echoed that sentiment. “Obviously, we are disappointed in some of the verdicts,” she said. “But in terms of the way that we went about prosecuting this case, I am absolutely proud of the job that Mr. (Lawrence C.) Morrison and I have done.”

She said prosecutors “brought every ounce of our effort, our strength, our experience, our talent” to the trial. “We used them to the utmost.”

Garcetti declined to answer whether he would refile charges if the jury remains deadlocked on the remaining counts.

“We still have very, very substantial counts,” he said. “Let’s wait. We learned you never, never, never speculate on what a jury is doing.”

Asked what difficulties are presented when videotape is used as evidence, Moore said she was not certain that the jury’s problems in reaching verdicts have anything to do with videotape.

The jury is “hung on whether or not a brick can constitute a deadly weapon,” Moore said. “I have no explanation as to what that difficulty is. Obviously there is some difficulty in the minds of the jury in interpreting assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury.”

Moore also defended the district attorney’s office from widespread criticism that excessive charges were filed in the case, making it too complex for jurors to focus on the most serious offenses.

“Our charges went to specific victims and to specific acts of violence against those specific victims,” she said. “So even though there were many charges, when you looked at each victim, there was a distinct set of evidence that applied to that particular victim and that particular instance.”

She said it appears that the difficulty jurors are having has to do more with the law.

But before deliberations began Tuesday morning, the forewoman told the judge that the jury’s impasse did not result from a lack of understanding of various elements of the law and how to apply it.

“Everyone feels one way or another,” she said, “and that’s what they decided to stick with.”

Ouderkirk called the panel into the courtroom and urged them to continue deliberating. At the request of prosecutors and defense attorneys, the judge told jurors that they “must base (their) decision on the facts and the law.” Their decision, he said, “must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, opinion or public feeling.”

Shortly after the jury returned from lunch Tuesday and began its afternoon deliberations, Juror 79 complained of feeling the effects of high blood pressure, Supervising Criminal Courts Judge Cecil Mills said.

The juror does not take medication for her condition and did not ask to see a doctor, “but she can tell that her blood pressure is up,” Mills said.

Less than two hours later, Juror 326 was taken to a doctor by sheriff’s deputies after she became ill. No details of her illness were released.

When Juror 79 suffered her bout with high blood pressure, Mills said all the jurors thought that they were making progress and that they wanted to continue deliberating. “They feel that they could resolve some or all of the remaining issues,” he said.

But that optimism could have been thrown into doubt later Tuesday when Juror 326 was taken to see a doctor. Moore said that if the juror is unable to continue today, she would have to be replaced by the last remaining alternate.

That would require the jury to begin deliberating from scratch on the unresolved charges, but her replacement would have no effect on the verdicts returned Monday.

Five jurors have been replaced since the trial began--two during deliberations. Two were excused for illness, another for discussing the case with neighbors, one for what the judge called failing to deliberate, and the fifth for personal hardship unrelated to deliberations.

The jury, 10 women and two men, is made up of four African-Americans, four Latinos, two whites and two Asian-Americans. The panel is scheduled to resume its deliberations at 9 a.m. today.

Times staff writer Jean Merl contributed to this story.