Judge, Attorneys Question 20 as Picking of Peyer Jury Inches On

The judge and opposing attorneys in the Craig Peyer murder trial continued to inch their way through jury selection Tuesday, conducting individual interviews with prospective jurors to determine their suitability for service in the widely publicized case.

Twenty people from a pool of more than 200 potential jury members were questioned during the day by Superior Court Judge Richard J. Huffman, defense attorney Robert Grimes and Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Pfingst. Five of those were dismissed, and the balance will return for another interview next month.

Most of the questions posed Tuesday focused on jurors’ knowledge and opinions about the Peyer case, in which the former California Highway Patrol officer is charged with strangling college student Cara Knott on an Interstate 15 off-ramp Dec. 27, 1986.

This is the second time Peyer has stood trial on the murder charge and there has been significant press coverage of the case. Also, the proceeding has attracted extensive publicity because it involves charges against a law enforcement officer.

Each prospective juror questioned Tuesday had some familiarity with Peyer and the charges against him, and both attorneys appeared resigned to the fact that the retrial jury will have some previous knowledge.

Knew ‘Specific Information’

Pfingst, however, asked the judge to excuse one prospective juror whose recall of evidence and witnesses that figured in the first trial was particularly detailed. The prosecutor argued that the man, Willie Avant, knew “specific information” about “virtually every piece of evidence in this case” and that jurors who were less informed are preferable.

But Huffman denied Pfingst’s motion. The judge also denied a request by Pfingst to excuse a person who expressed doubts about the credibility of a key prosecution witness. That witness had testified in the first trial that she saw Peyer on the off-ramp while driving by.

Other queries posed Tuesday dealt with reaction to the outcome of the first trial. Had the failure of the first jury to come to a verdict influenced prospective jurors’ opinions about Peyer’s guilt or innocence?

At least one prospective juror aware of the first trial, Laura Kaine, said the deadlocked jury made her realize that “there’s a lot of stuff that shows he’s innocent” despite her initial suspicion that Peyer had committed the murder.

Asked About Replacement

Pfingst also asked some of those interviewed whether they knew he had replaced Deputy Dist. Atty. Joseph Van Orshoven, the prosecutor who handled the first trial, and what conclusion they drew from that. One, Avant, speculated that the theory behind the change was similar to his experience in the Navy: “If one person doesn’t do the job right, you replace him.”

Four of the five people dismissed by Huffman said they felt strongly that Peyer had committed the murder and likely could not put that belief aside during a trial. The fifth said he planned to apply to become a San Diego police officer next year and acknowledged a bias in favor of law enforcement officers.

Prosecutors allege that Peyer, while in uniform and on routine patrol, pulled over Knott on the darkened Mercy Road off-ramp, strangled her and tossed her body from an abandoned highway bridge into a dry creek bed below.

Jurors in the first trial deadlocked 7 to 5 for conviction in February. Several jurors said they were skeptical of the testimony of key prosecution witnesses and that the district attorney had failed to point out what motive Peyer would have for the slaying.

Peyer, a 13-year veteran of the CHP, has been free on bail for more than a year.