Court Stunned as Hedgecock Defense Rests

In a dramatic development that stunned courtroom observers, the defense in Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s felony retrial rested Tuesday without presenting a single witness, setting the stage for the case to go to the jury next week.

Describing the prosecution’s case as a “sand castle . . . that crumbled,” Hedgecock’s attorney, Oscar Goodman, explained his bold strategic gambit by saying that he felt no need to present a defense “because it’s very clear to us that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Our feeling was, their witnesses were our witnesses . . . and so there was no need to present a defense,” Goodman told reporters after his dramatic courtroom announcement shortly before noon.

About 10 minutes earlier, Deputy Dist. Atty. Charles Wickersham, who presented 61 prosecution witnesses over 17 days, had rested his case. Because of Yom Kippur and Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr.’s plans to attend a judicial conference, closing arguments in the case are scheduled for next week.

Goodman, a Las Vegas lawyer widely regarded as one of the top criminal attorneys in the West, jokingly referred to his hometown while explaining that he decided not to put on a defense “because there was nothing to add through any foreseeable witness which would substantially affect the jury’s picture of the case.”

“I’m from Las Vegas--there was no gamble,” Goodman said of his decision. Hedgecock initially wanted to testify on his own behalf, the defense attorney added, but later agreed that he did not need to do so because his major arguments were brought to the jury’s attention through Goodman’s cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

Wickersham, though, admitted later that even he was caught off guard by Goodman’s strategic maneuver.

“I’m surprised they didn’t put on a case, quite frankly,” Wickersham said, dismissing Goodman’s comments about what he sees as the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case as “just propaganda for the hallway.” Asked whether he perceived Goodman’s strategy as risky, Wickersham replied, “You bet! Absolutely!”

Goodman, confident that he had already built his case through his cross-examinations, had said previously that he expected to spend less than a week in presenting Hedgecock’s defense. That projected timetable had prompted widespread conjecture about whether Hedgecock would take the stand in his own defense, as he had in his first trial, which ended in a mistrial in February with the jurors deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction.

Most of the jurors from the first trial said that they found Hedgecock’s three days of testimony to be unpersuasive, adding that they believed that the mayor had seriously hurt his own case by taking the stand--a perception that Goodman conceded concerned him as he pondered his tactics for the retrial.

Despite the questions over whether Hedgecock would testify, Goodman’s decision not to present any witnesses was a wholly unexpected one that electrified the courtroom minutes after the prosecution’s case had ended--by contrast, rather undramatically--with the lengthy reading of a transcript of a March, 1984, interview in which Hedgecock was questioned by officials of the state Fair Political Practices Commission about his personal and campaign finances.

After a brief recess in which he conferred with Hedgecock, Goodman told the eight-woman, four-man jury, “If it please the court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mayor Hedgecock rests.”

Wickersham reacted to the bombshell with a dazed expression, while several of the jurors leaned back in their chairs and raised their eyebrows; other jurors had quizzical, somewhat confused, expressions.

Goodman’s decision not to present a defense--a strategy that he said he has often employed with success before--was, to a large degree, based on a major difference in prosecutors’ styles between the two trials. In the first trial, former Assistant Dist. Atty. Richard D. Huffman normally limited his questioning of witnesses to narrow areas that, in general, reflected favorably on the prosecution’s case--a tactic that compelled defense attorney Michael Pancer to later call many of the same witnesses and new ones to present counterbalancing evidence.

However, Wickersham, who replaced Huffman after his appointment to the Superior Court bench last spring, examined witnesses on a much wider scope of subjects--an approach that, in the words of J. Michael McDade, a lawyer and Hedgecock’s former chief of staff, “opened the barn door” and allowed Goodman to score key points through cross-examination.

“It’s an excellent strategic move,” McDade said of Goodman’s decision. “It put the entire burden of the case on the shoulders of the district attorney, where it should be in a criminal case.”

Acknowledging that he and Goodman had previously debated the potential pros and cons of not presenting a defense, Hedgecock explained that the two finally concurred on the decision late Tuesday morning after Wickersham chose to conclude his case with the FPPC interview.

“That interview . . . explains my point of view on many of these points,” Hedgecock said. “I don’t think I need to repeat it and waste everybody’s time. My testimony is in evidence.”

The mayor added that he supported Goodman’s decision because he believes that the prosecution’s own witnesses “made my case every day.”

“Every one of them favored my position and failed to come forward with evidence that supports these false charges that have been brought against me,” Hedgecock said. “I think the jury will see it the same way.”

During the unusually long nine-day period needed to select the jury--a task complicated by extensive publicity about the case--Goodman went to great lengths in attempting to insure that prospective jurors understood that criminal defendants have no obligation to testify in their own defense. Because of his emphasis on that issue, Goodman said, he remains confident that jurors will not “read something negative” into Hedgecock’s failure to testify, or even to offer a defense.

Similarly, Wickersham said he hopes that the jury will reject “the impression . . . that (Goodman) wants to create”--namely, that shortcomings in the prosecution’s case eliminated the need for the defense to present its own version of events.

“They should just look at the evidence that’s in the case and not interpret what (Goodman) is doing,” Wickersham said. “It’s not evidence. They should just disregard that.”

Hedgecock faces 15 felony conspiracy and perjury charges alleging that he participated in a scheme in which Nancy Hoover and J. David (Jerry) Dominelli, the principals in the now-bankrupt La Jolla investment firm of J. David & Co., funneled tens of thousands of dollars in allegedly illegal contributions to Hedgecock’s 1983 race through a political consulting firm owned by Tom Shepard, a close friend of the mayor.

Prosecutors charge that, to conceal those transactions, as well as allegedly improper personal financial aid from the two former J. David executives, Hedgecock intentionally falsified financial disclosure statements. The mayor, who likely would be ousted from office by conviction on any of the felony counts, also faces a single misdemeanor conflict of interest charge.

Hedgecock has denied receiving any illegal campaign donations, characterizing the more than $360,000 that Hoover and Dominelli invested in Tom Shepard & Associates as a legitimate investment designed primarily to help Shepard start his own business, not to get Hedgecock elected mayor.

Saying that he properly reported a controversial $130,000 oral-agreement loan from Hoover that was used to renovate his South Mission Hills house, Hedgecock further contends that any errors on his financial reports were inadvertent ones later corrected by amendments--evidence cited by Goodman as proof of the mayor’s good-faith effort to comply with financial disclosure laws.

Goodman explained Tuesday that his reasoning behind not offering a defense will be a key element in his closing argument--a precautionary move that can be viewed as one final attempt to insure that jurors do not draw adverse inferences from not having heard Hedgecock personally deny the allegations facing him.

“I think the inference is in our favor rather than adverse to us,” Goodman said, adding that presenting a defense “is not worth it unless you have a witness who’s able to turn the tide.”

“The way I perceive the case, the tide is all in our favor,” Goodman concluded. “Now, if the jury comes back adversely, then I’m all wet and I’m all wrong, and it’s all my fault. But it’s my decision coupled with my client’s acquiescence after an awful lot of give and take between us that we did the right thing here.”