Convicted murderer Rebecca Grossman’s conversations from jail have drawn the ire of prosecutors, who on Friday will seek to have her access to phones and visitors cut off.

Grossman is awaiting sentencing after being convicted last month of second-degree murder in the deaths of two young boys who were struck and killed in a crosswalk as she sped along a residential Westlake Village street.

Prosecutors allege that she has been instigating “illegal conduct” via jailhouse telephone calls with her family and say her legal team has attempted to tamper with the jurors who convicted her.

Here’s what’s been going on since a jury found Grossman guilty of all charges in the deaths of Mark and Jacob Iskander, and what legal experts say about the possible ramifications of her actions:

Mark Iskander, 11, left, and his brother Jacob, 8, are seen in a family photo. The boys were killed in 2020.

(Iskander family photo)

What has Grossman said?

Deputy Dist. Atty. Ryan Gould and his colleague Jamie Castro filed a motion Monday that detailed several jailhouse calls Grossman, 60, had with her daughter and husband.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department records phone calls from people incarcerated at the Twin Towers jail, where Grossman is being held, and other L.A. County lockups, and the recording is interrupted with a warning to that effect.

According to court documents, a conversation that Grossman had with her daughter, Alexis, included instructions for the young woman to make public a deputy-worn body-camera video that had been sealed by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Joseph Brandolino.

“I want you to unblock the videos,” Grossman tells her daughter in a call on Feb. 23, the day of her guilty verdict on two counts of murder, two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter and one count of hit and run in the boys’ deaths.

Alexis Grossman replies, “I will.”

Dr. Peter Grossman, Rebecca Grossman’s husband, then interjects: “Everything you want us to put out, honey, let us know. We’re going to put it all out.”

To which Grossman replies: “I want you to put everything out.”

In a conversation the following day, Grossman encouraged her daughter to find and talk to a witness who was never called by defense attorneys at her trial and who, according to their opening statements, saw a black car — not a white one — strike the boys. Grossman was driving a white Mercedes SUV and speeding up to 81 mph on a residential street when the Iskander brothers were killed.

She also suggested that witnesses should be tracked down and made to say their testimony was directed.

“If we can get witnesses to come forward and say they were told to say things, this can get us a new trial,” Grossman said.

Her 19-year-old daughter replied: “I’m going to do everything for you, Mom. Everything. And so is Dad.”

Prosecutors say Grossman’s conversations have promoted illegal behavior, and they want her jailhouse privileges revoked, including having Brandolino move her to a part of the jail system where her mail is checked and she will have no access to phones or visitors, except for her attorneys,

“While in custody, the defendant immediately began using her phone privileges to engage in wholly improper conduct or potentially illegal conduct. These calls include admissions to violating the court protective order regarding the disclosure of evidence on the internet and to the press,” Gould and Castro said in the filing this week.

“These recorded phone calls also document numerous potential criminal conspiracies, such as requests to disclose more protected discovery, discussion of various attempts to interfere with witnesses and their testimony and attempts to influence his honor in regards to sentencing.”

Has there been witness tampering?

Earlier this week, Gould and Castro alleged that Grossman’s legal team had attempted to tamper with jurors, including a private investigator contacting jury members and not properly identifying himself as working for the defense.

The prosecutors said the only way the investigator could have found the jurors is if he had access to their personal information, which was sealed by Brandolino, as is procedure in California after a verdict.

In a motion filed Thursday, the prosecutors alleged that a juror had come forward to complain that despite jurors being told that their identities were protected, a private investigator working for Grossman had attempted to question him outside his home about how the jury reached its verdict.

Juror Number 7 sent an email to Gould stating that a private investigator came to his their home March 11.

“He came to my house looking for me personally,” the juror wrote. “He introduced himself, gave me his card and told me out front that I didn’t have to talk to him if I didn’t want to and then asked if he could talk to me about the Grossman trial. I asked him why, and he told me he was working for the Grossman family and wanted to know more about what in the trial influenced the jury in their decision. I told him I won’t talk to him, and he left.”

The prosecutors said the only way the investigator, identified as Paul Stuckey, could have found the jurors is if he had access to their personal information, which was sealed by the judge, as is procedure in California. The defense may petition the court for a juror’s identity if a compelling interest is shown, but that has not been done in this case, they said.

“It is clear that the jurors in this case believed that their information would remain private and that they would not be contacted without having been given notice,” Gould and Castro wrote in the latest filing.

The prosecutors are asking the court for all such information to be returned.

What do legal experts say?

Defense attorney Lara Yeretsian — whose clients have included Scott Peterson, who was convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife and is now backed by the Los Angeles Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal group with a reputation for exonerating wrongfully convicted criminals — said inmates should never discuss the facts of their case with anyone but their lawyers.

“Unfortunately, it looks like Rebecca Grossman missed the lecture on this rule, especially when she asked her daughter on a recorded line to leak a video that was excluded from evidence at trial,” Yeretsian said. “Although most lawyers regularly remind their clients of the rule so they don’t slip up, inmates count on their conversations going unnoticed. But in a high-profile case like the Grossman case, nothing goes unnoticed.”

Louis Shapiro a well-known L.A. defense attorney, said Grossman doesn’t have much to lose, so speaking out is a calculated risk.

When “you are facing pretty much a life sentence, the motion for a new trial is your only hope,” he said. “She sees it as the ends justify the means.”

After vowing to appeal her conviction, Grossman’s defense is preparing a motion for a new trial, and Shapiro said there are only two reasons for that to be granted: the jury got the verdict wrong or jury misconduct. The latter, he said, is the only one likely to succeed, so that suggests the defense is trying to get a jury member to reveal some kind of misconduct.

What are the potential ramifications?

Brandolino could take away Grossman’s privileges in jail, or he could simply admonish her, Yeretsian said.

Should he choose the latter, it would not be the first time. During jury deliberations, Grossman orchestrated the release of sealed evidence that jurors had not seen, prosecutors argued. Gould and Castro sought to have her $2-million bail revoked, but the judge said he was not inclined to jail Grossman at the time and instead admonished her that she could not give reporters evidence that had been barred from disclosure.

Grossman and her family sent a video that had been barred from evidence at the trial to a local TV news reporter. Prosecutors learned of the incident after a broadcast during the trial in which the reporter discussed it on air.

Shapiro said the judge would likely admonish Grossman, but agreed it depends how he views her overall behavior.