Appeal Likely : Bid to Learn Kraft Defense Costs Blocked

A state appellate court Friday rejected a newspaper’s attempt to find out how much public money has been spent to defend Randy Kraft, accused of killing 37 men.

Justices in the 4th Appellate District ruled that the legal tool which lawyers for the Orange County Register chose in their attempt to pry open the sealed Kraft records was not up to the task.

The ruling, in which justices reversed a decision they themselves had made in June, will probably be appealed, a lawyer for the Register said. The justices reviewed their June decision after Kraft’s attorneys asked for a rehearing.

‘Decision of Significance’

“I think the decision is of such significance that we will appeal it to the Supreme Court,” said Duffern H. Helsing, the newspaper attorney.

“From our standpoint, it’s unfortunate that we now have four judges who are denying the public the right to know what it’s costing them to defend this fellow Kraft,” Helsing said.

Unless appealed, the decision means that Kraft defense costs--which prosecutors recently estimated at more than $2 million--will not be revealed until after the trial, now set to begin in January.

William J. Kopeny, one of Kraft’s three court-appointed lawyers, hailed the decision. “I don’t believe the Supreme Court will interfere with this ruling because it’s correct,” Kopeny said.

Ironically, all three justices--Thomas F. Crosby Jr., who wrote the opinion, and John K. Trotter Jr. and Edward J. Wallin--said they thought the Superior Court judge who denied the Register’s request was wrong.

But the justices concluded that the writ of review which the Register sought does not provide sufficient legal authority for them to overturn the decision of Judge Luis A. Cardenas.

The decision found that Cardenas “attempted conscientiously to follow the law. (His) conclusions were wrong (in the opinion of a majority of this panel), but there is no basis for annulling (his) decision by a writ of review.”

The newspaper last year sought access to the data, citing the California Public Records Act.

Defense attorneys opposed the request. They argued that publicity about Kraft defense costs might deny him the possibility of a fair and impartial trial in Orange County.

On appeal, Kraft’s attorneys also cited the public’s financial interest in avoiding the possibility of a costly transfer of the case for trial in another county as a way to avoid prejudicial publicity.

Conclusion Reiterated

On Friday, the appellate court reiterated its earlier conclusion that it is “highly unlikely Kraft could be prejudiced by mere disclosure of the cost to the public of underwriting his defense: The press had already repeatedly reported details concerning the brutality and homosexual nature of the alleged offenses and that Kraft was stopped on a freeway while operating an automobile in which one of the victims was found dead, or near death, in a passenger seat.”

The court noted that the law under which Register attorneys unsuccessfully sought review had been changed--with the Register’s support--in 1984. The change provided for speedier reviews of Superior Court decisions, but in a narrower range. Under the 1984 law, the sort of review asked by the Register is limited to cases in which judges act beyond their jurisdiction, or do things they are not legally empowered to do.

Therefore, the court rejected the Register’s request “notwithstanding the view of a majority of this panel that the ruling was erroneous.”

“It’s a shame that while the (appeals) court feels the trial judge was wrong, they can’t do something to make it right,” newspaper lawyer Helsing said.

Through his clerk, Cardenas said Friday that he would have no comment until he is notified in writing of the appellate court decision.

County Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis, who keeps many of the Kraft defense records, declined comment.