Atty. Gen. Will Probe Hedgecock Jury Verdict : Mayor May ‘Delay’ Resignation as Staff Cites Public Support in Wake of Tampering Charges

In a stirring 11th-hour political and legal drama, the state attorney general’s office Thursday agreed to investigate jury-tampering charges that could lead to the reversal of Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s felony conviction--one day before Hedgecock was scheduled to resign as mayor.

In a statement released by the San Diego County district attorney’s office late Thursday afternoon, Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller and Marshal Michael Sgobba announced that, in response to their request, the state attorney general’s office had agreed to investigate allegations that a court bailiff tampered with the jury during its deliberations. The charges, detailed in sworn statements signed by one juror and the attorney for another, were revealed by The Times Thursday.

“This afternoon Sgobba spoke with chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard Neely and informed him he had new information,” the statement said. “After discussing the information with Sgobba, Neely spoke by telephone with Miller.

“Miller and Sgobba agreed that the investigation was required and that the proper agency to conduct such an investigation would be the attorney general.”

In a telephone interview from his Sacramento office, Chief Assistant Atty. Gen. Steve White confirmed that his office would handle the investigation.

Meanwhile, one source close to Hedgecock said late Thursday night that the mayor likely will “postpone or at least extend the deadline” for his planned resignation, announced last Friday, two days after his conviction.

“I’d be very surprised if he didn’t decide to hang around to find out what happens” with Goodman’s motion for a new trial, the source said. “It’s funny. A few days ago, there probably would have been an uproar if he had planned to stay. Now, it looks like there would be an uproar if he left at this point.”

In the wake of the jury-tampering allegations, Hedgecock’s office was deluged with calls urging him to jettison plans to resign today, while his attorney on Thursday filed a motion in Superior Court requesting a new trial. As of late Thursday, about 1,350 callers had urged Hedgecock to remain in office, while only 60 suggested that he follow through with his planned resignation, according to Hedgecock’s advisers.

Buoyed by the overwhelmingly strong public support, Hedgecock closeted himself at City Hall with his top aides as he weighed perhaps the most critical decision in a nine-year political career that last week appeared to be in shambles following his conviction of conspiracy and 12 counts of perjury.

Hedgecock is not expected to make a final decision until early today on whether to pursue or drop his plan to resign. In the meantime, San Diegans marveled at the newest--and, to many, improbable--upturn in the legal and political fortunes of Hedgecock, who has displayed a recurring ability to land on his feet in a career frequently punctuated by controversy.

‘Bizarre’ Scenario

“If I was an author and went into my publisher with this script, he’d throw it out as totally unbelievable,” said City Councilman Ed Struiksma, one of the mayor’s leading opponents on the council and a potential mayoral candidate if Hedgecock resigns or is ousted from office. “It’s bizarre. It defies explanation.”

“As someone said to me this morning, that guy really does have 10 lives,” political consultant David Lewis said.

The uncertainty over Hedgecock’s political and legal fate stems from the sworn allegations that court bailiff Al Burroughs Jr., in violation of court rules, talked on numerous occasions with jurors about the case and the progress they were making in their deliberations.

Michael Pancer, Hedgecock’s other attorney, said that he received information Thursday from at least two additional jurors “that confirm the essential allegations contained in our motion for a new trial.” Pancer, however, declined to identify those jurors or to specify whether they, too, are willing to sign sworn statements detailing their allegations and, subsequently, testify in court.

However, juror Dolores Pickering told The Times on Thursday that “there were several relatively minor questions that were blurted out to” Burroughs by jurors, particularly during the early phases of deliberations.

Backed Off at First

Burroughs’ response, Pickering said, “was initially to kind of back off and give it some thought and make a brief response to whatever the question was.” One such question posed to Burroughs concerned the definition of reasonable doubt, Pickering said--a comment that appears to further corroborate details included in the sworn statements.

“While I did not pay attention to the specifics of what he said, I would have been well aware if he had said anything out of line or out of the ordinary,” Pickering said.

Describing the jurors who came forward as “unwitting dupes to an agent provocateur ,” Goodman requested Thursday that the mayor be granted a new trial because of the allegedly improper contact between Burroughs and the jurors.

Burroughs refused to comment Thursday.

The purported improprieties, Goodman said at a news conference, constitute possible jury tampering and obstruction of justice. Goodman added that the allegations conceivably could lead to outright dismissal of the charges facing Hedgecock.

“No crimes are more offensive than these in the system of criminal justice, because they go to the very heart and the very integrity of the system,” Goodman said.

His “reading of the law,” Goodman added, is that the “mere contact” between the bailiff and the jurors is sufficient grounds for a judge to overturn a verdict--regardless of whether such “improper communications” affected any jurors’ decisions.

“We are confident that . . . the court will have no alternative under the case law of the State of California but to grant Mayor Hedgecock a new trial,” Goodman said. “There will be no room for any decision other than a new trial to be made under these circumstances.”

Other lawyers, however, argued Thursday that Hedgecock’s attorneys may have a difficult time convincing a judge to overturn the jury’s verdict, even if the allegations included in the sworn statements are verified in court.

Powerful Institutional Bias

“I find courts hellbent on preserving the verdict at all costs,” said lawyer John Cleary, former head of Federal Defenders Inc. and one of San Diego’s leading defense attorneys. “My bet is that the institutional bias is so powerful, I can almost next to guarantee there won’t be a retrial.”

Hedgecock, meanwhile, called at least two City Council members Thursday to determine whether they would support him if he deferred or retracted his plan to resign at 5 p.m. today.

“He sounded really up,” said Councilman Bill Mitchell, who talked to Hedgecock briefly via telephone. “His voice was really chipper and crisp, like it used to be. He’s polling the council to see if they would support him to stay on. I said, ‘I don’t want to make that kind of decision. It’s up to you . . . ‘ He said he’d think about it for 24 hours and let us know.”

One source close to Hedgecock said the mayor was being lobbied by “large numbers of people” giving him a “range” of advice on how to respond to the jury-tampering revelations.

Those suggestions, the source said, included asking Hedgecock to resign and start over with a “clean slate” politically, while attempting to use the latest twist in the case to reopen plea-bargain negotiations and force “concessions” from Miller. Other close advisers, however, are urging Hedgecock to remain in office and fight.

Councilman William Jones, who also received a telephone call from Hedgecock on Thursday, said that he told the mayor that it would be “wise for him to delay his resignation” until he can determine whether the tampering allegations are true.

“Otherwise, he’ll second-guess himself for the rest of his life,” Jones said.

Farewell Canceled

As the calls of support poured into his office, Hedgecock canceled a press conference with the electronic media Thursday--originally scheduled as a kind of farewell address.

“Everybody, every single call is not only saying stay with it, they’re demanding that he stay,” said an exuberant Mel Buxbaum, Hedgecock’s press secretary. “These aren’t passive, ‘You know, we wish you well and we’re supporting you’ calls. These are people who are saying: ‘You must stay as our mayor.’ ”

But the new developments drew more sober comments from Hedgecock’s political foes and those contemplating possible campaigns to succeed him once he resigned. Possible candidates Struiksma, City Councilman Mike Gotch, Police Chief Bill Kolender and Assemblyman Larry Stirling offered “no comments” on how the revelations might affect their plans.

The jury-tampering allegations are included in sworn statements signed by juror Kathy Saxton-Calderwood and by San Diego lawyer John N. Learnard, who represents another juror whom he declined to identify. Court records show that Learnard represents juror Stanley J. Bohensky in other legal matters.

According to those documents, bailiff Burroughs helped the jurors define the crucial legal term of “reasonable doubt,” and persistently pressed them during their 6 1/2-day deliberations to reach a verdict, rather than deadlocking--as did the jury in Hedgecock’s first trial.

In addition, Burroughs, a San Diego County deputy marshal, asked one juror for the names of other jurors who were slowing down the deliberations by “holding out,” and referred to Saxton-Calderwood as “trouble” after she complained to another bailiff about Burroughs, according to the sworn documents.

On other occasions, Goodman said, Burroughs drank alcoholic beverages with the jurors and held “secret meetings” with jurors. Burroughs “bought and brought hard drinks for three female jurors,” Saxton-Calderwood alleged in her sworn statement.

‘Booze and Broads Case’

“I just hope San Diego isn’t embarrassed by this being referred to as the ‘Booze and Broads Case’ at the conclusion,” Goodman said.

Jury foreman Richard Stark and his attorney met with Hedgecock’s two attorneys Thursday, but it is unclear whether Stark, a bank executive, is one of the two additional jurors providing corroboration to the allegations included in the sworn statements.

In his motion for a new trial, Goodman requested that Todd remove himself from presiding over the Nov. 4 hearing, noting that Todd might be called to testify and that Burroughs is “an arm of his court.” The defense attorney also requested that Burroughs be allowed to testify under a grant of immunity so that “the truth will out,” and asked that the state attorney general’s office, not the district attorney, investigate the jury tampering allegations.

Saying it would be “tragic” if Hedgecock resigned because of a verdict caused by a “tainted jury,” Goodman also repeated his threat to withdraw from the case if Hedgecock resigns rather than remaining in office until a court rules on the request for a new trial.

“It’s not a question of (Hedgecock) keeping his word at this point,” Goodman said. “After he felt that the jury returned a fair, impartial verdict under a fair deliberative process . . . he said he was going to resign, because he’s a big man and he was ready to take the licks if the licks were given in a fair manner. But he’s been fouled and under those circumstances . . . he should remain in office.”

Times staff writers Jim Schachter, Daniel M. Weintraub and Glenn F. Bunting contributed to this article.