New Prosecutor to Lead Peyer Retrial : Deputy D.A. in Troiani Case Is Picked for ‘Fresh Approach’

The district attorney’s office Monday changed lead prosecutors for the murder retrial of former California Highway Patrol Officer Craig Peyer and will now rely on Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Pfingst, who helped prosecute Laura Troiani and four Marine co-defendants convicted of killing Troiani’s husband in 1984.

In a written statement released late Monday afternoon, Dist. Atty. Ed Miller said he was relieving Deputy Dist. Atty. Joseph Van Orshoven as lead prosecutor in the case after reviewing “every aspect” of Peyer’s first trial, which ended in a hung jury last month. The jury was deadlocked 7-5 for conviction.

Peyer, a 13-year CHP veteran, is charged with the Dec. 27, 1986, strangulation murder of Cara Knott, a 20-year-old San Diego State University student. The second trial is scheduled to begin April 18.

Steve Casey, spokesman for Miller, said there was no single reason behind the move to replace Van Orshoven. Instead, the district attorney’s office thought that a “fresh approach” to the second trial was needed to successfully prosecute Peyer, Casey said.

“Joe from the beginning has wanted to do whatever it is that the district attorney felt was in the best interest of this prosecution. We are, after all, a team,” Casey said. “Ed’s thinking is, ‘What is the best thing we can do for the success of this litigation? Do we keep the prosecutorial team? Do we make some changes, re-evaluate witnesses, evidence and the order of their presentation?’ ”

The change in prosecutors was not meant to imply that Miller had lost confidence in Van Orshoven, Casey said.

Although Pfingst has about five weeks to prepare for the second trial, the district attorney’s office is not expected to ask for a postponement in the new trial.

“It is not our intent at this point to ask for a new trial date. He (Pfingst) told the district attorney that he should be up to speed by the trial date,” Casey said.

Van Orshoven declined to criticize Miller’s decision and said in a brief statement that it was Miller’s decision to make.

“The district attorney is the district attorney. It is his responsibility, unquestioned, to make the determination as to who is going to try a particular lawsuit,” Van Orshoven said.

Pfingst, 36, joined the district attorney’s office in 1984 after spending seven years as a prosecutor in the Brooklyn, N.Y., district attorney’s office. He has spent the past 3 1/2 years in North County. Casey said that Pfingst specialized in murder prosecutions while working in Brooklyn. He is known as a tough, emotional prosecutor.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Phil Walden, who with Pfingst co-prosecuted Troiani and the other Marine defendants, had high praise for his colleague.

“Paul is very thorough, methodical and scholarly when it comes to issues of law. He has ample experience in homicide cases,” Walden said.

Troiani, 26, was convicted of first-degree murder in November for the August, 1984, murder of her husband, Marine Sgt. Carlo Troiani. Carlo Troiani, 37, was lured to a desolate stretch of North County Road in Oceanside and shot several times. Laura Troiani--faking car trouble--served as the bait to attract her husband to the murder scene.

Five Marines were implicated in a murder-for-hire scheme. Laura Troiani had her husband killed in an attempt to claim a $95,000 life insurance policy. She is now serving a life term without possibility of parole. Four of the Marines have pleaded guilty in the shooting, while one is still awaiting trial.

Pfingst joined the San Diego County District Attorney’s office three days after the Aug. 10, 1984, murder of Carlo Troiani.

According to Casey, Miller made the decision to remove Van Orshoven from the case over the weekend and informed him of the move Monday. Deputy Dist. Atty. Jim Atkins, who assisted Van Orshoven at the first trial, will remain as co-prosecutor, Casey said.

Remain Involved?

While Van Orshoven has been replaced as lead prosecutor, he may still remain involved in the prosecution of the case, Casey said.

“Nobody knows how the (second) trial plan will be structured. . . . It will be up to (Pfingst). Yes, (Van Orshoven) will be involved. But in what fashion, I don’t know,” Casey said.

Sam and Joyce Knott, parents of the victim, declined to comment on the change. But Judy Rowland, who is the family’s attorney, welcomed the change.

“I certainly would’ve been surprised at any other decision,” Rowland said. “I hear he (Pfingst) is very good. He’s very highly thought of in the office.”

Casey minimized the role played by the Knotts in convincing Miller to change prosecutors for the second trial. The written statement released by Miller’s office on Monday said that he had “heard the observations” of attorneys, law enforcement officials and the Knott family in making his decision.

Rowland also played down the family’s role in Miller’s decision.

“It was a combination of things . . . Ed took an awful lot of people’s input in making the choice. They did meet with the family, but I think there were clearly a lot of other things that influenced the district attorney,” Rowland said.

No Verdict

The jury was unable to reach a verdict in Peyer’s trial when jurors said that they did not believe two key prosecution witnesses and expressed unanimous discontent with the pathologist’s testimony.

Coroner’s pathologist Lee Bockhacker’s failure to establish a time of death and his confusing testimony over when a procedure was used to determine the approximate time of death was influential in the jury’s decision.

The testimony of Robert Calderwood and Michelle Martin--both surprise prosecution witnesses who contacted the district attorney’s office while the trial was in progress--was also disbelieved, jurors said after the trial. Calderwood, a milkman, testified that on the night that Knott was killed he saw a CHP cruiser leave the murder scene. Martin, a former security guard, testified that she saw Peyer stop a Volkswagen automobile, like the one Knott was driving, at the Mercy Road off-ramp on Interstate 15.

Calderwood’s testimony was discredited by several co-workers, who testified for the defense that he had told them a different version of the events he allegedly witnessed. Martin was called lazy and a person who fantasized by former co-workers who testified for the defense.