COURT GRANTS NEW HEARING FOR PRISONER WHOSE CODEFENDANT BRIBED JUROR

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A Los Angeles man who has been in prison since 1988
for cocaine convictions is entitled to a hearing on whether the verdict
against him was affected when his codefendant tried to bribe a juror, a
federal appeals court ruled Friday.

Michael Dutkel's conviction should be set aside unless prosecutors can prove
that the bribe did not affect his case, said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals. Dutkel could then be tried again on the same charges.

Dutkel is serving a 15-year sentence for conspiracy and possession of about
22 pounds of cocaine. He allegedly tried to sell the drug to an undercover
agent in the San Fernando Valley in April 1988.

The jury deadlocked, with one of 12 jurors voting for acquittal, on whether
to convict a second defendant, Eugene D. Washington. After his second trial
also ended in a hung jury, Washington pleaded guilty to lesser charges and
was sentenced to five years in prison.

Before his release, however, he was convicted of jury tampering and
sentenced to 12 more years in prison.

Two men testified that, during the first trial, they approached the juror
who later voted for acquittal. They told him the "white guy" (Dutkel) was
guilty and the "black guy" (Washington) was innocent. The two men promised
the juror cash, a job and a new car if he voted to acquit Washington, the
court said.

The two men also said they mentioned the juror's newborn daughter, suggested
they would follow him home and made it clear they were monitoring his moves.
They said the juror gave them daily reports about deliberations and was the
lone vote to acquit Washington. The juror was not prosecuted.

Dutkel requested a new trial after he learned, in 1995, of Washington's
effort to bribe the juror. Dutkel was turned down by U.S. District Judge
Edward Rafeedie, who said he was not persuaded that Washington's henchmen
affected the verdict against Dutkel.

But the appeals court said the outside pressure could have influenced the
juror to convict Dutkel. The court also said the juror could have been
distracted by his fears for his family and by his efforts to conceal the
affair from other jurors and the judge.

Defense lawyer Daniel Horowitz said the ruling reaffirms that, in a time of
increasingly strict sentences, "we have to have absolute faith in our
juries."

The case is U.S. vs. Dutkel, 98-55338.