Peyer-Trial Rulings Seen as Vulnerable

After 12 jurors announced Wednesday that Paul Pfingst had persuaded them to find former CHP Officer Craig Peyer guilty of murder in the first degree, praise rained upon the aggressive prosecutor. The public telephoned with kudos. His boss labeled his performance “superb.” The victim’s family called him a hero.

But, a day later, comments from defense attorneys raised questions: Is it possible that Pfingst did too good a job? Was his success in the Peyer trial so overwhelming that it left dangerously rich grounds for an appeal?

In the aftermath of the verdict, defense attorneys throughout San Diego on Thursday began analyzing the retrial and one thing quickly became clear: a series of rulings by Superior Court Judge Richard Huffman seriously damaged the defense case and may provide ample fodder for Peyer’s request that his conviction be overturned. Peyer’s attorney plans to file an appeal on the day of sentencing, July 20.

Responded to Motions

Most of the rulings came in response to motions filed by Pfingst to exclude certain testimony from the jurors--testimony presented in the first trial without objection from Joseph Van Orshoven. Other rulings rejected efforts by defense attorneys Robert Grimes and Diane Campbell to limit evidence the prosecution sought to introduce.

“I think when you look at the totality of the decisions made by the judge, you have to wonder whether those created an atmosphere in which the jury was allowed to receive evidence that was so prejudicial that whatever relevance it had was completely outweighed by how inflammatory it was,” Elisabeth Semel, a criminal defense attorney, said.

“Secondarily,” she said, “the issue is whether the defense was prevented from putting on its case by the exclusion of certain evidence to the point where the defendant did not receive a fair trial.”

Geraldine Russell, who defended Laura Troiani in her trial for plotting the murder of her husband, echoed those concerns, noting that “in a circumstantial case like this one, rulings like that make all the difference.”

“They affected the physical evidence, the presentation of scientific evidence and the (defense) attorney’s ability to explain what happened the night of the crime, and that all contributed to the jury’s ability to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Russell, whose opponent in the Troiani trial was none other than Pfingst. “Given Huffman’s rulings, the verdict wasn’t a surprise at all.”

Although calling Huffman “fair-minded,” Russell added that some of the rulings barring testimony that might have been lengthy or confusing “had the flavor of a judge who might have wanted to speed things along.”

Defense Bar ‘Puzzled’

Semel said that members of the defense bar were “puzzled by the avalanche” of anti-defense rulings because Huffman, though a former top prosecutor in the district attorney’s office, has always been viewed as scrupulously even-handed on the bench.

“I think all of us respect him but we’re trying to figure out some explanation other than that he wanted to convict this guy,” Semel said. “Because that wouldn’t be like him. . . . And yet, from the direction these rulings took, we have some grave concerns about whether it was a fair trial.”

Statistics from the California Judicial Council make the odds of a successful appeal slim. The Council’s 1987 annual report noted that, of the 4,869 criminal appeals filed with state appellate courts the previous year, 93% of the convictions were affirmed. Defendants in high-profile cases are particularly unlikely to win a reversal, experts said.

Legitimate Grounds

Nonetheless, several criminal defense attorneys interviewed cited a handful of pro-prosecution decisions they say provide legitimate grounds for an appeal of Peyer’s conviction for strangling Cara Knott on a deserted road 18 months ago.

On a motion by Pfingst, Huffman barred testimony from four witnesses who testified in the first trial that they saw an unidentified, “scruffy” hitchhiker lunging at cars near the freeway entrance Knott likely used the night she died. Huffman agreed with prosecutors that there “was not a shred of evidence” linking the “phantom hitchhiker” to Knott and that the testimony was therefore irrelevant.

But defense attorney Steven Feldman noted that the evidence was key to rebutting the prosecution’s contention that Peyer was “the only person on Earth” who could have killed Knott. Excluding it, he said, “might be considered overly prejudicial” because it gave the jury the false impression that no one else had the opportunity to commit the crime.

Ruling on another prosecution motion not made in the previous trial, Huffman prevented Peyer’s wife and several CHP officers from recounting Peyer’s explanation for bleeding scratches he had on his face the night Knott was killed. Prosecutors argued that Knott inflicted the wounds, but in the first trial, witnesses said Peyer claimed he was injured when he fell against a chain-link fence after slipping on a gasoline spill.

Huffman, however, agreed with Pfingst that such statements are hearsay evidence and thus were inadmissible. The judge said Peyer would have to take the stand--and undergo cross-examination--if he wished his account to reach the jury. Peyer did not testify. The judge also barred Peyer’s CHP sergeant from testifying, as he did in the first trial, that the marks on the patrolman’s face had a pattern consistent with a chain-link fence.

Campbell, Peyer’s co-counsel, said that, although declaring hearsay inadmissible is far from unusual, there are exceptions to the rule and the testimony about the scratches constituted such an exception.

Denied Defense Request

The judge denied a request by the defense to prevent Pfingst from presenting testimony from 2 dozen women Peyer stopped in 1986 at the Mercy Road exit off Interstate 15, near where Knott’s body was found. Campbell said evidence about the officer’s previous conduct “impermissibly implies a propensity which may have led the jury to conclude he’s guilty not based on what he may have done in this instance but on what he did all those other times.”

Over a defense objection, Huffman also allowed the women to testify about the fright some felt during their encounters with Peyer, several of which lasted more than an hour.

Two rulings relating to scientific evidence, which figured heavily in the case, also went against the defense. Grimes unsuccessfully challenged the use of a certain test for identifying genetic markers in blood. That test, which Grimes charged was unreliable, allowed prosecution blood experts to conclude that a spot of blood on Knott’s boot matched Peyer’s and was shared by just 0.6% of the county population.

Fiber Expert Barred

Granting a prosecution request, Huffman prohibited a defense fiber expert, John Reffner, from criticizing an analysis by the prosecution’s experts, who said six tiny fibers linked Peyer to Knott’s killing. Huffman said Reffner’s methods were not applicable to the evidence in the case and would only “confuse and mislead” the jury.

Another issue likely to come up in the appeal concerns statements Pfingst made during closing statements. In his emotional closing remarks, Pfingst asked jurors to consider why Grimes had offered no explanation for the scratches and had failed to account for a 90-minute time period on Peyer’s shift the night Knott was strangled.

Grimes first objected to the comments and later made a motion for a mistrial; both were denied by Huffman. Grimes protested that the statements improperly encouraged jurors to wonder why Peyer had not testified in his defense. The complaints were based on case law established in the mid-1960s that prevents prosecutors from using a defendant’s silence--as permitted under the Fifth Amendment--as evidence of guilt.

‘Insidious Ways’

“There are insidious ways a prosecutor can point to the silence and circumvent the rule,” Semel said. “The question is, did he cross that line or not?”

At the time Grimes asked for a mistrial, Huffman said Pfingst “kept me on the edge of my seat” but did not cross the line.

Some attorneys also speculated that the dismissal of juror Mark Kirkendall halfway through the trial might be important to an appellate court. Huffman concluded there were sufficient grounds for dismissing Kirkendall, who allegedly told a co-worker he thought Peyer was innocent before the start of the trial.

Although the 4th District Court of Appeal denied a request by Grimes to overturn the ruling, the defense is not precluded from raising the issue again. Feldman called the dismissal “unprecedented” for a trial of such notoriety and said the juror’s published statements that he wanted to hear all the evidence before making a decision on Peyer’s guilt “did not appear to be evidence of bias.”

Throughout the trial, Pfingst has downplayed the significance of the rulings, noting that “there is nothing radical about them” and that “they are not go-out-on-a-limb rulings.” After the verdict, Pfingst said there were rulings that went against the prosecution as well but that those unfolded in closed session and he couldn’t discuss them.

“In some respects, Judge Huffman has received perhaps an unfair look because, when he did something that was perceived as harming the defense, it was done in open court, and, when he did something that could be interpreted as hurting the people’s case, it was in closed session,” Pfingst said. “Basically, what the judge was doing was applying the same rules to the defense that we live by.”

When informed of Pfingst’s remark about pro-defense rulings behind closed doors, Campbell said: “That’s interesting. I sure don’t remember any.”