Standoff by Judges Leaves Hedgecock Stymied on Defense

Raising the stakes in a game of legal brinkmanship with a federal judge in Las Vegas, San Diego Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr. on Monday moved up the starting date for Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s second felony trial to July 31--an action that set the mayor’s case on a collision course with another trial being handled by Hedgecock’s attorney, Oscar Goodman.

Todd’s decision to begin the mayor’s retrial three weeks ahead of its originally scheduled Aug. 22 start came during a hearing at which the judge adamantly refused to postpone Hedgecock’s case because of Goodman’s commitment to defend reputed mobster Anthony (Tony the Ant) Spilotro in a federal racketeering case set to begin Aug. 5 in Las Vegas.

Shortly after Todd’s decision, which took both the prosecution and defense by surprise, Goodman flew to Las Vegas, where U.S. District Judge Lloyd George was just as insistent that Goodman be in his courtroom next month.

“I feel like the judges are playing Ping-Pong and I’m the ball,” Goodman said. “I can’t be in two places at once. But right now, there are two guys in black dresses who expect me to do that.”

During two hearings Monday in San Diego, Todd bluntly informed Goodman that he had no intention of postponing the mayor’s case until after the Las Vegas trial, which is expected to last about 1 1/2 months.

“I don’t think our calendar should be subject to the problems of the court calendar and law enforcement in Las Vegas, Nevada,” Todd said. However, Todd’s decision to advance the Hedgecock trial’s starting date to July 31 is an apparent effort to force George to alter the timetable for the Las Vegas trial because the San Diego case would already be under way.

“I think Judge Todd wants to get first dibs on me,” Goodman said. “The problem is, Judge George isn’t very happy about that.”

The Nevada racketeering trial involves 18 defendants, so Goodman’s inability to try that case on schedule could produce a lengthy delay because of the difficulty in attempting to synchronize so many attorneys’ schedules.

For Goodman, Monday’s action represented the culmination of a lengthy test of wills between two strong-minded judges engaged in a kind of judicial staring match, each hoping the other will blink first.

Although Todd and George have been aware of Goodman’s potential schedule conflict for weeks, neither has been willing to budge, as each judge insisted that the case before him should take precedence.

On Monday, neither judge revealed any softening of his resolve, as each expressed frustration with the other’s actions but refused to alter his own court schedule.

“It’s hard for me to understand why a judge would just go ahead and set a case like the Spilotro case . . . when he was aware of our schedule here,” Todd said.

Similarly, Goodman said that George told him during a later private meeting in Las Vegas that he “didn’t understand why Judge Todd was doing this and causing these problems.” George also told Goodman that he will consult with his own superiors today and may talk with Todd in an attempt to end the impasse.

However, if George, in keeping with the gambling style of the city where he serves, seeks to up the ante on Todd, he could order Goodman to remain in Nevada until the racketeering case begins--a gambit that Goodman described as “a very real possibility.”

“Either that, or I’m going to end up in jail by making one of these judges unhappy,” Goodman joked.

During Monday’s hearings, Todd reiterated his oft-stated desire to expedite the start of Hedgecock’s retrial on felony perjury and conspiracy charges stemming from alleged illegal contributions to his 1983 mayoral campaign.

Hedgecock, at Todd’s insistence, attended the first of Monday’s two hearings, and was repeatedly admonished by the judge to “take care of . . . this very serious situation” concerning his legal representation.

Under California law, Hedgecock must also be represented by a California lawyer because Goodman, who is based in Las Vegas, is an out-of-state attorney. Michael Pancer, who represented Hedgecock in his first trial, which ended in February in a mistrial with the jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction, currently is Hedgecock’s local attorney.

However, because of what Todd termed “personal and professional circumstances,” Pancer has said he would be unable to take a major role in Hedgecock’s second trial and has asked to be relieved of the case.

Noting that the local attorney would have to take over the case in the event that Goodman ultimately is unable to handle it, Todd told Pancer on Monday that he would not permit him to withdraw from the case until a substitute local attorney is named. Pancer is expected to go to court today in an attempt to win Todd’s approval for such a change.

Both Goodman and Pancer, however, warned Todd that it would be virtually impossible for any attorney to prepare to handle the case, even if it were not to begin until Aug. 22.

“For anyone other than myself or Mr. Pancer to be ready Aug. 22, he’d have to be a superman,” Goodman said.

Todd responded: “I don’t agree with that. But reasonable men can differ.”

Todd’s comments and refusal to change the trial schedule to accommodate Goodman’s other legal commitments visibly angered Hedgecock, who at one point exchanged sharp words with Todd.

“I’m a little distressed,” Hedgecock said. “It seems to me I’m entitled to the counsel of my choice, and the counsel of my choice is Oscar Goodman.”

Hedgecock also noted that Goodman originally hoped to begin the case in early July but agreed to delay it until Aug. 22 to accommodate prosecutors’ vacation schedules.

Todd, however, simply told Hedgecock that if Goodman cannot handle his case, then the mayor should “make arrangements for someone else to represent” him.

“I had to search high and low for an attorney, and Oscar Goodman is the lawyer of my choice,” Hedgecock said. “I think I’m entitled to have him present when the matter starts.”

“You’ve heard what I’ve said,” Todd replied.

“And you’ve heard what I’ve said,” Hedgecock answered.

Pancer argued that Todd’s actions “are making Roger Hedgecock pay” for Judge George’s refusal to free Goodman to handle the mayor’s case.

“Are we responsible because a judge in Nevada says, ‘I need Mr. Goodman here this month?’ ” Pancer asked. “The person who’s going to suffer is Roger Hedgecock . . . and that just doesn’t seem fair.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. David Cox originally said prosecutors would prefer to adhere to the original Aug. 22 starting date. However, after Todd suggested the possibility of advancing rather than delaying the trial, Cox said that prosecutors would “welcome the chance” to get the trial started earlier.

Hedgecock also said he had no qualms about starting the trial earlier than planned--with one major proviso.

“We’re ready to go next week or whenever, as long as Oscar Goodman can represent me,” Hedgecock said.