Reporter Off Hook for Veil on Source of Peyer Story

In a ruling favorable to the news media, a Superior Court judge Monday ruled that a San Diego Union reporter could invoke the California Shield Law and refuse to answer questions about the results of polygraph tests given to convicted murderer Craig Peyer that were leaked to the newspaper during the trial and reported in a story.

Peyer’s attorneys have charged that the polygraph tests were leaked to the paper by someone in the district attorney’s office or the San Diego Police Department in an attempt to influence Peyer’s second trial. Union reporter Jim Okerblom reported that the documents, which were mailed anonymously and reviewed by experts, showed that Peyer was “attempting deception” when he answered questions about the death of Cara Knott.

Knott, 20, was strangled on Dec. 27, 1986, and Peyer, 38, was convicted of first-degree murder last month. Peyer, a former California Highway Patrol officer, is to be sentenced Wednesday and faces a state prison term of 25 years to life. His first trial ended with the jury deadlocked, 7-5, for conviction.

Because the controversial documents were mailed during jury selection, Peyer’s attorneys charged that his right to a fair trial was violated. Attorneys Robert Grimes and Diane Campbell subpoenaed Okerblom to testify about the leaked materials in order to learn the source of the leak. Huffman rejected arguments by the Union’s attorneys that would have kept Okerblom from testifying and ordered the reporter to take the witness stand.

On the stand, Okerblom refused to answer 12 specific questions posed by Campbell, despite being ordered to do so by Huffman. Campbell then asked Huffman to find Okerblom in contempt of court for refusing to answer the questions.

However, Huffman noted that attorneys for the Union had already declared that the paper no longer possesses the documents. Furthermore, Huffman said that the information requested by the defense attorneys is protected by the state Shield Law because “it deals with unpublished information . . . identifying data on the documents . . . that goes to the free flow of information.”

The judge also ruled that the leaked information did not prevent Peyer from obtaining a fair trial and that his rights were not violated when the test results were made public.