SANTA ANA – Despite allegations that a juror conducted her own research in a murder trial, an Orange County Superior Court judge declined to order a fourth trial for Eric Ortiz, who had a previous conviction overturned because of fallout from the so-called Orange County jail-snitch controversy.

Judge Michael J. Cassidy determined that the juror’s admitted actions did not result in either she or the other jurors receiving information about the case that would have been “substantially prejudicial” against Ortiz.

“We all agree there was juror misconduct, but I don’t agree there was a likelihood that she was substantially biased,” Cassidy said.

The juror, during testimony in a Monday hearing, said that she had lived in the neighborhood where the killing took place, and she admitted asking someone she knew from the area about the criminal background of two men whose names came up during the trial.

However, the juror was vague regarding the key question of whether that discussion took place during the trial, or after a verdict was reached.

Ortiz, 28, was convicted last year of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Emeterio Adame, 54, outside a Santa Ana home in 2006. He was found not guilty in the shooting of Benjamin Lopez, a second victim who survived the attack.

After the verdict, the juror agreed to meet for coffee with Nicole Busse, a court-appointed investigator who worked with Ortiz’s lawyer, Rudy Loewenstein.

“I was surprised, because I had asked her originally if any of the jurors had conducted any outside research, and she said no,” Busse said. “But she said she did.”

Jurors for criminal trials are repeatedly warned not to discuss the case with anyone, including family and friends. They are also warned to rely on evidence presented in court and not to conduct any outside research.

The juror – who was not named during the court proceedings and who testified under immunity – denied that she had conducted her own research during the Ortiz trial. She said she had recognized the names or photos of two individuals brought up during the trial, and she happened to run into someone she knew from the neighborhood who had information about the background of the two men.

The juror said she learned one of the men had drug ties, while the other had gang and drug ties. Neither was a defendant in the trial.

“I didn’t look for information myself,” the juror testified. “If you are offered a cup of tea, you didn’t buy it.”

“Do you remember when it happened?”Judge Cassidy asked her.

“It was near the end, or just after the trial,” the woman replied. “But not in the middle of the trial.”

“Did you share any of that information with the other jurors?” Senior Deputy District Attorney David Porter asked.

“Never,” she replied.

During often-contentious exchanges with the defense attorney, the juror often couched her testimony by saying she “may have” made particular comments to the investigator, and claimed her memory was shaky because of a head injury and concussion she suffered after the trial.

Citing the juror’s conduct, Loewenstein unsuccessfully asked for a new trial for Ortiz.

Ortiz had already been through three trials tied to the Adame killing.

The first ended in a conviction but was overturned after four Orange County sheriff’s deputies refused to testify about the use of jailhouse informants to gather evidence against Ortiz.

The second trial ended with a deadlocked jury.

During the third trial, Porter alleged that Ortiz and fellow gang members shot bystander Adame in the back while on the hunt for gang rivals. Loewenstein told jurors that Ortiz was not at the scene of the shooting, and that a gang member had shifted the blame to him.

Ortiz has been in jail since his arrest in April of 2011. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 23, when he faces up to 15 years to life in prison.