Huffman Pushes for May Retrial of Mayor

Describing Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s felony case as “too important to hang in limbo indefinitely,” Assistant Dist. Atty. Richard D. Huffman said Friday that he intends to push for a May 8 starting date for the retrial. He also will oppose defense attorney Michael Pancer’s request to be removed from the case because of schedule conflicts.

“Given the importance of this case to the community, we feel the public’s sense is, ‘Get it on and get it over with,’ ” Huffman said before one of two pretrial court hearings on the case Friday.

“The only way to do that is to hold Brother Pancer’s feet to the fire, and we’ll do that to the extent of our ability,” Huffman added. “It’s absurd (and) not responsible for us to just simply say, ‘Well, put it off until fall sometime.’ ”

Last month, Superior Court Judge James A. Malkus set May 8 as the date for Hedgecock’s retrial on felony conspiracy and perjury charges--a timetable that both Pancer and Huffman at the time described as unrealistic. Pancer has said that it would be “physically impossible” for him to handle the case in May because of his work on other cases, and any new lawyer selected by Hedgecock likely would need months to prepare for the trial.

Until Friday’s court hearing, Huffman consistently had said that he doubted that the retrial would begin until fall because of Pancer’s schedule conflicts. However, Huffman said Friday that he regards May 8 as “a realistic date, a do-able schedule,” explaining that he will oppose “any continuances or changes of lawyers that affect that date.”

“While we have no desire to make (Pancer’s) life unhappy or the mayor’s either, the fact of the matter is we have available a prepared, highly skilled lawyer who knows the case and it’s time to move on and go to trial,” Huffman said. “While May 8 may not be convenient for Mike Pancer, it’s not convenient for anybody. This is not a convenient world.”

A May 8 starting date also could be inconvenient for Huffman, who is scheduled to teach a course on international law in England from July 1 through Aug. 9. Huffman, who prosecuted the first case, has said that he intends to handle the retrial too, but concedes that his availability is “somewhat contingent on the timetable” established for the second trial.

In a motion filed in Superior Court last week, Pancer asked to be relieved as Hedgecock’s attorney because of his commitments to other clients and because of the mayor’s limited ability to pay for legal representation. To date, Hedgecock, who says he lacks the personal resources to pay his civil and criminal attorneys’ fees, has raised about $11,000 in public contributions for his legal defense fund.

After Friday’s hearings, Pancer said he doubts that Huffman’s effort to keep him on the case will succeed. Pancer’s request to be removed from the case will be heard at a March 25 hearing. At the hearing prosecutors also will seek to consolidate two felony counts and one misdemeanor charge not at issue in Hedgecock’s first trial with his retrial on 13 felony counts stemming from alleged illegal campaign contributions. The mayor’s first trial ended in a mistrial last month with the jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction.

“I think that we are on the right side of the motion,” Pancer said. “I don’t believe an attorney can be forced to handle a trial without fair payment.”

Hedgecock’s retrial is expected to last at least two months. Pancer, however, is scheduled to handle a case in Baltimore in early June--weeks before the mayor’s case would end if it starts May 8.

Friday’s hearings were so-called “readiness” conferences, at which a judge seeks to help both sides avoid a retrial through plea bargaining. Saying that Superior Court Judge Ross G. Tharp had instructed them not to publicly discuss Friday’s meetings, neither Huffman nor Pancer disclosed what was discussed in the two closed sessions in the judge’s chambers.

However, Hedgecock, who is on vacation, has repeatedly said that he does not intend to plea bargain and that he is not considering resigning in exchange for the charges against him being dropped or reduced.

While Huffman said he prefers to keep Pancer on the case “to push this thing along,” the prosecutor added that if Pancer is relieved, he hopes that the March 25 hearing at least will establish “something firm” in regard to Hedgecock’s selection of a new attorney.

“It is simply unacceptable to us to have Hedgecock wandering around without a lawyer in these proceedings,” Huffman said. “This is not a rational process, to have a major case that doesn’t have either an ending date or even anybody with whom to end it. That’s ridiculous.”

Huffman also noted that Hedgecock’s legal defense fund demonstrates that “some lawyer is going to get paid.”

“If Roger Hedgecock is going to have to pay a lawyer, why not pay this one?” Huffman asked. “It can’t cost any more to proceed with . . . the attorney who is most prepared than it does to go out and hire another competent lawyer who has to start all over from square one.”