2 Jurors Are Summoned in Conduct Probe

The jury foreman and an alternate juror have been asked to appear in court next week as part of an expanding investigation into alleged misconduct among jurors who convicted three Los Angeles police officers of framing gang members.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jacqueline A. Connor has summoned the two jurors to appear in her courtroom Wednesday to respond to testimony Friday by Wendy Christiansen, another alternate in the case.

Christiansen, who disagreed with the guilty verdicts, said Victor Flores, who was later chosen as jury foreman, told her and the other alternate on the first day of trial that he believed the defendants were guilty.

Flores’ comment “was to the effect that he felt they were guilty,” Christiansen told the judge. Christiansen said Flores made the comment while she and the other alternate were having lunch with him.

When Connor asked if Flores had heard any testimony when he made the comment, Christiansen replied: “None at all.” She also complained that jurors made snide comments about defense attorneys.

Reached after the hearing, Flores denied Christiansen’s charges that he made up his mind before testimony began. “Absolutely not. That’s totally wrong,” he said.

“We were talking about how the defendants were staring at us and how the lawyers had nice suits,” Flores said. “But that was all we talked about. Is that wrong?”

The second alternate, an accountant who left the trial early to take a CPA exam, could not be reached for comment.

Defense attorneys, meanwhile, were optimistic Friday that Christiansen’s testimony could help them win new trials for Sgts. Edward Ortiz, 44, and Brian Liddy, 39, and Officer Michael Buchanan, 30.

Attorney Harland W. Braun cited a 1976 California Court of Appeal ruling involving the case of a doctor charged with welfare fraud. In that case, the court granted a new trial because a juror remarked that he thought the defendant was guilty before the prosecution finished its case.

“If the foreman was to come in here and admit that he made that statement, then the court will have to give us a new trial,” Braun said of Flores.

If Flores denies it, Braun said, the defense will still have the testimony of the second alternate, who also was part of the conversation. It will be up to the courts to decide who is telling the truth.

Defense attorney Barry Levin said, “Now, we’ll see the code of silence in action” among jurors called to testify. Jurors, including Flores, have said they believe the police witnesses had trouble recalling facts because they were protecting one another.

Christiansen’s complaints surfaced shortly after the jury convicted the officers Wednesday.

The alternate, who had not been privy to the deliberations, complained to reporters that she witnessed improper juror behavior.

Soon after, Christiansen phoned Connor’s office to complain, prompting Friday’s hearing. Attorneys for the defense and the prosecution said Friday they had not spoken to Christiansen or suggested that she call the judge.

Christiansen tried to complain Nov. 9, the second day of deliberations, but she never followed through when Connor’s clerk told her to turn in a written complaint.

Christiansen had apparently written out the complaint but never gave it to the clerk. She brought the letter to court Friday, but Connor refused to release it to reporters until the issue of juror misconduct is settled.

Initially, Connor planned to hold the hearing in private but agreed to hold it in open court after lawyers for The Times objected.