Ruling Backs Judges’ Right to Remove Jurors

In a case that was influenced by the Rodney G. King beating and may one day affect the O.J. Simpson double murder trial, a state appeal court has reaffirmed the wide latitude judges have to dismiss jurors.

Although the ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles breaks no new legal ground, it comes at a time when the right of a judge to remove a juror deemed “unable to perform his or her duty” has been raised repeatedly in the ongoing Simpson case.

But exactly how, or even if, the new ruling may be applied in the Simpson matter is as unpredictable as the trial itself, legal experts said.

The May 17 decision stems from the April 29, 1988, slaying of Howard King, 67, who was fatally shot in his bedroom while his wife, Faye, was held at knifepoint in the kitchen of their Woodland Hills home. After killing Howard King (no relation to Rodney King), the two robbers made off with a pistol, the couple’s passports and a Seiko watch.

Two South Los Angeles men were charged with the murder and their trial took place in Van Nuys Superior Court before Judge Kathryne Ann Stoltz. Jury deliberations produced a holdout for acquittal--a black woman who, according to court records, told other jurors that the Los Angeles Police Department was prejudiced against blacks, including the two African American defendants whose fate they were deciding.

*

As it happened, the trial unfolded in the weeks following the Rodney King beating and the recalcitrant juror, Kathy Perdue, specifically mentioned the beating as evidence of police bias, court records show. She also suggested that the two men on trial--Devin Feagin and Terrill Ross--could have been framed in the killing of the white victim, according to records.

Other jurors complained to Stoltz, who held closed-door hearings and then kicked Perdue off the jury, finding that she refused to take part in “meaningful deliberations.”

The judge did precisely the right thing, the appeal court ruled--producing a decision that, legal experts said, serves as a fresh reminder of the power given Superior Court judges, such as Stoltz and Lance Ito, to bounce jurors from a case.

“In reality, this case doesn’t make new law. It reaffirms and applies existing law,” said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.

For those reasons, Chemerinsky said he found it intriguing that the ruling was issued as a “published” decision, meaning it now serves as formal precedent and can be cited to bolster legal arguments in other cases.

Although appellate court judges rarely discuss their decisions, Chemerinsky speculated that they may have ruled in the Woodland Hills case with an eye toward the Simpson trial.

Defense attorney Thomas F. Coleman, who is defending Ross in his appeal in the Woodland Hills slaying case, said he also had found it unusual for the ruling to be published. “Then it hit me,” Coleman said. “This could be to help Judge Ito.”

Coleman and lawyer Mark Alan Hart, who represents Feagin, said they plan to appeal the May 17 ruling to the California Supreme Court.

Their clients had claimed they were innocent of Howard King’s killing despite his widow’s identification of them during the trial and the presence of their fingerprints and possibly, their shoe prints, at the crime scene.

They said they were visiting friends in Woodland Hills when they were chased by two or three youths, spurring them to run through several yards and knock on doors for help. Ross also claimed that he touched a newspaper in a police interview room and that the paper was planted in the King home to incriminate him.

A few days into deliberations, the forewoman sent a note to Stoltz saying that juror No. 3, Perdue, was not following jury instructions. Perdue, meanwhile, sent the judge a note saying she was “really concerned” that other jurors were racially prejudiced.

After interviewing all 12 jurors in her chambers, Stoltz concluded that Perdue “came in with a bias against police officers” and was “evaluating the evidence based on her emotions and not on a rational analysis of the evidence.”

Perdue was “unwilling and unable to participate in meaningful deliberations,” Stoltz found before dismissing her. An alternate was picked, and a few days later, both Feagin and Ross were convicted of murder.

In an interview, Stoltz said, “I think a judge should be very reluctant to remove a juror. It’s a delicate thing. It certainly should not be done simply because a person disagrees. But I think this was a clear-cut case of a juror who refused to follow instructions.”

The 2nd District court agreed. In its opinion, it said there was ample cause to remove Perdue, saying she had “prejudged the credibility of the police officers” and was “unable to cast aside her personal bias in weighing the evidence.”

Perdue could not be located for comment.

The ruling resoundingly affirms the trial judge’s power to find “good cause” for removal of a juror both before, and during, deliberations.

Sometimes, legal experts said, “good cause” is obvious. Jurors are regularly removed for gross infractions such as drinking, lying or talking about the case outside of court.

But outside of cases involving misconduct or illness, the standards of “good cause” are vague--deliberately so, experts said.

The reasoning, scholars said, is that in what is often a subtle and complex determination, the trial judge can see the behavior and demeanor of a juror--but the appellate courts can only read transcripts. Unless there is evidence of a factual error or there’s been a clear abuse of discretion, trial judges must be free to make their own decisions.

Ito already has removed 10 jurors, for reasons as diverse as failing to disclose experience with domestic violence, keeping notes, and having the same doctor as Simpson.

*

Under the appellate ruling, if Ito has explained--even in closed hearings--why he believed each juror posed a threat to a fair trial, he’s on solid ground, Chemerinsky said.

In fact, Southwestern University law professor Robert Pugsley said, the ruling also helps explain why the Court of Appeal turned down the emergency appeal filed Monday by Simpson’s defense lawyers after Ito earlier in the day had dismissed Willie Cravin, a 54-year-old black man, from the jury.

The ruling would also seem to affirm Ito’s decision in April to bar Simpson from a series of juror interviews the judge conducted after excusing juror Jeanette Harris. She alleged the jury was divided and fighting along racial lines.

The 2nd District said a defendant has no right to be at such an interview because it is not a phase of the trial dealing directly with the issue of guilt or innocence.

It also noted that the public and press have no right to be there either.