Convicted murderer Rebecca Grossman's conversations from prison have angered prosecutors, who on Friday will ask to block her access to phones and cut off visitors.
Grossman is awaiting sentencing after being found guilty last month of second-degree murder in the deaths of two young boys who were beaten and killed in a crosswalk while she was speeding along a residential Westlake Village street.
Prosecutors allege she was inciting “unlawful conduct” via phone calls to her family in prison, and say her legal team tried to manipulate the jurors who convicted her.
Here's what's happened since a jury found Grossman guilty of all charges related to the deaths of Mark and Jacob Alexander, and what legal experts say about the potential consequences of her actions:
Mark Alexander, 11, left, and his brother Jacob, 8, appear in a family photo. The boys were killed in 2020.
(Photo of Iskander family)
What did Grossman say?
District representative. Atty. Ryan Gould and his colleague Jimmy Castro filed a motion Monday detailing numerous phone calls Grossman, 60, had with her daughter and husband.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department records phone calls from people incarcerated at the Twin Towers Jail, where Grossman is being held, and at other Los Angeles County jails, and the recording is interrupted with a warning to that effect.
According to court documents, the conversation Grossman had with her daughter, Alexis, included instructions for the young woman to release body camera video worn by the deputy, which was sealed by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Joseph Brandolino.
“I want you to unblock the videos,” Grossman told her daughter in a phone call on February 23, the day she was sentenced guilty to two counts of murder, two counts of aggravated vehicular manslaughter and a hit-and-run charge involving the boys. Deaths.
“I will,” Alexis Grossman replies.
Then Dr. Peter Grossman, Rebecca Grossman's husband, interjects: “Whatever you want us to ask, honey, tell us.” We will put everything aside.”
“I want you to ask everything,” Grossman replies.
In a conversation the next day, Grossman encouraged her daughter to find and talk to a witness, who had never been called by the defense attorney at her trial and who, according to their opening statements, saw a black car — not a white one — hit the boys. . Grossman was driving a white Mercedes SUV at up to 81 mph on a residential street when the Iskander brothers were killed.
She also suggested tracking down witnesses and forcing them to say their testimony was directed.
“If we can get witnesses to come forward and testify, it could lead to a new trial,” Grossman said.
Her 19-year-old daughter replied: “I will do everything for you, mom. Everything. And so will my dad.”
Prosecutors say Grossman's conversations promoted illegal conduct, and they want her prison privileges revoked, including Brandolino transferring her to a part of the prison system where her mail will be checked and she will not have access to phones or visitors, except for her attorney.
“While in custody, the defendant immediately began using her phone privileges to engage in grossly inappropriate or potentially illegal conduct. These calls include admissions of violating the court’s protective order regarding the disclosure of evidence,” Gold and Castro said in a memo this week. On the Internet and in the press.
“These recorded phone calls also document numerous potential criminal plots, such as requests for further protected discovery, discussion of various attempts to interfere with witnesses and their testimony and attempts to influence his honor in connection with sentencing.”
Was there witness tampering?
Earlier this week, Gould and Castro alleged that Grossman's legal team attempted to tamper with jurors, including a private investigator who contacted jury members and did not properly identify himself as working for the defense.
Prosecutors said the only way the investigator could find the jurors was if he had access to their personal information, which Brandolino had sealed, as is done in California after the verdict.
In a motion filed Thursday, prosecutors alleged that a juror came forward to complain that despite telling the jurors their identities were protected, a private investigator working for Grossman attempted to question him outside his home about how the jury reached its verdict.
Juror No. 7 emailed Gould that a private investigator came to his home on March 11.
“He came to my home looking for me personally,” the juror wrote. “He introduced himself, gave me his card and told me up front that I didn't have to talk to him if I didn't want to, and then he asked me if he could talk to me about the Grossman trial. I asked him why, and he told me he worked for the Grossman family and wanted to know more about what influenced “At trial the jury decided on its decision. I told him I wouldn't talk to him, so he left.”
Prosecutors said the only way the investigator, identified as Paul Stuckey, could have found the jurors was if he had access to their personal information, which was sealed by the judge, as is the case in California. They said the defense may ask the court to identify the juror if a compelling interest arises, but that did not happen in this case.
“The jurors in this case clearly believed that their information would remain private and that they would not be contacted without notice,” Gold and Castro wrote in their latest filing.
Prosecutors are asking the court to return all this information.
What do legal experts say?
Defense attorney Lara Yeritsian — whose clients include Scott Peterson, who was convicted of killing his pregnant wife and is now supported by the Los Angeles Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal group with a reputation for exonerating wrongfully convicted criminals — said prisoners should never discuss the facts of their case with anyone. Someone except their attorney.
“Unfortunately, it appears that Rebecca Grossman missed the lecture on this rule, especially when she asked her daughter on a recorded line to leak a video that was excluded from evidence at trial,” Yerissian said. “Although most lawyers regularly remind their clients of the rule so that they do not make mistakes, prisoners rely on their conversations to go unnoticed. But in a high-profile case like Grossman’s, nothing goes unnoticed.”
Grossman doesn't have much to lose, so speaking out is a calculated risk, said Louis Shapiro, a well-known defense attorney in Los Angeles.
“When you face life in prison, demanding a new trial is your only hope,” he said. “She believes that the end justifies the means.”
After pledging to appeal her conviction, Grossman's defense is preparing a motion for a new trial, and Shapiro said there are only two reasons for that to be granted: that the jury erred in the verdict or jury misconduct. Only the latter is likely to succeed, he said, suggesting the defense is trying to persuade a member of the jury to disclose some type of misconduct.
What are the possible repercussions?
Brandolino could deny Grossman his prison privileges, or he could simply reprimand her, Yeritsian said.
If he chooses the latter, it will not be the first time. During jury deliberations, Grossman orchestrated the release of sealed evidence that jurors had not seen, prosecutors said. Gould and Castro sought to revoke the $2 million bail, but the judge said he was not inclined to jail Grossman at the time and instead warned her that she could not give reporters evidence she was prohibited from disclosing.
Grossman and her family sent a video that had been withheld from evidence at the trial to a local television news reporter. The prosecution learned about the incident after it was broadcast during the trial and the reporter discussed it on the air.
Shapiro said the judge would likely censure Grossman, but agreed that would depend on how he viewed her public behavior.
