PORTLAND – A Kittery businessman facing prison time for knowingly making false statements about his criminal record in a Small Business Administration loan application is making a bid for a new trial because a juror did not understand that a unanimous decision was needed for the conviction.

Peter Enzinger, 44, was convicted earlier this month in U.S. District Court. Sentencing guidelines would call for up to two years.

Three days after the trial, the juror wrote Judge D. Brock Hornby a letter about his or her misunderstanding of the need to reach a unanimous verdict.

The letter was attached to Enzinger’s motion for a new trial that was filed Friday.

“I am totally ashamed to admit that I did not know the real meaning of ‘unanimous’ and how I should have acted in the case of being left the sole juror who thought the defendant to be innocent,” the juror wrote.

The juror believed that Enzinger was innocent, but thought he or she would have to convince the 11 other jurors of his innocence for an acquittal, the juror wrote.

In March 2009, Enzinger applied for the $1.3 million loan on behalf of his businesses, Kittery-based Atlantic Medical Supplies and Seacoast Sleep Solutions. A form submitted as part of the application indicated that he had never been charged with, arrested for or convicted of any criminal offenses other than minor motor vehicle violations.

But Enzinger had four convictions in Massachusetts under the surname Shays.

He had been convicted in 1985 of shoplifting and being a disorderly person, in 1987 of furnishing liquor to a minor and in 1990 of disturbing the peace.

Toby Dilworth, Enzinger’s lawyer, filed a second motion seeking a new trial Friday. That motion argued that evidence was wrongfully excluded and cited the prosecution’s failure to produce the original form in question.

The defense had a witness who planned to testify that Enzinger would have received the loan even if he had disclosed his criminal background, which the defense said would show Enzinger had no incentive to make false statements.

The defense argued that there were several problems with using a copy rather than the original document with Enzinger’s signature, including that it would be easier for him to tell whether it was indeed his signature on the original.

Staff Writer Ann S. Kim can be contacted at 791-6383 or at:

[email protected]