Evidence, not lifestyle details, led to Brooks conviction

It was not the sensational and bizarre details that came out in the eight-month-long trial of body-armor magnate David Brooks - such as his lavish lifestyle or his claim prostitutes could be a business expense.

It was the documentary evidence presented by federal prosecutors, backed by numerous government witnesses, that compelled jurors to convict Brooks on all charges, according to two jurors from the fraud trial in federal court in Central Islip.

The jurors who spoke Sunday for the first time also said that while Brooks' co-defendant, Sandra Hatfield, was sympathetic, because of her devotion to turning out quality body armor for the United States, the evidence was also clear that she was guilty of all but two charges against her.

"Because they did very good things, that didn't mean they didn't do what they were charged with," said Danny Olejnik, one of the two jurors who spoke. Olejnik said he learned of Brooks' considerable donations to charity after the trial.

Olejnik spoke about the trial Sunday along with juror Rosemarie Alvino. Other jurors haven't returned repeated phone calls or had recently disconnected phones.

Brooks, the former head of DHB Industries, and Hatfield, who had been the chief operating officer of the company once located in Westbury, were convicted in September after 14 days of deliberations on charges involving Brooks looting the company and the two making a total of $190 million in an illegal stock scheme.

While the defense hammered at the credibility of the government witness who was longest on the stand, former DHB chief financial officer Dawn Schlegel, and others, the two jurors said that the testimony was not the key. The government had many credible witnesses to back up their claims, the jurors said.

Prosecutors charged, for example, that documents supposedly justifying Brooks having DHB pay for his personal expenses were forgeries; a claim that a number of witnesses supported.

"The attorneys did a very good job," Alvino said. " very well presented . . . We gave it long and hard thought."

As for tensions among the jurors - reflected in notes to the judge - Alvino said that was not unusual for people speaking to each other about the case for the first time after months of listening to testimony.

In the end, the jurors came to unanimous agreement, Alvino said.

Judd Burstein, one of Brooks' lawyers, declined to comment, as did U.S. Attorney spokesman Robert Nardoza, Roland Riopelle, one of Hatfield's attorneys, also declined to comment.

Brooks and Hatfield still face a hearing in November on how much of the $190 million should be forfeited to the government.