Letters reveal discord in Brooks jury

Another juror in the David Brooks fraud case has complained that some panelists have not been deliberating conscientiously, attorneys in the case revealed Friday in a hearing in federal court in Central Islip.

A juror sent a note Thursday to U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert alleging that some refused to deliberate, prosecutors and defense attorneys said. A different juror also complained to Seybert the same day that two members of the panel were not deliberating.

One of those jurors "expressed concern for his personal safety," said defense attorney Kenneth Ravenell, who represents Brooks. Ravenell added that the juror said he may need to seek legal counsel.

Seybert minimized the juror's concern, saying jury members frequently become upset during deliberations but usually reach a verdict.

The notes were sent directly to the judge, bypassing the jury forewoman, which is against jury rules.

The latest letter was yet another twist in the lengthy trial - which has lasted seven months - of former body-armor magnate Brooks and his co-defendant, Sandra Hatfield. Brooks was the chief executive of DHB Industries, once based in Westbury, and Hatfield was the company's chief operating officer.

Brooks is charged with spending millions of DHB's money on personal expenses and defrauding stockholders of $185 million in a stock scheme. Hatfield is accused of making $5 million through the stock scheme.

Seybert refused to declare a mistrial Friday and said she would speak to the jury Monday. She already has spoken to the panel four times in the past week and a half about remaining respectful of one another during deliberations.

Jurors did not deliberate Friday.

Ravenell said one juror complained in a letter that other jurors had made statements that were "short, confusing and unclear." He said the letters indicate that the jury "has come to a standstill."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Lunger disagreed, saying the letters show jurors "are trying to reach a fair verdict" and were following Seybert's instruction to report irregularities to her.

"There are two jurors who are clearly observing that there are two jurors who are not engaging in the deliberative process," Lunger said.

Seybert said jurors, who have deliberated nine days over four weeks, have not indicated they have reached an impasse.

Due to various interruptions, jurors rarely have deliberated on consecutive days, she said.

Seybert said she anticipated they would need three weeks to reach a verdict in such a complicated case.