CFC OKLAHOMA

Molestation jurors: Did we get it wrong?

By Denise Nix Staff Writer
Posted: 11/07/2009 06:36:13 PM PST

www.dailybreeze.com/crimeandcourts/ci_13739198

In the few moments it took Gale Kadota to reach the parking lot outside the Torrance Courthouse after completing her jury duty, she realized she had made a mistake.

She and 11 other jurors had just convicted a Lomita great-grandfather of molesting two neighborhood girls, and now she was convinced they had got it wrong.

So Kadota called her daughter asking for help. The 53-year-old San Pedro mother of six wanted the phone number of the attorney for Roy Joseph Senter, the man they had found guilty.

Meanwhile, nearby in the parking lot on Oct. 28, Elizabeth Keye was sitting in her car, praying. The 23-year-old recent college graduate from Lomita was asking God to intervene in the same case, hoping the judge would go easy on Senter in case he was really innocent.

A little later, Karna Gottdener arrived at her Palos Verdes Estates home, feeling uneasy.

"I remember going home and thinking: `I really hope we did the right thing because it just seemed so definite,"' said the 62-year-old retiree and first-time juror.

All three women say they're not quite sure how to explain what happened in the jury deliberation room that prompted their guilty votes.

In separate interviews, they all expressed a feeling that there just wasn't enough evidence to convict Senter, 74, of the two counts.

But all three said that, in the end, they went along with the majority to avoid a hung jury.

They were persuaded to reach a verdict, they said, because they wanted to spare the two young girls from having to testify at another trial - even though they really weren't sure they believed them.

The girls told the jury of six men and six women during a weeklong trial before Judge James Brandlin that Senter touched them inappropriately while he baby-sat them - which he did often and separately.

The girls were his neighbors in the 1800 block of 257th Street, and their families were close with Senter's. They referred to him as "Grandpa Joe."

If the three jurors had doubts about their decisions on verdict day, they said they felt worse reading in the Daily Breeze that Senter took and passed a lie detector test.

Legal experts say it's not uncommon for jurors to second-guess themselves, and that changing minds are not enough to change a trial's outcome.

"The way our system works is that we don't usually allow `buyer's remorse' because we want jurors to be careful, and we would never have finality," said Laurie Levenson, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School.

Levenson said it's likely the jurors' about-face will be raised by the defense in its motion for a new trial, but she didn't expect it would be successful.

"Generally, the horse-trading that goes on during jury deliberations is not grounds for overturning a verdict," Levenson said. "You cannot get into the thought processes of deliberating jurors. Their deliberations are sacred."

Levenson said it is not uncommon for jurors to come forward like this after a trial.

"They find it hard to pass judgment, then live with the judgment they've passed," she said.

As for the lie detector test, Levenson said there are good reasons the jurors in this trial - and most trials - don't hear about them.

"There is still a great dispute as to whether they're reliable," she said. "Frankly, the more pathological a liar is, the better he can do on a lie detector test."

Levenson said false results are common and, more often than not, polygraph examination results would work against a defendant.

"It's not like `CSI,"' she said, referring to the popular TV crime drama. "The reality is that lie detectors are still not a proven scientific method."

Senter's attorney, Lynda Westlund, said she has been in contact with the jurors and expects to incorporate this development into her motion for a new trial.

But she declined to comment on how she would proceed.

Westlund said she was thankful the jurors came forward.

"It's a very frustrating situation," she acknowledged. "Just because it's a day late and, like, $100 short."

Deputy District Attorney Christine Von Helmolt echoed Levenson's assessment of the situation.

"They rendered their opinion based on the evidence that they had before them, and the evidence before them was that he committed these acts beyond a reasonable doubt," Von Helmolt said.

The jurors deliberated more than two days, Von Helmolt said, showing they put a lot of thought into the case, and that it is not uncommon to feel bad - especially after seeing the emotional reactions to the verdict by Senter's family.

The three women described themselves as generally strong, but somehow feel they allowed themselves to be manipulated during deliberations.

None of them said anyone did anything improper, and described the atmosphere in the jury room as respectful.

Their talks centered mostly on the two girls. While all the jurors felt they believed one of the girls, there was some question about the credibility of the other.

In hindsight, Keye said there is the possibility that one or both of the girls were coached to lie, and did so to please their parents.

Gottdener said she came to the conclusion that the girls may have lied to get the attention "they both desperately needed."

But as the jurors pressured each other to come to a decision, they all seemed to agree that, if they believed one girl, there was no reason to disbelieve the other.

"I should have just stuck with my gut instinct," Kadota said.

"I'm a strong person," Gottdener said. "I can't believe that I got twisted around."

Senter is scheduled to return to court Nov. 24 for the new-trial motion, which has not yet been filed, and sentencing. He faces the possibility of life in prison.

denise.nix@dailybreeze.com