Kraft Trial Delayed as 2 Jurors Ask to Be Released

Opening statements and testimony in the Randy Steven Kraft murder trial, scheduled to begin Monday, have been postponed a week, primarily because two jurors now want off the jury, the judge said Thursday.

One regular juror told the court that he learned after the jury was chosen this week that his employer would not pay his salary the full length of the trial, which the judge has estimated could take up to a year. A second man, chosen as one of the eight alternates, said he learned after being chosen that the length of the trial could hold up a promotion for him.

Superior Court Judge Donald A. McCartin said he would contact both men’s employers. By early next week, the judge said, he will decide whether to grant their requests to be dismissed from the jury. As a precaution, the judge ordered an additional 41 prospective jurors to appear in his Santa Ana courtroom next Wednesday in case he needs to fill the two seats.

Defense Attorney Surprised

Kraft’s attorney, C. Thomas McDonald, said he was surprised by the two jurors’ requests.

“But until I can look into it further, I can’t say what our position is going to be about it,” McDonald said.

Kraft, 43, is charged with 16 murders in Orange County. Prosecutors have added another 21 murders to the case in seeking the death penalty.

The jury includes nine women and three men. Because it could take from six months to a year just to put on the evidence, McCartin ordered the selection of eight alternates. The alternates include six women and two men. The judge said Thursday that he is not comfortable with reducing the number of alternates to six so early in the trial. But he added that he will not know until next week what he is going to do.

McCartin began jury selection in July by asking more than 1,653 prospective jurors to fill out a questionnaire concerning whether a one-year trial would be a hardship for them.

Then 215 people--who claimed no hardship, or could not prove a hardship--were called in for individual questioning by the judge and lawyers. Individual questioning is required in death penalty cases in California so that the lawyers can learn prospective jurors’ views on capital punishment.

Field Narrowed to 129

Out of those 215, 129 were selected to show up in court Monday for general jury selection. The judge also ordered more than 20 others to show up in case a jury could not

be selected from the 129.

It took the lawyers just Monday and Tuesday to pick the 12 jurors and eight alternates. When it was over, others who had not been chosen applauded the end of the lengthy process. However, the 41 called back next Wednesday will come from that same 129.

One added controversy Thursday concerned the prospective jurors’ questionnaires.

The judge had told the prospective jurors that their answers to the questionnaires would be kept confidential. When a lawyer for the Orange County Register asked on Thursday that they be made public, the judge angrily denied the request. He called the request “garbage” and said he was tired of such attempts by the media to tell him what to do.

Defense attorney McDonald, who has been at odds with the judge on numerous issues, applauded his decision to deny the Register’s request.

“Those people were promised that their answers would be confidential,” McDonald said. “The judge is right to live up to that promise.”

Opening statements in the Kraft case--now set for Sept. 26--would likely have been delayed at least a day even without the jury problem. The judge had allotted Friday for defense motions in the case. But this week, he discovered that the motions probably would require two days of hearings.

Kraft’s lawyers once again are seeking to have the case tried in another county because of widespread publicity in this area. They have been turned down before but want to renew the motion now that a jury has been selected.

Defense attorneys also want a hearing on the handwritten list found in Kraft’s car, which prosecutors contend is a “death list” and a key piece of evidence. Defense lawyers claim that the prosecutors have failed to prove that it is a death list and that its introduction in the trial could prejudice the jurors. This issue has also been brought up before, in several types of motions, and each time the court has upheld the prosecution’s right to use the list.