Prelude to Retrial : Mayor’s Friends, Foes Flunk Test for Jurors

Jury selection in San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s felony retrial entered its second day Thursday, with attorneys for both sides questioning prospective jurors about their knowledge of the case and how it might affect their deliberations.

Of the more than 40 potential jurors questioned Thursday, 14 were excused by Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr., most of them because they conceded that their familiarity with the case and feelings about Hedgecock probably would cause them to enter the trial leaning toward either acquittal or conviction.

Those rulings raised the number of potential jurors excused during two days of preliminary screening to 66 out of the nearly 150 called for possible service on the case.

Thirty-three people have cleared the first two stages of the three-step selection process--in the first round, by acknowledging that the 10 weeks that the trial is expected to take would not impose a serious hardship on them, and in the second, by persuading Todd that the extensive publicity about the case has not impaired their impartiality. However, those prospective jurors face more detailed questioning by Deputy Dist. Atty. Charles Wickersham and defense attorney Oscar Goodman when the selection process resumes next week.

Hedgecock received permission from Todd to skip Thursday’s session, but he did make a brief appearance in the hallway outside the courtroom to show off a button sent to him by a supporter that read, “I’m tired of hearing about it.”

“I think that pretty well summarizes the feelings of at least some people in this city” about his case, Hedgecock remarked.

The potential jurors questioned Thursday varied widely in terms of their awareness of the felony conspiracy and perjury charges facing Hedgecock, which stem from allegedly illegal campaign and personal financial aid that the mayor received from J. David (Jerry) Dominelli and Nancy Hoover, former principals in the La Jolla investment firm of J. David & Co.

Most of them said that they had not closely followed the mayor’s first trial, adding that because they know little about the specifics of the charges, they believe that they could enter the retrial with an open, objective mind. Hedgecock’s first trial ended in February in a mistrial, with the jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction.

“I’m sports-oriented, so . . . I could care less about it,” said Vincent Pablo, a Navy supply driver. “I heard things about it, but it goes in one ear and out the other. If you ask me what’s going on, I couldn’t tell you.”

Other potential jurors, however, revealed detailed familiarity with the case in their answers to the opposing lawyers’ questions, as they referred to the 11-1 jury breakdown in the first trial and even went so far as to accurately describe juror Leon Crowder, the city sanitation employee who voted for Hedgecock’s acquittal.

There also were some prospective jurors who did not know as much about the case or Hedgecock as they thought they did. Although Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller did not begin his investigation of Hedgecock’s personal and campaign finances until early 1984, one potential juror said Thursday that he had “first overheard something” about the case “four or five years ago.” When Goodman asked another young man what he knew about Hedgecock, the man replied, “I know he used to be the mayor.”

Wickersham and Goodman repeatedly probed potential jurors about the sources of their knowledge and impressions of the case in an attempt to learn whether their attitudes had been shaped by media coverage or, perhaps, casual discussions with friends or co-workers. The overriding intent behind such questions, Goodman explained, is to determine whether individuals’ knowledge or feelings about the case “might creep into the deliberative process” and cause them to start from a less than neutral position.

Many of the potential jurors excused Thursday admitted that Hedgecock’s narrow avoidance of conviction in the first trial, as well as opinions offered by spouses or friends, have led them to lean toward feeling that the mayor may be guilty.

“There’d be a little person in the back of my mind saying, ‘If you have any doubt, look at what happened before,’ ” said Brian Brouwer, who was excused.

A smaller number of people were excused after expressing belief in the mayor’s innocence or at least strong sympathy for him.

“My feeling is that Mr. Hedgecock has been a victim of circumstances in this,” Edward W. McCall said. “I don’t think he’s done anything willfully wrong. I don’t think there’s any real honest politician.”

McCall was later excused.

Another potential juror, Edwin A. Rudinger, was excused after admitting that while he had not closely followed Hedgecock’s first trial, he had hoped that the mayor would be found innocent.

“I happen to feel that the mayor has done a good job for the city and I guess I was rooting for him,” Rudinger said.

Todd responded: “I don’t think it’s reasonable to start with a rooter.”

One effervescent young woman, Maryann Thomson, who frequently smiled and laughed while being questioned, was relieved from the case after volunteering the information that she attends the same church as Hedgecock.

“How would that affect you?” Wickersham asked.

“Uncomfortable I don’t think is the right word, but it’s awkward to know him . . . and then sit in judgment of him,” Thomson answered.

“If you were in my position, how would you feel about . . . having someone such as yourself on the jury?” Wickersham asked.

“Are you prosecuting or defense?” Thomson asked.

“Prosecuting,” Wickersham said.

“I don’t think you’d want me,” Thomson replied, laughing.

“Enough said,” Todd concluded.