Pregnant juror dismissed in Brooks trial

In the latest twist in the David Brooks case, the judge dismissed a pregnant juror Friday, leaving uncertain the size of the jury panel when the already bickering jurors resume deliberations next week.

The juror, who was due to give birth in five weeks, told U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert in Central Islip that she could not go on because she was getting contractions, saying, "I'm really uncomfortable, I should get my rest . . . It's really hard."

The pregnant juror had said on Thursday it was difficult to sit in the jury room and she did "not want to go into labor prematurely." Seybert then arranged for her to have more comfortable seating.

In addition to letting the pregnant juror go, the judge considered dismissing two other jurors on the 12-member panel -- one because he often came in late and one because he had to serve a three-day jail sentence later this month for a minor offense. It is unrelated to the fraud case of Brooks, the former head of DHB Industries, a body-armor company that was based in Westbury.

Seybert eventually allowed the two to continue deliberating.

But further complicating the jury situation was that, as one defense attorney said in open court, the first alternate juror, who might be seated to replace the pregnant juror, had a personal "relationship" with a person already on the jury. The relationship apparently developed while the two were serving on the Brooks case.

Seybert said she would decide when jury deliberations begin next week whether to go ahead with a jury panel of only 11 members or to seat one of the alternates.

It is permissible for a criminal jury to reach a verdict with only 11 members. But if one of the alternates is seated, it would mean that the jurors, who have been deliberating the case over the past month, would have to start deliberations all over again, in a trial that has been going on since late January. There are only three alternates left, so the court could possibly run out of jurors if more are dismissed or want to be replaced.

The law requires that all jurors take part in all deliberations before reaching a verdict, so any newly empaneled juror would not have been involved in past jury discussions.

The judge allowed the juror who faces jail time to continue on the jury after conferring with him and defense attorneys, and she allowed the juror who had been often late to continue deliberating next week as long as he shows up on time.

He promised to do so, saying he had overslept Friday and stopped for breakfast before entering the jury room.