Juror Racism Now Alleged in Henley Trial : Courts: Defense plans to present judge with statements from 2 jurors, who say a third was predisposed to convict ex-Ram player because of his race. Panelist denies the accusation.

Defense attorneys today expect to present a federal judge with statements from two jurors in the Darryl Henley cocaine trafficking trial who contend that a third juror was predisposed to convict the former Ram football player and his co-defendants from the outset of the trial because of their race.

The new information, which will include additional details of an alleged $50,000 bribe offer to a juror, is expected to lead to a defense request for a new trial, according to sources close to the case.

The defense, which will claim the third juror made repeated racial slurs early in the trial, also is expected to ask U.S. District Judge Gary L. Taylor to delay Henley’s June 12 sentencing. The cornerback faces a minimum 10-year prison sentence following his conviction March 28 on drug conspiracy and possession charges.

Juror Bryan Quihuis and Michael Malachowski, who was a juror for three weeks before being released from the case, have told investigators that, contrary to the judge’s instructions, the third juror repeatedly discussed the case while car-pooling with them to court.

In a signed, sworn statement given to defense attorneys April 11, Malachowski claimed that two weeks into the case, the third juror said he thought “all the (defendants) were guilty,” using a common racial slur for African Americans. Malachowski said the third juror referred to the four black defendants in that manner on a regular basis. A fifth defendant, Ralph Bustamante, is not African American.

Quihuis, who met with defense investigator Jerry Mulligan on April 20, said he too had heard the third juror make racist remarks, according to a transcript of that conversation.

The third juror, who has yet to meet with defense investigators, denied ever discussing the case with Malachowski or Quihuis, and also denied making any racist comments.

“No, I never said that,” he said in an interview Saturday evening outside his home. “I’m not like that. I got Mexican neighbors on this side of me and Mexican neighbors on that side. I’m not prejudiced. I have nothing against black people, Mexican people. There’s good people and there’s bad people. I’m not like that.

“We have black people right down on the corner and we’ve never had a problem with them.”

The third juror said he voted to convict Henley and the other defendants based on the evidence presented.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Deirdre Z. Eliot said Sunday that government prosecutors had not yet received information from the defense about the allegations and could not comment on them.

Henley, who is being held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview that “if the allegations even resemble any sort of truth, then the government should be next to my attorneys seeking a new trial.” He has denied any involvement in a bribe offer.

The defense is expected to ask Taylor to continue pressing an FBI jury tampering investigation, initiated last week by Taylor, and conduct a hearing on potential jury misconduct.

The third juror said he has been interviewed by the FBI, but said he was not asked about his alleged racist remarks. It was not clear Sunday why the FBI had questioned the third juror.

The allegations of racism follow a claim of jury tampering that emerged Thursday, when Quihuis contended that shortly before the jury began deliberating in late March, he was contacted by Malachowski with an offer to accept money from Henley to vote for acquittal, according to an order issued by Taylor.

Malachowski denied the allegations and Taylor ordered the FBI to investigate them.

Quihuis said he never made a request for money, and that Malachowski arrived at his home unannounced during the early part of jury deliberations and raised the subject of a bribe, according to the transcript of his statement to the defense investigator.

Quihuis said Malachowski told him that he had visited Henley a day earlier at Henley’s house, according to the transcript. Quihuis said he called Malachowski later that evening to make sure there was no misunderstanding: He was not going to accept any money, according to the transcript. Like the rest of the jury, Quihuis voted to convict the five defendants.

Defense investigator Mulligan confronted Quihuis with a taped telephone conversation between Malachowski and Quihuis. Quihuis confirmed the conversation had taken place. In a transcript of that telephone conversation, which will be given to Taylor today, Quihuis admits that he considered taking the money.

“Actually, $50,000 to anybody is gonna go in their head and (they would) think, ‘Wow, you know what $50,000 could do for a person,’ ” Quihuis said in his statement to Mulligan. Quihuis is the same juror who told the judge he was having trouble sleeping at night after seeing a phrase in a newspaper article that indicated Henley could face a sentence of life in prison if convicted. The judge left Quihuis on the jury after Quihuis assured him he could fairly deliberate and would disregard anything he had read in the newspaper.

Malachowski said Sunday he has been instructed not to talk to anyone. But in his sworn statement, he suggested that Quihuis first brought up the idea of voting “not guilty” in return for $50,000.

Quihuis did not respond to a message left on his home recorder Sunday.

Transcripts of his interview with Mulligan show that Quihuis said the third juror believed the defendants were guilty and said so early on in the case.

“It didn’t seem like he had an open mind,” Quihuis said in his statement. “I believe he said something like, uh, the government doesn’t bring anything to trial unless it knows that it can win.”

Quihuis said in his statement that the third juror appeared to have made up his mind before hearing all the evidence. He pointed out that the third juror did not take notes of the proceedings.

Asked why Malachowski and Quihuis might be making allegations of racism, the third juror said: “I don’t understand what’s going on. Why are they pulling me in?”

In his statement, Malachowski also offhandedly accused Quihuis with concluding the defendants are guilty early on in the trial, and said that Quihuis referred to the black defendants in the same derogatory way.

“I mean, you know, every day, we’d talk about the case,” Malachowski said in his statement. “. . . And sometimes they (the third juror and Quihuis) would just say, ‘Yeah, they’re guilty.’ ”

According to the transcript of his conversation with Mulligan, Quihuis said he doesn’t recall talking about the case to the third juror and Malachowski in the car. There is no response in the transcript to Malachowski’s allegations of racist remarks by Quihuis.

“I don’t believe so,” he said. “I’m not gonna say 100% for sure that I didn’t, but I don’t think I did. If I had to lean one way or more than the other, I’d say no I didn’t.”

The judge dismissed Malachowski from the case in mid-February after he reported to the judge receiving a phone message from a man who had the same name as one of Henley’s co-defendants. The FBI investigated the call but determined it was unrelated to any of the defendants in the case.

Malachowski recalled Henley’s address from testimony given in the case and visited Henley unannounced shortly before the jury began deliberations. Henley said he was suspicious of Malachowski’s visit, but talked with the ex-juror for more than an hour.

“I thought he might be there for the government. I was suspicious of everyone,” Henley said. “I never talked to him about money or anything like that and called my agent that night and told him of the visit. I told my lawyer the next day at court too, but he told me not to tell my other lawyer because he was getting ready for closing arguments.

“I thought Malachowksi was just some sort of football freak. I can tell you some people can really be forward when it comes to being a sports fans, and that’s what I thought it was all about.”