Jailed Rebecca Grossman keeps privileges, receives warning from judge
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Friday cautioned Rebecca Grossman about any misconduct from jail but stopped short of taking away phone and visitation privileges.
Judge Joseph Brandolino told Grossman, 60, he would take action if she does anything he perceives as intimidating witnesses or violating a court order. He also would hold her attorneys responsible for her actions, which could mean financial sanctions and a report to the state bar, he said.
“You just can’t do it,” the judge told Grossman, as she sat at the defense table, her hands shackled and wearing brown jail garb.
In a motion earlier this week, prosecutors asked Brandolino to stop Grossman's access to a phone or visits in jail. Deputy District Attorneys Ryan Gould and Jamie Castro accused the Hidden Hills woman of using her phone privileges to engage in improper "or potentially illegal" conduct. The calls started Feb. 23, shortly after jurors found her guilty of second-degree murder in the deaths of two Westlake Village brothers, they said.
Mark and Jacob Iskander, 11 and 8, were struck and killed while crossing Triunfo Canyon Road with their family on Sept. 29, 2020. Grossman drove up to 81 mph just seconds before hitting the boys in a crosswalk, prosecutors said. The speed limit was 45 mph.
Along with two counts of second-degree murder, jurors found her guilty of vehicular manslaughter and hit-and-run driving. Grossman faces a possible maximum sentence of 34 years to life in prison.
Judge: Calls show naiveté
Out of jail on $2 million bail since shortly after her 2020 arrest, Grossman was taken into custody after the verdict. Transcripts included in the prosecution's motion provided excerpts from her recorded calls in the hours and days that followed.
She talked to her family about a doctor on the Grossman Burn Foundation board who was supposed to talk to one of her patients, a witness to the crash who testified at the trial. She also asked her daughter to track down another potential witness, one who had not testified at the trial, and asked her husband to see if someone named Tom could call the judge.
"Is there any way Tom could call him and ask him to please let us have a new trial," she said, according to the transcript.
While the judge unsuccessfully tried to clarify on Friday who she was referring to as Tom, he called Grossman naïve to believe that the person he assumed it was would violate the law or that Brandolino would be influenced.
Castro told the judge that at this point, Grossman has had the counsel of up to 10 attorneys advising her in this case.
"She should know better, your honor," Castro said.
Regarding most of the calls, Brandolino said he didn’t think anything rose to the level of illegal conduct or requiring of sanctions. But he had concerns about Grossman talking to her family about releasing a video, one that was included in case information under a protective order.
Releasing it would violate a court order, he said.
Grossman's new attorney Samuel Josephs cited the timing of that call, which was shortly after the verdict, saying Grossman was in shock.
Judge warns Grossman about violating court's order
Brandolino told him he would not revoke her privileges this time. But in the future, he would restrict her privileges and also hold her attorneys responsible for her actions. The lawyers could face financial sanctions, he said.
It was the second time in a month Grossman was warned about releasing information covered by the court order. As jurors deliberated, Gould had asked the judge to revoke her bail, saying the information had been emailed to a reporter and posted on social media. The only way that comes out is if the defendant shared the information, Gould said.
At the time, Brandolino said he assumed jurors were following the court’s instructions to avoid any coverage of the case. He was not inclined to revoke Grossman's bail, he said, but warned her against providing any case information covered by the order. Later that day, jurors reached their verdict.
In this week's motion, Gould and Castro also accused Grossman's defense team of misconduct after jurors reported a private investigator had shown up at their homes. The investigator identified himself as working for the Grossman family to at least one juror.
He should not have contact information or names of jurors, Gould and Castro said. That information was sealed after the verdict was read. The defense could petition the court for access to the information, but had not done so, according to the prosecutors.
The judge agreed the attorneys should have requested the information, a process that gives jurors notice and a chance to respond. Brandolino didn't impose financial sanctions but ordered the defense to destroy any documents that included juror names or other personal information. He also ordered the defense to have no contact with jurors. If they wished to do so in the future, they need to file a motion, he said.
Grossman's letter showed 'zero remorse'
On Friday, Brandolino also agreed to a defense request to delay Grossman's sentencing for 60 days. Josephs told the judge his firm had recently been hired to handle sentencing and post-trial motions. The attorneys are expected to file a motion for a new trial, which would happen before sentencing.
Gould objected to the delay, saying it had been nearly a month since the verdict and Grossman already had more than a half dozen attorneys on her case. After taking a recess to check if the Iskanders would be available, the judge agreed to the new date of June 10.
He called the defense request reasonable given the length and nature of the trial.
Brandolino also ordered Grossman to have no contact with Mark and Jacob’s parents, who were not in the courtroom Friday. Last week, Nancy and Karim Iskander had contacted the district attorney's office after receiving a letter from Grossman. The judge agreed to the request for no contact, saying he thought it was appropriate.
Outside of the courthouse, family friend Julie Cohen said the Iskanders were not in court because they wanted to be with their family. They also did not want to see Grossman after getting the letter and what happened with the jurors, Cohen said.
When asked by reporters about the letter’s contents, Cohen said it would be up to the Iskanders to decide whether to share details. She did say, however, that the letter was about Grossman, not about the pain and suffering she caused the Iskander family.
“There was absolutely zero remorse,” Cohen said.
Cheri Carlson covers the environment and county government for the Ventura County Star. Reach her at cheri.carlson@vcstar.com or 805-437-0260.
This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Rebecca Grossman keeps privileges, receives warning from judge
