Fleiss Trial Jurors Say They Improperly Discussed Case : Courts: Five panelists admit talking outside jury room. Defense expected to ask that pandering verdicts be voided.

Five jurors in the Heidi Fleiss trial have signed sworn statements saying they improperly discussed the case outside court before reaching verdicts--an admission that could result in a new trial for the convicted Hollywood Madam.

In their statements, two men and three women--including the jury forewoman--said they talked about possible sentences in the parking lot, hallways and the cafeteria at the Downtown Los Angeles Criminal Courts Building, sources close to the case said.

Defense attorney Anthony Brooklier, who solicited the affidavits from the jurors after the trial, is expected to file a motion today asking Superior Court Judge Judith L. Champagne to overturn the verdicts and grant Fleiss a new trial on three counts of pandering.

For three years, Fleiss ran a ring of high-priced call girls, catering to the whims of an elite Los Angeles clientele. At the conclusion of her trial, the seven-man, five-woman panel convicted Fleiss on three of five counts of pandering. They acquitted the 28-year-old high school dropout of a cocaine-related charge.

Some jurors said after the trial that by voting for a pandering conviction they hoped to spare Fleiss the penalties of the drug-related charge, which they believed would be more severe. The jurors said they were unaware that a pandering conviction carried a mandatory prison sentence. Some discussion of this subject, they said, occurred outside the jury room. More than one juror also wrote that she did not completely understand the jury instructions.

Under state law, jurors are allowed to discuss a case only in the jury room during deliberations. And, in deciding a case, the panelists are not supposed to consider the penalties.

Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said Monday that if the verdict is overturned, his office will prosecute Fleiss again.

Jury forewoman Sheila Mitrowski said she realized she had made a mistake in the trial after she appeared last week on the “Geraldo” show. During the show, a legal expert explained entrapment, or the concept of police inducing a criminal act. Although this was discussed during the trial, Mitrowski said she had misunderstood the law. “After I flew back home, I was sitting there watching (the “Geraldo” show on) TV. I thought, ‘Holy cow! I did that wrong,’ ” Mitrowski said.

The television show forced Mitrowski to reconsider her view and ask herself whether any law-abiding citizen would act similarly to Fleiss, who stood to earn 40% of the $1,500 paid by undercover police to each of the four women in her ring. Her conclusion was that an ordinary person would act the same way. “To me, there really and truly is that possibility--a lot of people will do a lot of things for that kind of money,” she said.

Because of this new understanding, Mitrowski said she gave an affidavit to Brooklier.

“I feel very badly,” said the 48-year-old phone company clerical worker from Bell Gardens. “I feel I made a mistake when I found her guilty of those three counts (of pandering).”

But according to legal experts, jurors can change their minds without an indication of misconduct. More important to Brooklier’s bid for a mistrial will be Mitrowski’s admission that she talked with panelists about the case outside the deliberation room.

Mitrowski said she did not believe any of her discussions outside the jury room had an adverse effect. “Yes, I did have some brief conversations outside the deliberation room, but they certainly did not sway the way I voted.”

Juror Joseph Lechuga also acknowledged that some panelists had talked among themselves outside the courtroom, but added that he thought Fleiss got a fair trial.

“Because of my actions, I don’t know if there should be another trial,” he said. “Another jury might give her worse.”

Since Fleiss’ conviction earlier this month, Brooklier has maintained that jurors engaged in “horse trading” and improper conduct that deprived his client of a fair trial. Brooklier met with the jurors Saturday, postponing the meeting from earlier in the week because Mitrowski and another juror went to New York to appear on the “Geraldo” show.

Brooklier declined to comment on the latest twist in the Fleiss case, which became the subject of international media coverage last summer and created wild speculation locally about the identities of Fleiss’ clientele. According to Fleiss and her employees, their patrons included several well-known Hollywood producers, rock stars, foreign diplomats and international businessmen.

Fleiss--who faces a mandatory prison sentence of three years to eight years, eight months--said she had pinned all her hopes on Brooklier’s effort to win a new trial.

“My future was so bleak--so, so bleak and now maybe there’s another way,” Fleiss said. “God, am I happy.”

Fleiss also said she appreciated what she called the bravery of the five jurors who gave their sworn statements to Brooklier.

“It takes a lot of courage for anybody to come forward and admit they did something wrong,” she said. “It’s a very hard thing to do.”

Legal experts not involved in the case were divided on the impact of the jurors’ statements and whether Champagne would grant a mistrial. If the judge concludes that there was misconduct among jurors, that finding does not automatically mean she will grant a new trial, said Peter Arenella, a professor at UCLA Law school.

“Generally, it is very difficult to impeach a jury’s verdict by raising allegations of misconduct,” said Arenella, who added that these jurors faced no criminal charges for their recent revelations.

Champagne will have to determine if the jurors’ actions adversely affected Fleiss and her ability to obtain a fair trial, Arenella said. “For example, if the improper discussion of sentencing consequences led the jury to acquit the defendant on a particular count out of fear that the sentencing consequences would be too harsh, that hardly constitutes prejudice to the defendant.”

But some experts said they thought Brooklier might win a new trial for his high-profile client.

The jurors “are only supposed to deliberate when all 12 are present--that certainly was misconduct,” said Harland W. Braun, a prominent Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer. “That they discussed penalty at all is improper. It sounds to me like they have a good chance of getting this verdict set aside.”

Brooklier’s strategy was bolstered by the fact that five panelists--not just one--wrote affidavits, said Charles Weisselberg, a law professor at USC.

“It strengthens the credibility of the jurors and makes it difficult for the court to say this didn’t happen,” Weisselberg said.

Still other experts said it was unclear whether there was sufficient evidence to grant a mistrial.

“It is wrong for the jurors to talk about the case outside the juror room, but it’s almost inevitable that this happens,” said Victor Gold, a professor at Loyola Law School. “But it’s probably not something that would affect the verdict.”