Harbison Canyon

Attorneys for Herman (Rock) Kreutzer, alleging jury misconduct, said Tuesday they are seeking a new trial for the Big Oak Ranch owner, who in September was convicted of killing his son-in-law.

Because of the allegations, San Diego Superior Court Judge J. Perry Langford postponed Friday’s sentencing and the defense motions for a new trial for Kreutzer, 48, until Dec. 6.

The alleged misconduct was disputed in a hearing late Tuesday by Deputy Dist. Atty. Tom McArdle, who described the move as “shabby charges.”

The prosecutor in the case, Brian Michaels, also told Langford that jurors are being harassed by defense investigators.

C. Logan McKechnie and Stephen Perrello, attorneys representing Kreutzer, said the reported misconduct centers on at least three instances of jurors bringing information not admitted as evidence into the deliberations.

“Apparently, one of the jurors shone the headlights of his vehicle into his garage to see if he could see inside,” Perrello said.

Perrello said this was in reference to testimony by Larry Stilwell, 41, that he could see the April 11, 1984, shooting of James Spencer, 32, in the garage of the Harbison Canyon ranch at night, even though the only lighting came from a car’s headlights shining into the garage.

Perrello said the juror discussed the results of his test with the other jurors during the 10 days of deliberations, which ended Sept. 3 with a guilty verdict for second-degree murder.

Perrello also said one juror did a test with a gun to see if shouted words could be heard above gunshot noises. This was also discussed during the deliberations, both attorneys said.

The attorneys also alleged that jurors looked up the words “malice” and “aforethought” in dictionaries at home and brought the definitions to the deliberation room.

Langford said in court Tuesday that jury foreman Charles Nieland looked up the word “malice.” The judge recalled the jury’s question about the word on their ninth day of deliberations. “Did he look it up before I responded to the question about it?” the judge wondered aloud in court.

Langford indicated to the attorneys that that may not present a problem unless the dictionary’s definition said “something terrible . . . or utterly inconsistent with the instructions.”

Michaels complained to Langford about the tactics of defense investigators. “I’ve received calls from jurors,” Michaels said. “Many jurors indicated they were upset.”

Michaels said one juror complained that a defense investigator came to her office and attempted to interview her. “She was almost fired,” Michaels said.

Perrello denied that investigators harassed jurors, telling the judge that the contacts were made with “courtesy.”