Rebecca Grossman’s new attorneys are in search of a brand new trial that might overturn her second-degree homicide conviction within the killing of two younger brothers in a Westlake Village crosswalk, arguing that prosecutors did not show she acted with implied malice and that faulty proof was admitted.
Attorneys James Spertus and Lara J. Gressley filed a movement Monday in what many authorized consultants name a protracted shot, asking Los Angeles County Superior Court docket Decide Joseph Brandolino to toss her conviction within the murders of Mark and Jacob Iskander in September 2020.
“Vehicular murder second-degree homicide expenses require proof that the defendant acted with a ‘base delinquent motive and with a wanton disregard for human life,’ and there was no proof offered at trial to assist findings of such acts by Ms. Grossman on this case,” the legal professionals wrote. “The protection respectfully strikes for a brand new trial conscious of the victims’ losses and the emotion crying out for accountability.”
Spertus, who took over Grossman’s protection group after her conviction in February, stated prosecutors by no means produced proof to show their case. Additionally they argued that testimony associated to a rushing ticket Grossman obtained in 2013 shouldn’t have been admitted, saying it was a weak try by the prosecution to point out implied malice.
“The prosecutors misled the court docket and misstated the information,” Spertus stated in an interview with The Occasions. “We firmly consider she is harmless, and due to the prosecutors’ conduct, it will be overturned.”
After a six-week trial stuffed with drama and emotion, a jury of 9 males and three girls discovered Grossman responsible of two counts of second-degree homicide, two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter and one rely of hit and run within the 2020 deaths of the Iskander brothers, ages 11 and eight. Grossman was remanded to jail and faces 34 years to life in jail at sentencing, which was delayed till no less than June.
The brand new trial movement comes on the heels of the district lawyer’s workplace eradicating two prosecutors and their supervisor from the case. The change was prompted by a conflict-of-interest declare raised after their boss, Assistant Dist. Atty. Diana Teran, was charged with 11 felonies. Grossman’s lead lawyer, Spertus, additionally represents Teran.
The change — during which Habib Balian, assistant head deputy of the Main Crimes Division, will now act as lead prosecutor — drew public criticism from the Iskander household. The unique prosecutors, Ryan Gould and Jamie Castro, will proceed to prosecute the case however now report back to Balian, authorities stated.
In the course of the trial, jurors have been offered with differing accounts of Grossman and the lethal incident. Prosecutors alleged Grossman, 60, had cocktails along with her then-lover, Scott Erickson, earlier than racing him dwelling — he in his black Mercedes sport utility car and he or she in her white Mercedes SUV. The pair sped alongside Triunfo Canyon Highway at greater than 70 mph till they reached a crosswalk, the place she fatally struck the youngsters.
Grossman confirmed a “acutely aware disregard for human life,” prosecutors stated, and knew her pace might be harmful as a result of police had warned her prior to now.
However Grossman’s authorized group repeatedly requested, “The place is Scott Erickson?” in attempting to pin duty for the crash on the previous Dodgers pitcher, saying he struck the boys first.
An indication exhibits a picture of Mark Iskander, 11, left, and his brother Jacob, 8, in 2022 outdoors the courthouse.
(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Occasions)
In in search of a brand new trial, Grossman’s new legal professionals goal to undermine the prosecution’s basis, particularly saying “the proof was inadequate to show the required components of second-degree homicide” because it pertains to implied malice.
Spertus and Gressley additionally argued that two margaritas might have left Grossman impaired, as prosecutors argued at trial, however that doesn’t imply she knew she was a hazard to life, they stated.
Castro and Gould launched proof of Grossman’s previous rushing however nothing exhibiting “subjective information that rushing on Triunfo Canyon Highway would end in a deadly accident,” the protection legal professionals argued.
Additionally they referred to the the unique prosecutors’ closing statements, during which “Ms. Grossman was driving 81 mph on the time the pedestrians got here into view; she would have been touring at roughly 118 ft per second.”
“In different phrases, not more than two seconds might have elapsed between the earliest doable second that Ms. Grossman noticed the pedestrians and the second of influence,” they wrote of their argument for a brand new trial. “No affordable juror might conclude that, in such a short while, Ms. Grossman noticed the pedestrians, assessed the chance, appreciated the excessive chance of dying that might end result if she continued by way of the intersection, after which consciously fashioned the thought.”
Lastly, they are saying there have been errors within the jury directions involving implied malice and testimony they referred to as “faulty and prejudicial” from a California Freeway Patrol officer about Grossman’s 2013 rushing ticket.
“The proof concerning the warning Officer [Robert] Leffler purportedly gave Ms. Grossman in 2013 was inadequate to warn her that her conduct in rushing was endangering human life,” the protection legal professionals stated. It was not a “discover that her rushing was so life-threatening that if she continued to hurry sooner or later, such conduct could be ‘in acutely aware disregard for human life.’ ”
“There was inadequate proof from which the jury might conclude that the defendant had the psychological state required for implied malice homicide,” they stated.
Additionally they argue proof of alcohol consumption shouldn’t have been admitted on the trial, which they stated grew to become a DUI case. “The jury thought-about impairment proof untethered to the suitable authorized safeguards,” the protection stated. As well as, their shopper’s proper to not incriminate herself was violated throughout a prolonged detention and questioning by deputies on the website of her wrecked SUV, they stated.
There was no point out of Erickson within the movement to hunt a brand new trial. The earlier lead protection lawyer, Tony Buzbee, repeatedly pointed the finger at Erickson. Crash reconstruction consultants for the protection testified that Erickson’s Mercedes struck the boys first, slipping Mark over his car and onto the hood of Grossman’s SUV, which was following shut behind.
Nancy Iskander, the boys’ mom, testified throughout trial that she heard revving engines and noticed a black SUV rushing towards the intersection the place she, her youngest son, Zachary, and Mark and Jacob have been crossing. She dived out of the way in which, pulling Zachary to security.
However she testified {that a} white Mercedes SUV was driving carefully behind the black car. When it went by way of the crosswalk, Iskander stated, she heard an influence, and her two oldest boys have been gone.
Jacob was discovered close to the curb about 50 ft away. He was taken to a hospital, the place he was pronounced useless a couple of hours later. Mark’s physique was discovered 254 ft away, “each bone in his physique … damaged,” Iskander testified.
Attorneys for either side will probably be again in court docket Friday to deal with the potential battle of curiosity points associated to Spertus representing each Grossman and Teran. Spertus, who has insisted Teran is harmless, stated there isn’t any battle as he’s opposed to prosecutors in each prison circumstances.
