Ex-Juror Says Henley Behind Bribe of Panelist

A San Bernardino County man said in a detailed court statement Thursday that he and former Ram cornerback Darryl Henley plotted to bribe a sitting juror in the athlete’s recent drug trafficking trial and fabricated allegations of jury tampering to win Henley a new trial--after the bribery scheme fell through.

Michael D. Malachowski made the assertion in pleading guilty to federal charges that he obstructed justice when he unsuccessfully offered a $50,000 bribe--on Henley’s behalf--for a juror to vote not guilty in the football player’s trial.

The 25-year-old father of three sobbed as he was taken into custody after entering the plea before U.S. District Judge Gary L. Taylor.

Malachowski had served three weeks as a juror in Henley’s drug trafficking trial last year in which the former football player and four others were convicted. Their sentencing has been held up because Henley’s attorneys have demanded a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.

Malachowski was dismissed from the panel after reporting to the judge that he had received a phone call from a man who had the same name as one of Henley’s co-defendants. The FBI investigated the call but said it was unrelated to any defendants in the case.

Malachowski’s statement Thursday is the latest development in a case that has taken many twists since Henley’s conviction in March 1995. Prosecutors proved that Henley masterminded multikilogram cocaine shipments from his Brea home to Atlanta and Memphis using then-Rams cheerleader Tracy Ann Donaho to carry the drugs in luggage on commercial airlines.

But shortly after the trial, Henley and the others sought a new trial based on what they claimed was juror misconduct. They asserted that Bryan Quihuis--the juror whom the government says was the bribe target--solicited the bribe. The defense also said that another juror, identified as Shawn O’Reilly of San Bernardino, had expressed racial prejudice against the five defendants, four of whom are African American.

The motion for a new trial is pending before Taylor. But Malachowski’s guilty plea has raised serious doubts about the chances for a second trial, legal experts say, because it appears to place Henley himself at the center of the unsuccessful bribery scheme.

*

In his statement Thursday, Malachowski recanted earlier accounts of jury tampering, saying it was Henley--not Quihuis--who proposed the bribe. Henley told him to “do anything it takes” to persuade Quihuis to vote not guilty to the charges against the athlete and his uncle, Rex Henley, according to Malachowski.

“In return for his help in securing a not guilty verdict [and a] new trial, Darryl Henley advised Malachowski that he would help out Malachowski,” Malachowski said in a statement. “Malachowski understood this to mean that Darryl Henley would take care of Malachowski financially.”

Henley’s attorney did not return a call seeking comment. But Henley and his lawyers have previously denied any involvement in the alleged scheme to bribe Quihuis. Quihuis could not be reached for comment Thursday. During the defense motion for a new trial, Quihuis declined to testify, citing the 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Malachowski’s lawyer, John W. Barton of Newport Beach, said his client became part of the bribery scheme because he was unemployed and “in financial problems. He has admitted that he made a horrible mistake and is prepared to take whatever punishment the court gives to him,” Barton said.

Assistant U.S. Attys. John C. Rayburn Jr. and Deirdre Z. Eliot successfully argued that Malachowski should be detained until his sentencing Sept. 9. Rayburn said Malachowski had “a track record of deceit, lying and manipulation--all in an effort to get a quick buck.”

Malachowski faces up to 20 years in jail and $250,000 in fines, but he has agreed to cooperate with the government under a plea agreement, a factor that could be taken into consideration at sentencing. Barton said federal sentencing guidelines require that Malachowski receive a prison term ranging from a year to 18 months--except in unusual circumstances.

*

Apart from the motion for a new trial, Malachowski’s guilty plea has other implications for the government’s contention that evidence links Henley and his close associates to the bribery plot, the focus of a federal grand jury investigation.

Also convicted on conspiracy and possession charges were:

* Henley’s uncle, Rex Henley, 32, of Rancho Cucamonga. * Willie McGowan, 32, of Duarte.

* Garey West, 26, of Memphis. * Ralph Bustamante, 28, of Rancho Cucamonga.

All face at least 10 years in prison. Bustamante and West, who have prior drug convictions, face additional time.

Henley and the others were scheduled to be sentenced June 12, 1995--but that was before the case took its first post-conviction twist.

Before the sentences could be handed down, Quihuis reported to Judge Taylor that he had been contacted by Malachowski before jury deliberations began and offered a $50,000 bribe from Henley to vote not guilty. The judge ordered the FBI to investigate the bribery allegation.

Shortly thereafter, Rex Henley’s attorney filed a petition in federal court, seeking a new trial for his client. The petition alleged that O’Reilly--who voted to convict Henley and the others--had openly expressed racial prejudice against African Americans and used racial slurs.

The petition also alleged Quihuis told Malachowski that he would be willing to vote for the defendants’ acquittal in exchange for a $50,000 bribe. But after an FBI investigation, it was Malachowski who was indicted for jury tampering and obstruction of justice, not Quihuis.

In his statement, Malachowski now says he lied when he previously stated that Quihuis offered to throw the case if Henley and his uncle paid him a bribe.

*

The following is Malachowski’s version offered Thursday of the events that led to the bribery and jury tampering allegations:

Malachowski said he showed up unexpectedly at Henley’s home in Brea just before the trial ended last March. He told Henley he was a juror in the case and wanted to meet him. After talking about sports with Henley, Malachowski told Henley that should he be convicted, he should contact Malachowski, who might have information that would help the athlete and his uncle Rex Henley get a new trial.

The football player took him up on the invitation--but before the verdicts were rendered. Henley asked Malachowski if he knew any sitting juror who would vote not guilty for Darryl and Rex Henley. Malachowski later approached Quihuis to discuss the bribe offer.

During an initial meeting, Quihuis made Malachowski strip to his underwear to confirm that he was not wearing a hidden tape recorder. After that, Malachowski called Henley and handed the phone to Quihuis, who told the football player that “he wanted half the payment up front.”

But on the day of the verdict, Quihuis voted to convict all five defendants because “the evidence was strong and because Quihuis believed the defendants were in fact guilty.”

After the verdicts, Henley had his associate, Ron Knight, contact Malachowski to pursue a bid for a new trial. Knight and Malachowski crafted a story implicating Quihuis as the one who solicited the $50,000 bribe.

Knight also told Malachowski to embellish racial remarks that O’Reilly allegedly made while car-pooling to the court with Quihuis and Malachowski.

Rex Henley’s attorney, James Riddet, said he had not seen Malachowski’s statements.

“I’m fully confident that the facts will show that Rex Henley is entitled to a new trial based upon the tainting of Mr. Quihuis, a sitting juror,” Riddet said. “There’s no way Quihuis could have been an objective juror if he was involved in discussing a bribe.”