Larissa Schuster's defense lawyer drew one step closer Wednesday to obtaining the names and contact information of jurors who convicted Schuster of murder last year.

Attorney Roger Nuttall wants a chance to interview the jurors and discover whether any jury misconduct occurred, which could be grounds for a new trial.

Judge Wayne Ellison of Fresno County Superior Court on Wednesday granted Nuttall's request for the court to send letters to the 12 jurors and three alternates, asking whether they object to having their names and contact information unsealed.

If the jurors do not object by the time Ellison holds a hearing on the issue on April 11, their names, phone numbers and addresses will be given to Nuttall and prosecutor Dennis Peterson. Jurors who object will not have their identity unsealed.

The decision is an important victory for Nuttall, who has said that statements by jurors during the two-months-long trial in Los Angeles County indicate that misconduct may have occurred. Last month Ellison denied an identical request from Nuttall, but a ruling Friday by the California 5th District Court of Appeal forced the judge to reverse his decision Wednesday.

Schuster, 47, is a former Clovis biochemist who was found guilty in December of murdering her husband, Timothy Schuster, in July 2003 and sealing his body in a barrel of acid. Schuster's sentencing, which was originally scheduled for Jan. 16, has been repeatedly delayed because Nuttall has asked for more time to determine whether jury misconduct occurred.

Peterson, the prosecutor, said Wednesday that the delays have been difficult for Timothy Schuster's friends and family members, who have waited almost five years to see the Clovis man's killer punished. But Peterson called Wednesday's development nothing more than a "procedural delay."

He suggested that the jurors also want to see the case put to rest and that such a sentiment will likely "be reflected in their responses."

Nuttall said that this is the second time in his career he has sought to speak to jurors after a verdict.

He said that in his previous attempt, three of the 12 jurors were willing to be interviewed.

Schuster's trial was held in Van Nuys because Ellison ruled that it would be too difficult to find an impartial jury in Fresno County. All the jurors are Los Angeles County residents.

W. Scott Quinlan, a veteran Fresno defense attorney who has no connection to the Schuster case but has worked with Nuttall on previous cases, said Wednesday that Nuttall's request is a significant step toward a successful motion for a new trial.

If some of the jurors agree to be interviewed and provide evidence that they discussed the case before deliberations, then Ellison may order the jurors to testify at a hearing to determine whether any jurors violated court orders, Quinlan said.

If Ellison concludes that misconduct occurred, he could order a new trial.

On Feb. 4, Ellison denied Nuttall's request to send letters to the jurors, stating that there was no evidence of possible jury misconduct.

Days later, Nuttall appealed the decision to the 5th District court.

In his petition he noted that one of the jurors told Ellison in open court during the trial that someone told her another juror would soon be removed.

Nuttall suggested that the person who gave the juror this information may have been an investigator with the District Attorney's Office, which would have been improper contact between the investigator and the juror.

In its ruling Friday, the appellate court essentially ignored Nuttall's argument, but said a separate incident raised concerns that jury misconduct occurred.

The court, which reviewed trial transcripts, said one of the jurors may have tried to talk to another juror about the case before deliberations, and that other jurors should have the chance to be interviewed to determine whether misconduct occurred. That incident was not cited in Nuttall's petition.

"I'd like to be saying that that's what we were saying all along, but they sort of came up with it on their own," Nuttall said.

On Wednesday, Peterson declined to comment on what -- if anything -- his office's investigator may have told a juror.

But, he said, "we don't believe there was any misconduct at all, and we're somewhat surprised and shocked by any allegation of that nature."