Jury dispute halts trial temporarily

Kim Smith

Wednesday, May 2, 2001 | 11:27 a.m.

As jurors headed into the fifth day of deliberations this morning it appears as though Margaret Rudin's fate rests in the hands of one juror -- Juror 11.

The dark-haired Pennsylvania native is every defense attorney's dream and every prosecutor's nightmare.

As of this morning, Juror 11 was the only one standing between Rudin and prison. She maintains the state has not proven its case against the 56-year-old socialite beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks to allegations that have come out about Juror 11, the general public is getting an unusual look into what is typically a highly secret process -- jury deliberations.

On Monday and Tuesday District Judge Joseph Bonaventure was forced to stop jury deliberations and meet behind closed doors with the attorneys.

On Monday it was revealed that Juror 11 violated the standard rule of not discussing an ongoing case with outside parties by telephoning an alternate juror over the weekend.

Then Tuesday more allegations came out about the juror -- causing one defense attorney to accuse the state of trying to frame her so they can get rid of her and obtain a conviction.

In each case, Bonaventure decided to allow Juror 11 -- a registered nurse and former military police officer -- to remain on the jury.

Prosecutors Chris Owens and Gary Guymon informed Bonaventure Tuesday that a person claiming to be a relative of a juror posted messages about the case in a Court TV online message board Monday morning.

The person informed everyone that the initial vote cast was 9-3 and a later vote was 11-1 -- before those votes were made common knowledge in the courtroom Monday afternoon. The person also made it clear, without mentioning Juror 11, that he was a relative of the lone hold-out.

"From my conversations with the juror over the weekend he/she is determined, and it will take quite a bit to change their mind," the person wrote.

After being told by other chat room participants that the juror who spoke about the case was guilty of juror misconduct, the person apologized and said he was just joking.

"I'm not affiliated with anyone on the jury ... sorry for the joke!" the person wrote.

According to court transcripts, defense attorney Tom Pitaro told Bonaventure he thinks someone from the prosecution team wrote the message. What followed over the next few minutes was a hot exchange between Pitaro and Owens with Owens calling Pitaro a "jerk" and Pitaro saying he doesn't need to take any "crap" from Owens.

The conversation then led to a letter written by Juror 5, the foreman. In the letter, the foreman, a special education teacher, asks Bonaventure to remove Juror 11.

The foreman said she should be removed because she was stressed that the trial caused her to lose her job. The foreman also said she had an altercation with a bailiff and that she has refused to actively participate in the discussions at various times.

At one point, Juror 5 said she simply glared at him rather than engage in dialogue. In another instance, the foreman said, she said a guilty verdict could "cost Margaret her life" -- even though jurors are not supposed to be thinking about the penalty phase of the trial.