Jurors Admit Dealing on Fleiss Verdict

Three jurors in the Heidi Fleiss case said in affidavits filed Thursday that they agreed to trade votes on the Hollywood madam’s criminal sentence in an effort they mistakenly believed would lessen her jail time.

The jurors’ statements, filed in Superior Court as part of a prolonged effort by Fleiss’ attorneys to win a new trial, echoed earlier claims by the lawyers that jurors broke the law by “horse-trading” during deliberations.

Fleiss’ attorneys claim that jurors were attempting to craft a lighter sentence--not voting solely on Fleiss’ guilt or innocence on each charge--when they agreed to convict Fleiss of pandering while voting her not guilty of a drug-related charge.

The jurors violated the court instructions by discussing Fleiss’ possible punishment when deliberating her guilt, her attorneys say.

Fleiss was convicted in December on three counts of pandering, which meant a mandatory prison sentence of more than eight years.

The jury deadlocked on two other pandering charges and acquitted Fleiss on a drug-related charge, which several jurors wrongly believed carried a heavier penalty. Sentencing is pending.

“The only reason I voted guilty” on the three pandering counts, juror Zina Alavi said in her affidavit, “was because I discussed the penalty and potential punishment of Ms. Fleiss with other jurors, and I believed that by so voting I could obtain a not guilty verdict on the narcotics offense. . . . I agreed to and did trade my guilty vote on the pandering counts in exchange for a not guilty vote on the narcotics offense.”

The sworn declarations offered more detail into the stormy deliberation process.

In earlier affidavits, Alavi and several other jurors admitted that they discussed the case outside court.

Fleiss’ attorneys said Thursday’s affidavits showed that jurors violated another rule that forbids them from bringing outside materials into the jury room.

At one point during the deliberations, the three jurors said in their affidavits, another juror asked the bailiff for a dictionary to define several terms.

After the bailiff declined, the juror “looked the words up in a dictionary at home, wrote them down, and then communicated them to us the next day during deliberations,” according to the declarations.

One of Fleiss’ attorneys, Donald Marks, will ask Superior Court Judge Judith Champagne for a new trial in a hearing next week.

A sworn declaration from a fourth juror is expected to be filed today.

The jurors have been granted limited immunity in exchange for more detailed accounts of their deliberations.