Judge Rejects Fleiss’ Bid for Retrial, Sets Sentencing for May

A Superior Court judge denied a motion Friday to grant a new trial to Heidi Fleiss, the convicted Hollywood madam who set Los Angeles atwitter with speculation about which entertainment industry power brokers might appear in her tightly held black book.

Sentencing for Fleiss, who is free on bail, was set for May 12. She faces a sentence of three years to eight years and eight months in prison.

In the bid for a new trial, Fleiss’ attorneys alleged that jury misconduct contributed to her conviction in December on three charges of pandering. But Judge Judith L. Champagne said she doubted the credibility of four jurors who in sworn statements and recent testimony described how they discussed the case outside the jury room. The topic, they said, was swapping votes on various counts in order to reach a more lenient sentence.

“It is apparent to the court,” Champagne said, “that with each opportunity to describe their acts of misconduct, these acts of misconduct seem to grow--a little like Pinocchio’s nose.”

Jury forewoman Sheila Mitrowski, who had testified and signed two sworn affidavits detailing her alleged misconduct, laughed when later informed of Champagne’s sardonic remark.

“So we got a little comedienne on the bench?” said Mitrowski, a telephone company clerk who lives in Bell Gardens. “Sounded like she didn’t believe us. But we wouldn’t have put ourselves on a limb to make the statements we did if we weren’t telling the truth. I feel it’s very unfair to Heidi.”

Fleiss, 29, dressed in a trim blue suit with black velvet cuffs, clenched her hands into fists when she heard Champagne’s ruling. Her father, pediatrician Paul Fleiss, shook his head disconsolately while her teen-age brother Jesse sobbed quietly.

“It’s really tough,” Heidi Fleiss said later.

Her attorneys said they planned to appeal Champagne’s decision.

In announcing her decision Friday, the judge had to evaluate whether jurors had engaged in significant misconduct that resulted in an unfair trial.

“Without minimizing the seriousness of the misconduct here, I find that there is no substantial likelihood that the misconduct prejudiced the defendant,” Champagne ruled.

Experts say a decision to grant a new trial would have been unusual.

“Unless the misconduct is very clear on the record, courts are quite reluctant to grant new trials,” said Charles Weisselberg, a law professor at USC. “The area of juror misconduct is very difficult for the courts, because it is difficult to separate out jurors’ second thoughts from the claims” of misconduct.

Fleiss, who ran an exclusive call girl ring catering to Hollywood glitterati, was thrust into the spotlight with her arrest in August, 1993, after an undercover sting operation.

Stormy deliberations began after the six-day trial and Fleiss was convicted of pandering. The jury deadlocked on two other pandering charges and acquitted her of a narcotics-related charge.

After the verdict was announced and jurors learned that Fleiss faced a mandatory prison sentence, Mitrowski and several other panelists expressed remorse. When approached by Fleiss’ attorneys, Mitrowski and four jurors initially agreed to supply sworn affidavits, which described how they discussed the case outside the jury room. In a second batch of affidavits, four jurors offered more details about their alleged misconduct, saying they discussed the potential punishment faced by Fleiss--a violation of the judge’s orders.

Under the mistaken impression that the narcotics charge was more serious, jurors also said they traded votes, voting guilty on pandering in exchange for a not guilty vote on the drug-related offense.

During a hearing last month, Champagne reviewed the motion for a new trial, hearing testimony from Mitrowski and one other juror. That testimony, however, led to confusing, somewhat contradictory accounts about the often-tempestuous deliberations.

Legal experts were divided on the issue of whether Fleiss deserved a new trial. Enough questions were raised, some said, about what went on during deliberations to cast doubt on the entire proceedings.

“Is the verdict arrived at in a way that inspires confidence? The answer is no,” said defense lawyer Marcia Morissey. “We ought not to be sending people to prison based on verdicts reached in this manner.

Others, however, felt that Fleiss’ attorneys had not proved that the jurors’ behavior led to an unfair verdict. Jurors frequently violate the judge’s orders and discuss information that was not presented during a trial, some lawyers said.

“Jurors do this all the time,” said Victor Gold, a professor at Loyola Law School. “If we are going to overturn cases on this basis, we are going to have to build twice as many courthouses.”