Jury Controversy Still Alive Months After Valli Verdict

It’s been four months since a jury found the wife of ‘60s singing icon Frankie Valli guilty of misdemeanor battery for slapping a Moorpark restaurateur during a dispute over a meal.

Yet a legal melodrama continues to unfold in Ventura County Superior Court.

On Wednesday, prosecutors asked to reopen a hearing on alleged juror misconduct. Randi Valli’s defense attorneys objected, saying it would be unfair at this stage in the process to call new witnesses.

Judge Herbert Curtis just shook his head. He told the attorneys he has spent nights and weekends crafting a lengthy written ruling for a case that barely deserves such attention.

“This case is really tragic for all of us,” he said. “I’ve spent more hours researching issues in this case than officer-involved attempted murders. It’s time to wrap it up.”

The lengthy post-trial litigation centers on defense allegations that a male juror made angry remarks about Valli’s lawyer during deliberations--remarks that may have biased the jury against her.

The defense has filed a motion for a new trial, and Valli’s sentencing has been indefinitely postponed.

In June, the defense called three jurors to testify on statements allegedly made by a male jury member, juror No. 11.

They said the juror criticized attorney Louis “Chuck” Samonsky for his role in a high-profile murder case, saying Samonsky was the same lawyer who withheld information on the location of missing Oak View teen Kali Manley.

“That’s the so-and-so who let the little girl lie in a ditch in Ojai,” one juror testified, referring to the male juror’s alleged statements. “He [juror No. 11] said, ‘I guess I should have mentioned that to the judge before I was seated.’ ”

Samonsky, who represented murder suspect David Alvarez in the Manley case, contends juror No. 11 concealed a bias against him throughout Valli’s two-week trial despite the judge’s request that prospective jurors indicate any biases before being seated.

Prosecutors contend the allegations do not warrant a new trial. Even the jurors who testified they heard the remark said it did not influence their decision to convict Valli, though the foreman said she felt pressured for other reasons.

She testified other jurors had told her Valli was at fault because she had hired a “high-powered” attorney.

When she disagreed, she testified, a juror threw a set of jury instructions at her and another remarked, “I hate that celebrities always get off the hook.”

How much weight Curtis will give any of the jurors’ remarks remains to be seen.

During Wednesday’s hearing, he said the court record is full of hearsay statements.

The jurist refused to let prosecutors call juror No. 11, who was out of state during the June hearing. But Curtis agreed to consider a sworn affidavit from the man.

Curtis said he will release his written decision next week.