Juror Candidates Given 3rd Degree

The 20 people who were huddled together in Vista were perfect strangers until this week, and, although they probably never expected to, in no time at all they were sharing private stories of their upbringing, their religious ethics and their own parenting skills.

Paula Demong, a Carlsbad woman studying psychology at San Diego State University, told how she converted from Judaism to Christianity during the 1970s Jesus People movement, and how her parents considered her “a traitor.”

David Stone, a 33-year-old bachelor research scientist from Encinitas, described how he had tried to persuade his stepsister to leave a cult, but said if he were a parent who feared his child were engaging “in self-destructive behavior, you can speak out, but ultimately you have to respect the child’s views.”

Would any of you 20 have any problem if your children renounced all their worldly possessions? No, they said.

If your adult-aged child were acting irresponsibly, would you interfere? It depends on the situation, they said unanimously.

“We try to teach them to make the right decisions,” said Bonnie Smith, a Fallbrook mother of six children, ages 7 to 20. “But you can’t always force them.”

The discussion was held, not in a college classroom or counseling office, but in the Vista Superior Court of Judge David Moon. These 20--and more who followed--were being screened this week by Moon and six attorneys to see if they would be good jurors to decide whether a 58-year-old Santa Cruz couple and three others are guilty of kidnaping the couple’s youngest daughter.

The daughter, 24-year-old Ginger Brown, is a member of Great Among the Nations, which describes itself as a small, close-knit fundamentalist Christian Bible study and evangelism ministry based in Coronado. Critics contend it is a cult whose 17 members have been insidiously brainwashed by the leader, Benjamin Altschul, to finance his life of comfort through their “love offerings.”

The five accused are Earle and Dorothy Brown, another daughter, Holly Brown, and two men--Clifford Daniels, a self-described deprogrammer from Los Angeles, and Hank Erler, an Escondido-area resident. They are charged with kidnaping, false imprisonment and battery for abducting Ginger Brown last year and holding her for five days in Erler’s home in a deprogramming attempt. Ginger Brown, saying she was battered and bruised in the incident, immediately returned to Great Among the Nations when she was released, and is now the chief prosecution witness against her parents and the others.

Moon, in a series of pretrial rulings, said he would not let issues of religious freedom--or, for that matter, even the use of the words “cult” or “thought control”--be raised in the trial.

The five defense attorneys had hoped that they could legally argue that the kidnaping of Ginger Brown was the lesser of two evils and that her parents and the other defendants acted out of good-faith necessity. But, with Moon’s rulings, they say, their defense is gutted, and Deputy Dist. Atty. Gary Rempel said he is prosecuting the case as the kidnaping of an adult, pure and simple. He says he sympathizes with the parents, but the law is the law.

Still, some of the issues banned from trial discussion have been aired during the jury selection, which will continue Monday. Prospective jurors said they were unprepared to be grilled about their own values and ethics.

“I feel like I’m the one on the witness stand,” muttered one prospective juror to another as he left the courtroom for a break last week.

“This is really unique,” said one of the defense attorneys, Joseph Judge, about the particular line of questions being tossed at jurors for responses. “We’re really delving into their backgrounds--questions that we didn’t ask to raise when we were in chambers (with Judge Moon).”

Rempel, the prosecutor, said he too was surprised by the extent of the questioning, which was opened by the judge himself.

“I’ve never seen questioning go to this extent. This isn’t supposed to be a case about religion, and I have reservations about the judge going into it during the jury selection, because the questions seem to be assuming stuff that’s not even in evidence.

“It’s like the voir dire (examination of prospective jurors) is an indoctrination process,” Rempel said. “How can a detailed discussion of family relationships be anything but an attempt to decide whether father knows best?”

For his part, Moon explained the line of questioning this way to jurors: “This is not a case where religion is on trial, whether a certain religion or belief is right or wrong. But there is interplay where religion somehow has entered the equation in relationship between the daughter and the others.”

To that end, the prospective jurors were asked if any had had a “bad experience” with a religious leader. No, they said.

How many of you, Moon asked, are current churchgoers? Eight of the 20 said they were, to one degree or another. Several have taught Bible study, Sunday school or young-adult Christian classes.

Jurors were asked how they would handle children who wanted to change churches. Constance Briscoe of Valley Center recalled how two of her children, raised as Protestants, asked at age 14 and 15 if they could convert to Mormonism. Yes, she said--but only when they have reached the age of 18 and have spent the time until then giving other churches three-month tryouts.

Rempel said he was concerned that the queries being put to jurors--including whether they will ever stop caring for their children’s welfare--were loaded questions, designed to develop or uncover sympathy for the Brown parents.

Defense attorney Saul Wright, representing Earle Brown, said that was one of the goals. “I usually want a liberal, free-thinking jury” to hear his defense in a criminal case. “But here, I’m looking for jurors who reflect conservative family ties.”

The defense also asked prospective jurors whether they had ever had conflicts with their mothers or siblings.

Rempel followed suit by asking the prospective jurors at what age they thought they were old enough to leave home and make decisions independent of their parents. Some said they left home and declared their independence as early as 17; all had freed themselves of their parents’ supervision by 21. Rempel smiled.

George Rohrman was one of the prospective jurors excused without reason by Rempel after the first round of questioning, and on Friday he was still wondering why he was found in disfavor.

“I felt the questions they were asking me almost asked for a predetermination of my attitude about the case,” said Rohrman, who retired in Oceanside after working 35 years as the general manager of a pharmaceutical manufacturer.

“I’m not sure why I got booted off,” Rohrman said. “I would have liked to have served,” he said. “I thought the case was very interesting.”