Hedgecock Lied, Cheated, Prosecutor Tells Jurors

Roger Hedgecock’s “raw ambition” to be mayor of San Diego prompted him to “cheat . . . and callously lie” to win the office in 1983, Assistant Dist. Atty. Richard D. Huffman told jurors in Hedgecock’s felony conspiracy and perjury trial on Monday.

As closing arguments began, Huffman charged that Hedgecock’s “willingness to cut corners as necessary . . . to succeed” led him to conspire with former J. David & Co. principals Nancy Hoover and J. David (Jerry) Dominelli in a “complicated scheme” to funnel tens of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions into his 1983 campaign. This was done, he said, through a political consulting firm owned by Tom Shepard, a close friend of the mayor.

Aware that the illegal donations would violate the city’s $250-per-person contribution limit, Hedgecock then “deliberately lied” on campaign and personal financial disclosure statements in an attempt to conceal those transactions, Huffman told the six-man, six-woman jury.

However, when defense attorney Michael Pancer briefly began his summation statement late Monday afternoon, he described the prosecution’s case as “an illusion that’s been created by the manipulation of isolated facts that have been ripped out of context.”

Accusing the district attorney’s office of “resorting to smear and to character assassination” in its attempt to convict Hedgecock, Pancer told the jurors, “If you look at this case as a giant picture . . . there is a picture of innocence.”

After Pancer concludes his closing arguments today, Huffman will have an opportunity to deliver a rebuttal statement.

Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr. then will read nearly 100 instructions dealing with legal points and evidence in the case to the jurors, after which they will begin their deliberations, probably on Wednesday.

During his more than 3 1/2-hour closing statement, Huffman per sistently pointed to actions and comments by Hedgecock and his backers over a 4 1/2-year period in an attempt to weave a complicated plot to circumvent the city’s election laws.

Huffman led jurors through a maze of transactions that he said demonstrate the mayor’s “willingness . . . to scoff at the rules that apply . . . to other people” by relying upon illegal financial aid from Hoover and Dominelli to achieve both his political and personal goals.

The prosecutor peppered his remarks with such phrases as “absolute falsehood,” “cheat,” “lie,” “incredible explanations” and “silly . . . answers” to describe Hedgecock’s actions and subsequent attempt to cover up his dealings with Hoover, Dominelli and Shepard.

The three alleged co-conspirators will be tried separately in a later trial.

With Huffman’s arguments taking up most of the day, much of the action was in the form of a silent body-language struggle between mayor and prosecutor.

Hedgecock, who had been sitting at the defense table across the room from the jury during the weeks of testimony, decided to move to a seat that was inside the bar and next to the jury box. He said he did this so he could see charts and photographs that Huffman placed on an easel in front of the panel.

That put the mayor within five feet of Huffman’s left elbow, and the prosecutor repeatedly pointed at him. It was a gesture that helped draw Hedgecock into the tapestry of the alleged conspiracy created by Huffman.

“I think it’s great,” Huffman later said of the mayor’s choice of seats. “Normally, he’s sitting across at the table and you have to turn around, and it is such a phony gesture.”

Hedgecock, however, seemed to feel the move was to his advantage. He repeatedly used expressions and motions to counter Huffman’s assertions that he was a liar, cheat and conniver.

When Huffman reminded the jury that Hedgecock received free limousine service from J. David & Co., the mayor lifted his eyebrows in mock surprise, then shook his head slightly and began scribbling notes on a yellow legal pad.

When Huffman reminded the jury that Dominelli once threw an $8,500 “massive party” to celebrate Hedgecock’s 1983 inauguration and then paid for work on the mayor’s “mansion,” the mayor laughed to himself and shook his head again.

Most of the action was lost on the spectators in the packed courtroom, because they saw only Hedgecock’s back. The jurors could see him, however. They were reluctant early in the day to look at him but began stealing glances during the afternoon.

Juror Victor Whitaker, sitting on the other end of the jury box from Hedgecock, watched the mayor’s face intently as Huffman began to wind down his arguments.

The prosecutor described Hedgecock as someone who “has campaigned virtually non-stop for political advancement” throughout his political career. Huffman said Hedgecock began seriously contemplating a possible mayoral race soon after his June, 1980, reelection as a county supervisor--nearly three years before his victory in a special May, 1983, race. The San Diego City Council scheduled that election after former Mayor Pete Wilson’s victory in the November, 1982, U.S. Senate race.