Sentencing Delayed in Han Murder Conspiracy

The sentencing of Jeen Han and two teenagers convicted of plotting to murder her identical twin sister was postponed Friday until Jan. 30 because of questions about the jury’s deliberation.

Defense attorneys want to investigate whether jurors were improperly influenced by a male juror who reportedly said he might have voted differently if he had heard Han testify.

None of the defendants testified on their own behalf at the trial, and Superior Court Judge Eileen C. Moore had instructed jurors not to take that into consideration.

Han, 23, Archie Bryant, 17, and John Sayarath, 16, all of San Diego, were convicted in November on a series of charges, the most serious being two counts each of conspiracy to commit murder. The crime involved a botched attack on Han’s sister, Sunny, and her roommate, Helen Kim, at their apartment in Irvine.

The defendants each face 25 years to life in prison.

With all three defendants appearing in court for the first time since their conviction, Jeen Han’s attorney, Roger Alexander, asked Moore to release the names and addresses of the six men and six women who served on the jury so that he could question them about their deliberations.

But the judge ruled that Alexander could contact only the three jurors who had agreed to release their personal information.

Alexander said one of the male jurors allegedly had told a reporter from a Korean-language newspaper that he wanted to hear Jeen Han testify.

An unidentified female juror, who could be heard over a speakerphone during Friday’s hearing, confirmed that one of the male jurors kept saying during deliberations, “I want to know why Jeen Han didn’t testify.”

The female juror suggested that the man voted for guilt also because “he didn’t want to be in the spotlight” as the only holdout.

The jury forewoman, who also could be heard on the speakerphone, said, “I remember someone saying they wish they could have heard Jeen’s testimony, but I don’t recall anyone saying she was guilty because she didn’t testify.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Bruce Moore, who prosecuted the case, argued against releasing any of the jurors’ names and addresses and said Alexander’s concerns could not be the basis for seeking a new trial anyway.

“The mental process of a particular juror and how he arrived at his verdict is not admissible,” said the prosecutor, who is not related to the judge.

Still, Alexander said he wants to find out all he can before his client is sentenced.

“We’re not being told the whole story,” Alexander said after the hearing. “I want to know what the whole story is. If someone is going to get 25 years to life, I want to know what was discussed.”

The trial attracted international media attention, and many of the jurors said in letters to the judge, read in court Friday, that they wanted to retain their privacy.

“I am eager to put this behind me, as I found the entire process and its ramifications onerous,” one juror wrote.