Jury’s Ordeal: 2 Harrowing Weeks : Trial: Excused panelists refuse to talk about how they reached verdicts. But transcripts and court comments reveal a rough portrait of tense deliberations.

After two weeks at the center of a secret storm, jurors in the Reginald O. Denny beating trial announced Wednesday that they would say nothing about how they reached their decisions, leaving the city to guess about the debates that occasionally flared during deliberations.

But through transcripts of court hearings and the comments in court about the jury’s conflicts, a rough portrait emerges of the harrowing and exhausting weeks of deciding the fates of defendants Damian Monroe Williams and Henry Keith Watson.

The multiracial jury fought among themselves, grumbled about the hardships of being sequestered, demanded private audiences with Judge John W. Ouderkirk and incessantly passed notes to the judge on everything from the behavior of their fellow panelists to whether spray-painting someone’s genitals constituted the use of physical force.

They had to start deliberations from scratch twice after two jurors were excused by the court. But when they began their work for the second time, some verdicts came within hours and the vast majority were decided in the next four days.

The panel, culled from thousands summoned to the Los Angeles County Courthouse, started the trial 2 1/2 months ago as complete strangers.

There was the young white woman who complained during deliberations about being away from her boyfriend. There was the black woman in her 30s or 40s who, as jury forewoman, guided the panel through their often-tumultuous discussions. There was the older Asian-American woman whose son was a truck driver like Denny.

Through the 15 days of actual deliberations, the group was sequestered at night in rooms at an unidentified hotel. In the morning, they returned to the jury room together to debate the guilt or innocence of Williams and Watson. They could say nothing outside of the jury room about the case, and their every move was monitored by a guard from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Even their nightly phone calls with friends and relatives were conducted within earshot of one of the guards. During a closed hearing with the judge, the juror who missed her boyfriend complained, “I mean, we couldn’t even talk . . . the way we would normally be talking to each other with someone standing there. So I felt really violated.”

For their own protection, the jurors were given randomly assigned numbers at the beginning of the trial. But once deliberations began, the group decided on nicknames, which were then posted on the blackboard in the jury room.

The panel lost two members to health problems well before deliberations began, cutting the number of available alternates to four.

On the day before the case was handed to the jury, the first real controversy flared, setting up what seemed to be the chaotic tone of their deliberations.

One juror, an elderly black man identified only as 347, was excused by Judge Ouderkirk for “good legal cause.” He was apparently dismissed for discussing the case outside the jury room, according to a spokesman for the Williams family.

A security guard who lives in a neat apartment building in the midst of Downtown’s Skid Row, Juror 347 would walk through the building still wearing his juror’s badge and talk about deliberations with others, his neighbors said.

The beginning of deliberations was characterized by the jury’s obsessive attention to detail.

Despite defense attorney Earl C. Broady Jr.’s concession that his client, Watson, was the man pictured in the videotape, the jury asked in its first question to the judge: “Do we consider the contents of the closing arguments (i.e. Broady stated that Watson was definitely in the video) as evidence?”

A later question was: “Does ‘or’ mean ‘and’; does ‘likely’ mean ‘it did occur.’ ”

By the sixth day of deliberations, serious signs of conflict had begun to emerge.

The panel asked in one note: “When a juror has stated numerous times their reason for their decisions regarding a specific element or charge . . . is that juror not deliberating?”

A second note, in different handwriting and apparently disagreeing, stated: “When a juror asks another to list the evidence and reason that determined their decision, does that juror have the obligation to answer . . . as a responsibility of deliberations?”

But that was just the beginning of the bickering.

On the seventh day of deliberations, another note, in still different handwriting, said:

“At this time, I feel a very serious problem has surfaced and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. (We) have tried to give this person the benefit of the doubt, but I see no other choice but to bring this very delicate, but serious plea to you.”

The note referred to Juror 104, who one juror said had suffered a breakdown at the hotel. In frustration over not being able to see her boyfriend, Juror 104 reportedly had run down the hallway screaming, “I can’t take it anymore.”

After a hearing, Juror 104 was allowed to stay on the panel.

But another note to the judge announced a new conflict.

“On behalf of 11 jurors, we are in agreement that Juror 373 cannot comprehend anything. . . . She doesn’t use common sense,” the jury forewoman wrote.

This time, the judge decided to remove the juror, an elderly black woman, on the grounds that she was “failing to deliberate.”

In a letter to the judge after she had been removed, the juror criticized some members of the panel for making decisions without understanding what they were doing.

“I have suspicions about certain jurors who might be holding to a predisposition for a specific determination irrespective as to the facts of the case; and, I am concerned about the influence that they may have over other jurors,” she wrote.

“In this regard, I feel that I was not a force which was easily reckoned with . . . ,” she continued.

The dismissal of Juror 373, while Juror 104 was allowed to stay on the panel, prompted Williams’ defense attorney, Edi M.O. Faal, to remark: “This case is in shambles.”

The next day--the ninth of deliberations--Juror 152 was excused for personal reasons. Now, the panel had lost five jurors and was down to just one alternate.

The new panel had to start deliberations again from scratch, but within hours arrived at four verdicts concerning Watson, although the decisions were not read in court.

By day 12 of deliberations, the jury--now made up of four blacks, four Latinos, two whites and two Asian-Americans--announced that it had reached several verdicts but was deadlocked on others.

After the jurors had a day of rest, the verdicts were read in court Monday, and Ouderkirk ordered the jury to continue deliberations. That afternoon, the panel announced it had reached one more verdict, but was still deadlocked on two counts. Ouderkirk told members to go back to work.

There were no new verdicts Tuesday. But the stress of deliberations was apparent. One juror expressed fear for the safety of herself and her family. Juror 79, an Asian-American woman, complained of high blood pressure. Less than two hours later, Juror 326, an elderly white woman, was taken to a doctor by deputies for an unspecified illness.

On the 15th day, Wednesday, the jury gathered at 8:30 a.m. in the deliberation room, and by 8:50, the court received a message that another decision had been reached. It was that Williams was not guilty of attempted murder. The final count--assault with a deadly weapon against Watson--remained unresolved.

Ten minutes later, the attempted murder verdict was read in court, and Ouderkirk declared a mistrial on the unresolved count against Watson.

As the last verdict was read, a middle-aged woman on the jury quietly sobbed. The forewoman put her arm around the juror.

The panel finally had reached the end of its ordeal.

Ouderkirk told a crowd of reporters and attorneys, hungry for some insight into what transpired behind closed doors: “The jurors have indicated today (that) they do not wish to speak to the media or anybody else at this time. . . . These people deserve to have their privacy respected.”

Times staff writer Carla Hall contributed to this story.

What Next

Here are some key future dates in the Reginald O. Denny beating case:

Oct. 25

* Damian Monroe Williams’ motion for reduced bail.

* Prosecutors to announce whether they will refile charges against Henry Keith Watson in the beating of trucker Larry Tarvin.

* Jurors will be brought back to court and asked if they want to speak with attorneys and reporters.

Nov. 9

* If charges are not dropped, trial is scheduled to begin for Antoine Miller in the attempted murder of Denny.

Dec. 1

* Sentencing hearing for Williams, convicted of felony mayhem and four counts of misdemeanor assault.

Dec. 7

* Williams to be sentenced.