Jurors Can't Even Agree on Disagreements

Here's how far apart the jurors were in the trial of Ronald S. Rubino:

Julia Saakvitne, who thought Rubino should go to jail, complained that most of her fellow jurors were too stupid to hear the case.

"Too much ignorance abounds," Saakvitne barked as she boarded the courthouse elevator. "It was the composition of the jury. They were not up to deciding this case."

Meanwhile, Christina Sinclair, who thought Rubino was innocent, called a private meeting with the judge to complain that some of the jurors weren't giving Rubino a fair trial. After a mistrial was declared, Sinclair left the courtroom in tears and gave Rubino a hug.

"We didn't feel certain people were going by the law," she said.

Seven days of pleading, cajoling, shouting and crying did nothing to bridge the chasm that divided the 12-member jury chosen to decide Rubino's fate.

From the minute they started talking, the group of 11 women and one man was split into two camps: a majority who believed prosecutors had failed to prove their case, and a smaller group--women in their late 60s and 70s--who insisted that Rubino should go to jail.

"They were the self-righteous ones," said Frances Alsborg, a 49-year-old retired accountant from Villa Park. "We were the stupid ones . . . the young ones."

Inside the jury room, some jurors wept. Some shouted. One juror cursed, stormed from the room--and returned and changed his vote.

By Friday, the two camps were barely speaking to one another.

"Some people," said Valerie Greene, who voted for acquittal, "just didn't understand the law."

*

Diana Chairez, a real estate agent from Anaheim, never expected such acrimony. On the first day of deliberations, she told a friend: "I'll see you this afternoon."

A week later, the jurors said they were so far apart that no amount of persuading was going to solve anything. The final tally: nine to acquit Rubino, three to convict.

According to interviews with several jurors, eight members of the panel thought from the outset that prosecutors had not presented enough evidence to convict Rubino, who was charged with aiding in a scheme to divert millions of dollars from public accounts.

The jurors favoring acquittal said prosecutors had shown them nothing that linked Rubino to the scheme, which involved diverting interest earnings away from schools and cities and into the county treasury.