More jury trouble stops deliberations again today

Kim Smith

Tuesday, May 1, 2001 | 12:09 p.m.

Jury deliberations in the Margaret Rudin trial were called to a halt this morning for the second time in two days.

A courthouse spokesman would not elaborate, but he said there apparently was another problem with the jurors in the case.

The attorneys met with District Judge Joseph Bonaventure behind closed doors this morning. A hearing in open court was scheduled this afternoon.

Bonaventure and the attorneys spent most of Monday behind closed doors deciding whether Juror No. 11, a registered nurse and former military police officer, should be removed from the jury.

Later Monday, defense attorney Michael Amador filed an affidavit in support of a mistrial. Amador said he intends to complain about Bonaventure to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.

Bonaventure ultimately ruled the juror could continue deliberating, but the judge excused an alternate juror.

According to transcripts, an alternate juror talked with Bonaventure on Sunday. She told him that Juror 11 called her twice within the past five days -- a clear violation of court rules governing jurors.

In the first telephone conversation -- which occurred after closing arguments -- the two women discussed an incident that happened at the Golden Nugget during lunch. Both women were apparently upset at how a bailiff handled a dispute over seating arrangements that affected their ability to smoke.

They also said that Bonaventure had humiliated Juror 11 when he questioned her afterward about her ability to continue to serve on the jury. He did so in front of the attorneys and media -- particularly Court TV.

During the second conversation Saturday, the alternate juror said Juror 11 expressed her anguish over being the only juror who believes the state hasn't proven its case against Rudin.

"She said, 'I'm having trouble dealing with it,' " the alternate juror told Bonaventure and the attorneys. " 'It started out nine-four,' she said, 'and I'm the only one left.' "

Juror 11 admitted she made both phone calls, but she said she did not go into specifics with the alternate. She said they simply talked to her about the hard time she was having with deliberations.

After listening to the jurors the attorneys for both sides argued about what should be done.

Defense attorney Thomas Pitaro argued for a mistrial, and Chief Deputy District Attorney Chris Owens asked for Juror 11 to be replaced with an alternate juror.

After returning to an open courtroom Bonaventure ruled he would keep Juror 11 on the jury because she said she was not biased or prejudiced toward either side. He excused the alternate juror, however, because he had contact with her without the attorneys being present.

At the close of the hearing Amador filed his affidavit in support of Pitaro's mistrial request. He also filed a note from Rudin saying she too wants a mistrial.

Rudin wrote that Bonaventure has often given his opinions in front of the jurors and "these opinions, often expressed in anger with loud, explosive tones in his voice could not help but taint the jurors."

In his affidavit Amador also said Bonaventure's actions toward him and his exhibits have affected the jury and ruined Rudin's chances for a fair trial.

If Bonaventure follows through on his threat of sanctions, Amador said he wants a hearing during which he will be represented by another attorney. In the meantime, Amador said, he demands that Bonaventure "refrain from any further insulting, undignified and discourteous remarks" to him.

During the closed door session Bonaventure told Pitaro that any remarks Amador wanted to make would have to come through Pitaro.

"I don't want him addressing me. I don't trust him," Bonaventure told Pitaro. "If he wants to say something, he's to go to you. He whispers in your ear, Mr. Pitaro, and you tell me what he wants to say. I don't want him addressing this court, do you understand that?"

Last week Bonaventure told Amador -- away from the jury -- the attorney had lost all respect and honor as far as the judge was concerned. The judge did so after Amador broke a promise concerning the length and breadth of his closing arguments.

Rudin is accused of killing her husband, Ronald Rudin, in his bedroom in December 1994 so she could inherit her share of his $11 million estate.

Rudin's defense attorneys contend Ronald Rudin was a shady real estate developer who was likely killed by business associates. They also dispute that Ronald Rudin was killed in his bedroom.

In a note sent to the judge late Monday, Juror 11 asked if they had to acquit Rudin if they believe Ronald Rudin was not killed in his bedroom.

Pitaro told the judge the answer has to be "yes." Prosecutor Gary Guymon said the state can have alternate theories of the case. He wanted the jurors to be directed to a specific jury instruction that explains that rationale.

The judge told the jurors to re-read all of the jury instructions.