Rebecca Grossman's bid to have her her murder conviction for killing brothers in crosswalk while driving at 81 mph is thrown out of court

A judge Monday threw out child killer Rebecca Grossman’s bid to have her murder convictions overturned and be granted a new trial.

The wealthy socialite’s attorneys argued that she was entitled to a trial do-over because prosecutors at her trial four months ago produced ‘insufficient’ evidence to find her guilty and ‘misled’ the jury.

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Brandolino rejected Grossman’s pleas Monday, telling the court in Van Nuys, California, that he found prosecutors had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she had acted with ‘implied malice’

Under the law, to prove second degree murder, prosecutors had to prove ‘implied malice’ – that Grossman knew what she was doing when she ran down the Iskander brothers Mark, 11, and  Jacob, 8, in a hit-and-run as she drove at high speed through a Westlake Village marked crosswalk in September 2020.

Grossman, 60 – who was convicted by a jury four months ago of double second degree murder – appeared in court Monday handcuffed and wearing brown jail overalls.

And she mouthed, ‘I love you‘ toward her husband, renowned plastic surgeon Peter Grossman and their teen children Alexis and Nicholas, sitting behind her in the crowded courtroom. Alexis, 19, was wearing a dark blue T-shirt emblazoned in neon pink with the words ‘Be a Kind Human.'

Grossman is scheduled to be sentenced next week and is facing up to 34 years to life in prison.

Monday – her legal team attempted to forestall that sentencing by filing a motion for a new trial, claiming that prosecutors at her original trial had not proved her guilty of murder.

‘This was tragedy, not murder,’ her new lead attorney James Spertus told the court. ‘Second degree murder charges are not supported by any evidence presented in this case.’

He insisted that Grossman did not drive that day with ‘callousness,’ knowing that someone could die, adding, ‘Her behavior was bad. Nobody should speed. But Ms. Grossman does not have a malignant heart.

‘Did the people prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? They did not.’

Spertus accused prosecutors of ‘misleading’ Judge Brandolino into allowing the jury to hear ‘unfair’ testimony from a California Highway Patrol officer – who gave Grossman a speeding ticket for driving 93mph seven years before the Iskander boys’ fatal crash and warned her that speeding could cause serious injury or death

And he attacked prosecutors for claiming that Grossman was impaired with alcohol at the time of the crash from the drinks she’d had earlier in the day – even though she was not charged with DUI.

’The impairment issue was so prejudicial,’ he told the court. ‘The impairment evidence was misused by the prosecution. This trial had a lot of arguments about impairment but this was not a DUI case.’

Spertus also slammed the DA’s trial charges that Grossman fled the scene after the crash, failing to come back and help the two mortally wounded boys.

‘Ms Grossman did not want to go fast and not care what happened,’ he said. ‘That has not been proven here. She asked 50 times about the children (when police were giving her sobriety tests after the accident).’

Judge Brandolino, dismissed the defense motion for a new trial, telling the court, 'I find that the defendant actions were sufficient for a finding of implied malice beyond a reasonable doubt.

’She chose to drive while drinking to the point of mild impairment....at speeds of 73-81mph in a 45mph speed limit. And she did leave the scene.’

The judge said he was also taking into account ‘the fact that she was previously warned that speeding could kill or hurt someone.’

It was on February 23 this year, after a six week trial, that a jury of nine men and three women found Grossman guilty of all five charges against her, two counts of second degree murder, two of gross vehicular manslaughter and one of hit-and-run resulting in death. She had pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

The two – who were dating while Grossman was separated from her husband – had been sharing margaritas earlier in the day and were racing each other at more than 70mph, with Erickson’s car just in front of Grossman’s, when the tragedy happened.

Erickson, 56 – who received only a slap-on-the-wrist reckless driving misdemeanor citation as a result of the accident – became the elephant in the room during the murder trial in which he never showed his face.

Time and time again, Grossman’s trial attorney, Tony Buzbee, brought up his name, pointing the finger of blame at him. Yet Buzbee never subpoened Erickson to appear as a witness. Nor did prosecutors.

During Grossman’s criminal trial several rumors circulated about his whereabouts: he was hiding out in a high-rise Las Vegas condo…he was coaching baseball in Mexico…he was living quietly on the beach in Orange county, south of LA.

But in the upcoming wrongful death civil trial – in which the young victims’ parents, Nancy and Karim Iskander are seeking unspecified cash damages for ‘battery, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress’ – Erickson won’t find it so easy to lie low, since he’s a defendant alongside Grossman.

In that complaint, the heartbroken parents – who say Grossman ‘drove drunk and killed’ their two young sons – also accuse Erickson of negligence that was ‘despicable as it showed a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others.’

Erickson – who played for six MLB teams during his 15-year baseball career – has hired attorneys to fight the Iskander’s accusations and he filed a motion to ’strike’ or cancel their complaint against him.

Spertus – who replaced Buzbee as lead counsel – and his attorney partner Lara Grassley, made no mention of Erickson in their written motion for Grossman’s convictions to be thrown out and she be granted a new criminal trial.

Last month, prosecutors went to Judge Brandolino to report a potential ‘conflict of interest’ involving  Spertus because he is also representing former LA Assistant District Attorney Diana Teran who was recently arrested and charged with 11 felony counts of using confidential sheriff’s records illegally.

Teran was the boss and immediate supervisor of the two deputy DAs who successfully prosecuted Grossman at trial, Ryan Gould and Jamie Castro.

And, said Balian, she was ‘intimately involved’ with making prosecution decisions during the Grossman trial.

Spertus hit back at last month’s court hearing, insisting that there was ‘no conflict’ and ‘zero overlap’ in the two cases, calling Balian’s implications of possible unethical behavior by Teran ‘fantastical’ and attacking Balian for implying ‘unethical conduct by me’ and for ‘impugning my integrity.

Judge Brandolino ruled that there was ‘no actual conflict’ that would warrant kicking Spertus off Grossman’s legal team saying, ‘The two cases do not intersect.’

But the judge did find there was a ‘potential conflict’ and requested Grossman agree to a waiver, acknowledging there was a potential conflict of interest and giving him an assurance that she wanted to keep Spertus as her attorney.

The Iskander boys' parents – who were not in court Monday – believe Grossman deliberately hired Spertus to ‘play games’ with her case.

‘There is a clear attempt by Ms. Grossman to not just create a conflict of interest, but to influence the justice system in her favor,’ Nancy told local TV station KTLA.

Grossman has already been accused of using dirty tactics to try to get her convictions overturned.

Prosecutors say that from jail she told her husband, and daughter to hunt down jurors and seek out witnesses to try to get them to change their testimony and sway Judge Brandolino into giving her a new trial.

She also allegedly told Alexis to publicly release a sheriff’s deputy’s body-camera video that had been sealed by the judge.