Christensen claims improper removal of a juror in wiretap case, seeks new trial

Terry Christensen, the lawyer who was convicted last month on conspiracy charges related to the wiretapping of his opponent in a high-profile child support case, has filed two motions for a new trial based on the alleged improper removal of a juror during deliberations.

Christensen, the former managing partner of Los Angeles-based Christensen, Glaser, Fink, Jacobs, Weil & Shapiro (which was renamed last week to Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs & Shapiro), was convicted on conspiracy to commit wiretapping and aiding and abetting a wiretap.

Federal prosecutors had alleged that Christensen paid private investigator Anthony Pellicano more than $100,000 to wiretap the phones of Lisa Bonder Kerkorian, the ex-wife of his client, billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, who were engaged in litigation in 2002 over support for her daughter, Kira. The two were married in 1999 for 28 days; Bonder Kerkorian had been seeking up to $320,000 per month in support.

After less than two hours of jury deliberations, U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer, of the Central District of California, removed a juror reportedly because he had refused to deliberate and had questioned the law on which the charges were based.

In a motion for a new trial, filed on Friday, Christensen disputed that assertion, stating that the ousted juror, a Russian native referred to as Juror No. 7, simply disagreed with his fellow jurors on the merits of the case.

Before ousting Juror No. 7, Fischer received several notes from the foreperson. One claimed that Juror No. 7 "doesn't agree with the law, about wiretapping. Understands what the law is but doesn't agree," according to Christensen's motion.

An attached piece of paper, signed by another juror, said Juror No. 7 had stated: "If it's OK for the government to do it and not get caught. [sic] Then it's [sic] should be OK for him."

A second note said Juror No. 7 answered a question about the illegality of wiretapping by stating: "In the law we don't have to pay federal taxes, just state taxes."

Another note quoted Juror No. 7 as saying that "this [sic] case is a joke case. No one died," and "I don't treat this case seriously."

In the motion, Christensen argues that Fischer, in interviews with jurors after receiving the notes, was unable to obtain a clear response about whether Juror No. 7 disagreed with the law. Furthermore, the motion continues, Juror No. 7 was targeted because of his ethnicity and because several of the other jurors wanted a quick verdict so they could go home.

"Nothing that Juror No. 7 said to the Court suggests that he was biased in any impermissible way ­ he simply was not impressed with the government's circumstantial evidence," the motion states.

In an interview earlier this month, Juror No. 7 explained to Christensen's lawyers that he had intended to follow the law and that the other jurors were angry with him for disagreeing about the case, the motion claims.

In a separate motion, also filed on Friday, Christensen claims that federal prosecutors, on numerous occasions, violated their discovery obligations, which "materially impacted Christensen's defense."

Christensen's sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 17.

On Monday, Fischer denied a motion for a new trial filed by Pellicano, who was convicted earlier this year on 76 counts including wiretapping and racketeering. He was convicted alongside Christensen last month on two additional counts of conspiracy to commit wiretapping and wiretapping.

Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, declined to comment.

-- Amanda Bronstad