Trial of Peyer Is Tangled by Newspaper Story

Closing statements in the murder trial of former California Highway Patrol Officer Craig Peyer Wednesday were postponed until next week after the lead prosecutor in the case suffered a broken tooth.

But during the brief morning session, Peyer’s defense attorney expressed concern over a newspaper story that he said “absolutely and totally misconstrued” the defense’s position in the case.

Superior Court Judge Richard D. Huffman granted a prosecution request to reschedule closing statements for Tuesday because Deputy Dist. Atty. Joseph Van Orshoven broke a tooth while eating breakfast and was in pain.

Article Cited

Defense attorney Robert Grimes argued unsuccessfully in court that co-prosecutor Jim Atkins should continue the case and expressed concerned that otherwise jurors could be influenced in the interim by a controversial story that appeared in Wednesday’s San Diego Union.

The Union story said that, in his closing statement, Grimes was going to ask jurors that if they find Peyer guilty, they should convict him of voluntary manslaughter, not murder. That would be tantamount to an admission that Peyer had contact with the victim, Cara Knott. The defense’s position throughout the trial has been that Peyer, 37, never had contact with Knott, 20. Grimes has argued that she was killed by someone else after Peyer got off duty.

Peyer, a 13-year CHP veteran, is charged with strangling Knott on Dec. 27, 1986. Police said she was killed after a struggle on the Old U.S. 395 bridge near Interstate 15 and the Mercy Road off-ramp. Her body was thrown 65 feet into a dry creek bed, where it was discovered by police the next morning. Peyer was arrested on Jan. 15, 1987, and fired in May.

On Wednesday, Grimes said that it was the prosecution that raised the possibility of a voluntary manslaughter conviction if the jury could not agree on first or second degree murder.

In a confusing exchange Tuesday among Grimes, Van Orshoven and Huffman over jury instructions, Grimes asked Huffman to include involuntary manslaughter in the instructions if the prosecution was raising the possibility of a voluntary manslaughter conviction.

After Huffman refused to include involuntary manslaughter in the instructions, Grimes voiced concern over the prosecution’s theory of the case, which included “implicit” arguments that could be applied if the jury were to consider a voluntary manslaughter conviction.

Courtroom Discussion

On Wednesday, Grimes explained what the courtroom discussion with Huffman and Van Orshoven on Tuesday was about.

“I feel that Van Orshoven’s theory of the case is that there was some type of provocation by Cara Knott and he’s using this to explain why he thinks Craig Peyer did it. I think that I said words (Tuesday) to the effect that this theory could also lead someone to find an argument that there was an overreaction by Miss Knott because of her self-defense training,” Grimes said.

“Our definition of the case is that Craig Peyer was not there . . . . I do not intend to argue a theory that Cara Knott provoked Craig Peyer and that he did something in response.”

At the end of the Tuesday session Grimes had repeated the defense position that Peyer “had nothing to do with this homicide” and added, “that will remain our argument.” He repeated this contention again on Wednesday and said that he may ask Huffman to withdraw voluntary manslaughter from the jury instructions, forcing jurors to convict Peyer of first or second degree murder or acquit him.

The defense attorney said that, more often than not, voluntary manslaughter is included as a possibility for the jury to consider in homicide cases.

During Wednesday’s brief session, Grimes said that he wanted to proceed then with closing statements “while all of the facts are fresh in the jurors’ minds” in order to offset any damage done to the defense’s case by the newspaper story, which was picked up by local radio and television stations and included in their news reports.

“The publicity that resulted from that (story) absolutely and totally misconstrued the defense position . . . Our whole defense was misconstrued by the media. Officer Peyer was not involved with this homicide,” Grimes said.

Afraid of Exposure

He added that he was concerned that jurors would somehow be exposed to the Union story during the four days that the court was not in session. Friday is Lincoln’s birthday, a state holiday, and Monday is President’s Day, a federal holiday.

But Huffman said that he was confident that jurors would abide by his instructions to not discuss the case or expose themselves to media coverage of it.

“With regard to the issue of publicity . . . I’m satisfied that this jury has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid publicity. I will go to special lengths to advise them that anything they might read in the news media may be inaccurate . . . My experience has been that this is one of the most diligent and law abiding juries I’ve ever seen,” Huffman said.

In denying Grimes’ request that closing statements be delivered on Wednesday, Huffman said that a four-day wait would not prejudice Peyer’s case, but could prejudice the prosecution because Van Orshoven was absent.

“There is no prejudice to the defendant, but there is substantial prejudice to the prosecution and they have a right to a fair trial, too,” Huffman said.

Then Huffman ordered the jury brought in and he warned them about reading or hearing news accounts of the trial over the next four days.

‘Extraordinary Efforts’

“Your friends and neighbors aren’t under such compulsion. They will be wiggling with enthusiasm to share it (information) with you . . . You must make extraordinary efforts not to be exposed to it. You have to make sure not only to avoid news coverage, but people who want to talk about this case,” said Huffman.

Afterward, Grimes said he was confident that the jurors would abide by Huffman’s admonition.

In a hallway press conference, Grimes complained that the press has consistently speculated about Peyer’s defense.

“I feel there has been some speculation in the press regarding our defense. I’m afraid that some people may misperceive our defense. There have been numerous misperceptions and speculation about the defense’s case that have no basis in fact,” Grimes said.