All Charges Combined for Mayor’s Trial

Describing the felony trial of San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock as “too important to be delayed,” Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr. on Monday combined two sets of charges facing the mayor into a single case and strongly indicated that he plans to push to start Hedgecock’s retrial next month.

Although Hedgecock’s attorney, Oscar Goodman, said during the court hearing that another case he is handling in Las Vegas could overlap with the scheduled Aug. 22 opening of the mayor’s trial, Todd refused to delay Hedgecock’s case because of the potential schedule conflict.

“It’s my view that it is of dramatic importance to the people, to the defendant, to the City of San Diego to have this matter resolved once and for all,” said Todd, who presided over Hedgecock’s seven-week first trial on felony conspiracy and perjury charges. “It’s my present feeling that unless I’m stayed for some cause from some higher court, we’ll proceed” on Aug. 22.

Superior Court Judge Barbara T. Gamer set the Aug. 22 trial date in April, two months after Hedgecock’s trial on felony conspiracy and perjury charges stemming from alleged illegal campaign contributions ended in a mistrial with the jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction.

Todd’s expressions of resolve to adhere to that timetable came during a so-called “consolidation hearing” at which he agreed with prosecutors’ request to combine three new charges--two perjury charges and a misdemeanor conflict-of-interest charge--with the 13 felony counts contested in Hedgecock’s first trial.

Goodman argued that at least one of the three new charges, the conflict-of-interest allegation, is “totally unrelated” to the original 13 counts, and expressed concern that trying all of the charges simultaneously might confuse jurors.

Prosecutor Charles Wickersham, however, characterized the three new charges, based on evidence from the first trial, as “part and parcel” of the alleged conspiracy at the heart of the case.

In siding with the prosecution, Todd conceded that jurors would have to be “carefully instructed” about the differences in the charges, but he agreed with Wickersham that the two sets of charges were sufficiently similar to justify combining them into one case. Perhaps the major difference in the charges is that a felony conviction likely would oust Hedgecock from office, while the mayor probably could retain his seat if convicted on the misdemeanor charge.

During Monday’s hearing, Goodman emphasized that he was not seeking to postpone the starting date, but simply wanted Todd to be aware that his commitment to another legal client, reputed mobster Anthony (Tony the Ant) Spilotro, could pose a schedule conflict.

Spilotro, the reputed overseer of the Chicago Mafia’s interests in Las Vegas, faces federal racketeering charges. That case, which Goodman estimates will last six to eight weeks, had been scheduled to begin last month but, at the request of the U.S. attorney’s office, has been postponed to Aug. 5.

Noting that the anticipated schedule for the Spilotro case “disintegrated through no fault of my own,” Goodman asked both Todd and the district attorney’s office to write letters “explaining the importance of this (Hedgecock) case” to the federal judge who will hear Spilotro’s case.

Todd pledged to do so, but added that, in the meantime, he has no intention of postponing Hedgecock’s retrial because of Goodman’s involvement in the other case, and suggested that the mayor could hire another lawyer if Goodman is unavailable. Moreover, Todd said that he still regards Michael Pancer, who defended Hedgecock in his first trial but asked to be relieved from the retrial because of schedule conflicts, as the “attorney of record” in the case.

“Mr. Goodman, Mr. Pancer, anyone can represent Mr. Hedgecock,” Todd said. “It’s my belief that Mr. Hedgecock will do whatever is necessary . . . to be capable of going to trial on Aug. 22.”

After Monday’s hearing, Goodman said he is confident that his schedule conflict will be satisfactorily resolved, adding, “For some reason, this happens more than once a month in my life and it always works out. Besides . . . I wouldn’t miss this trial for the world.”

Despite Todd’s comments Monday, doubts remain about whether the Aug. 22 starting date will be realized, largely because of a flurry of motions filed by Goodman that are aimed at removing Todd and the San Diego County district attorney’s office from the case. Although various courts have rejected Goodman’s requests, other pending motions would, if approved, almost certainly postpone the trial.

Goodman has said that he would prefer to have the retrial heard by a judge with “no preconceived notions about issues” in the case. Both Todd and the 4th District Court of Appeal have rejected Goodman’s request to have a new judge assigned to the case, but Goodman said Monday that he plans to appeal that issue to the state Supreme Court later this week.

Similarly, both the 4th District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have rejected Goodman’s efforts to have Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller’s office removed from the case, but Todd is scheduled to hold another hearing on the subject next week. Miller’s office should be removed from the case, Goodman argues, because the district attorney may testify during the retrial and because Miller has been a “strident and persistent foe” of Hedgecock. If Miller’s office were removed, the state attorney general’s office would prosecute the case.

Saying he has “confidence in the integrity of the system,” Goodman added that he is not concerned that Todd’s desire to expedite Hedgecock’s retrial might make the judge reluctant to remove Miller’s office from the case--an action that could delay the case for months.

The felony charges facing Hedgecock allege that he received illegal campaign and personal financial aid from J. David (Jerry) Dominelli and Nancy Hoover, who were principals in the now-bankrupt La Jolla investment firm of J. David & Co. Prosecutors contend that the campaign aid was funneled to Hedgecock’s 1983 mayoral campaign via a political consulting firm owned by Tom Shepard, a close friend of the mayor.

The two perjury charges added to the case Monday allege that the mayor failed to report a $3,000 check from Dominelli in December, 1981, on financial disclosure forms. The conflict-of-interest charge alleges that in 1982, Hedgecock, then a county supervisor, voted on a multimillion-dollar development proposed by businessman Harvey Schuster after Schuster had paid more than $500 in legal bills for Hedgecock.

In the first trial, Schuster testified that Hedgecock boasted to him in late 1981 that Dominelli and Hoover intended to bankroll Shepard’s consulting firm so that it could handle Hedgecock’s prospective mayoral campaign--the only testimony that provided a direct link between Hedgecock and the two former J. David executives. Hedgecock, however, testified that Schuster lied because he was angry over not being awarded the lucrative 1982 contract to develop the county’s bayfront parking lots.

In asking that the two sets of charges be combined, Wickersham told Todd that Schuster “might be the most important witness in the case.” Prosecutors need to present evidence about the alleged conflict of interest, Wickersham argued, to bolster Schuster’s credibility and to provide proof of what they characterize as Hedgecock’s habitual pattern of falsifying financial reports in an effort to avoid embarrassing public disclosures.