Curtain Refuses to Fall on the Saga of Roger Hedgecock

When a jury of eight women and four men found Mayor Roger Hedgecock guilty of felony conspiracy and perjury Oct. 9, the conviction seemed to climax 21 months of continuous drama that began with the collapse of J. David & Co. and ended with the fall of San Diego’s mayor.

Instead, Hedgecock’s conviction turned out to be yet another beginning. It sparked a nine-day period that sent the mayor, his advisers and the city on an emotional roller coaster ride packed with enough sudden twists and turns to leave even the cagiest political veterans shaking their heads in bewilderment.

As Hedgecock and the city publicly prepared for his departure from office and the selection of a successor, the mayor’s attorneys were scrambling behind the scenes to pin down stunning allegations of jury tampering that could overturn Hedgecock’s conviction on one conspiracy and 12 perjury counts.

Those tampering charges, first put forward in private two days after the verdict and just moments after the mayor announced that he would resign, were later detailed in sworn statements from one juror and the lawyer of another. The allegations led Hedgecock’s attorney to ask for a mistrial and persuaded the mayor to withhold his resignation.

In interviews with public officials, attorneys and jurors, The Times has developed the following scenario that captures the events--public and private--from Hedgecock’s conviction Oct. 9 to his decision Friday to postpone his resignation.

Wednesday, Oct. 9

Just before noon, a representative of the county marshal’s office calls attorneys for both sides in the case, then phones the local media. His message: the Hedgecock jury has reached a verdict. It will be revealed at 1:30 p.m. in Superior Court Department 2 at the County Courthouse, 220 W. Broadway.

Within minutes, the hallway outside the courtroom is packed with print and electronic-media reporters, photographers and technicians. Court-watchers, attorneys and others--including an aide to Supervisor Susan Golding on a lunch break--join the crowd. Bailiffs try to maintain two orderly lines, but once the courtroom doors open, the mass surges and shoves its way forward. Dozens of spectators are left outside after all but one of the courtroom seats are filled. The last is saved for Richard Huffman, now a Superior Court judge, who as assistant district attorney was the prosecutor in Hedgecock’s first trial.

At 1:32 p.m., the 12 jurors and three alternates enter through a door in the rear of the courtroom. Grim-faced, they take their seats in three rows. They look down. They look at each other. They look anywhere but at Hedgecock. Juror Kathy Saxton-Calderwood sobs. In the audience, spectators and reporters exchange whispers, glances and nods. The verdict is guilty, most agree.

Two minutes later, foreman Richard P. Stark rises and hands a Manila envelope to court bailiff Al Burroughs Jr. Inside are 16 forms detailing the charges against Hedgecock and the jury’s verdict on each count. Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr. pulls out the forms and sorts through them for several minutes as the tension mounts. Finally, he hands them to his clerk, Mary Rademaker, to be read aloud.

The result: guilty of felony conspiracy and 12 felony counts of perjury. Not guilty of two counts of perjury and one misdemeanor charge of conflict of interest.

After the jurors are polled on each of the 16 counts, Judge Todd commends them and excuses them. Several are in tears, and all appear shaken by their ordeal. They huddle briefly in a private room before leaving the courthouse one by one, escorted by marshals, family and friends. All but foreman Stark refuse to talk to the media.

Hedgecock cancels a scheduled press conference and substitutes a brief statement. He is going home, he says, to “regroup my thoughts.”

Stark tells reporters gathered at his University City home that the jury was determined not to have its 6 1/2 days of sequestered deliberations end in a deadlock.

“We were not going to have a hung jury,” Stark says. “We didn’t want that.”

Hedgecock’s longtime political foes are gleeful.

“I have no outpouring of sympathy for the man,” Supervisor Paul Eckert says.

Former Supervisor Paul Fordem, who frequently sparred with Hedgecock when the two were on the county board, adds: “To those of us whom he gave tongue-lashings, this is an ironic piece of justice.”

As Hedgecock spends the evening with his parents, his wife and two sons, speculation about who will replace him begins. Virtually no one expects Hedgecock to remain as mayor beyond his Nov. 6 sentencing.

Thursday, Oct. 10

Hedgecock arrives at his City Hall office on schedule for a day of work that his press secretary describes as being “as normal as possible under the circumstances.” The mayor begins a series of meetings with staff members and fellow council members. He tells them he is leaning toward resigning rather than being forced out of office at the time of his sentencing.

Hedgecock’s attorney, Oscar Goodman, dispatches a private investigator to interview jurors at their homes. The investigator learns little and is called off the case the next morning. Jurors continue to decline interviews with members of the media.

Juror Stanley J. Bohensky, an engineer with IRT Corp., reads newspaper accounts quoting Goodman’s criticism of foreman Stark’s comment that the panel was determined not to be deadlocked. Goodman says such a stance is improper.

By late in the day, few observers doubt that Hedgecock will resign.

“He sees the situation for what it is,” one Hedgecock confidant says. “It’s just not in his nature to hang on when there’s nothing to hang onto.”

Friday, Oct. 11

Bohensky phones his private attorney, John Learnard, at 11 a.m. to discuss a civil case he and his ex-wife are pursuing against an insurance company. After a few minutes, Bohensky mentions that something has been bothering him. Although he believes firmly that Hedgecock is guilty, Bohensky tells Learnard that bailiff Burroughs may have tainted the process by improperly contacting the jurors during their deliberations.

Learnard ends his conversation with Bohensky and immediately calls the office of J. Michael McDade, an attorney and former Hedgecock chief of staff who was Learnard’s classmate at St. Augustine High School in the 1950s. Learnard is too late. McDade has already left for City Hall, where he is to listen as Hedgecock announces that he will resign in one week.

At 11:30 a.m., Hedgecock makes a brief statement that is carried live on local television.

“San Diego must move forward, developing again a consensus around a shared vision of the future,” a humbled but not apologetic Hedgecock says at the end of a four-paragraph address. “I can no longer offer leadership for this task. It’s time for the people of this city to elect someone else who can.”

Hedgecock leaves without answering reporters’ questions, but McDade remains to discuss the mayor’s future. While McDade is being interviewed, Hedgecock aide David Nielsen taps him on the shoulder. There is an urgent phone call, Nielsen says, from a man named John Learnard. McDade takes the call in the office of Hedgecock aide Peggy Goldstein.

Learnard outlines for McDade what his client has told him of the jury’s relationship with bailiff Burroughs. McDade is skeptical but agrees to meet with Learnard later in the day. He immediately informs Hedgecock. “He didn’t believe it,” McDade says. Then McDade calls Goodman, who begins a weekend of researching prior cases of jury tampering.

Learnard, meanwhile, places a call to state Bar officials in San Francisco to seek advice on his next move. Although he won’t get an answer until Tuesday, Learnard moves forward on his own. He meets in his Ash Street office--a former mortuary--with McDade and two of his law partners, Leo Sullivan and John Wertz. The three are stunned, but impressed enough with the allegations from the as-yet-unidentified juror that they agree to investigate the matter further.

The Weekend

Both days pass quietly. A new investigator, this one hired by McDade’s law firm, continues to press jurors for details of the deliberations. Attorneys search the law books for relevant precedents.

Monday, Oct. 14

Columbus Day is celebrated. The state Bar offices are closed, so Learnard again fails to receive the ethical advice he seeks. The county courts are also closed.

Deputy Mayor Bill Mitchell chairs Monday’s council meeting in the absence of Hedgecock, who begins meeting with staff members to develop a final “state of the city” report for his successor.

Goodman arrives in San Diego at 3:15 p.m. from Las Vegas and calls Learnard. He wants to meet with Bohensky.

McDade, Goodman and Learnard meet about 7:30 p.m., and Learnard drives them to Bohensky’s Chula Vista home. On the way, Goodman complains of hunger and demands that Learnard stop so he can buy potato chips. McDade pulls a bag of trail mix from his briefcase and shares it with Goodman. Goodman complains then that he is bothered by smoke from Learnard’s cigar. Learnard keeps smoking.

When they reach Bohensky’s house, Learnard goes inside to speak to his client while McDade and Goodman remain in the car, parked on the street. Learnard, interrupting Bohensky as he watches the New York Jets play the Miami Dolphins on Monday Night Football, explains that the two attorneys want to interview the juror. Outside, Goodman struggles with the controls to the car’s electrically operated windows, gasping for relief from Learnard’s cigar smoke. Unsuccessful, he realizes he need only open a door.

After 20 minutes, Bohensky agrees to meet.

He tells Goodman and McDade part of the story and explains that he is reluctant to be the person responsible for upsetting the jury’s verdict. He insists that they obtain corroboration of his allegations, and he suggests that they talk to Saxton-Calderwood. Investigator Craig Collins speaks briefly with her later that night.

Tuesday, Oct. 15

Saxton-Calderwood meets with McDade and Collins at 9 a.m. Her husband, Peter, sits in. She tells her story and, after some initial reluctance, agrees to put it in writing. In a handwritten four-page sworn statement, Saxton-Calderwood alleges that Burroughs helped her define the legal term “reasonable doubt” and gave her an anecdotal illustration of the issue that was later discussed by several other jurors. She also alleges that Burroughs pointed her out to fellow jurors as a possible holdout for Hedgecock, and she says that the bailiff drank wine and beer with most of the jurors and provided hard liquor for three of them.

At 1 p.m. Tuesday, Learnard finally gets the word from the state Bar: He has an ethical obligation to alert prosecutors to possible wrongdoing during the jury’s deliberations. He then dictates a letter to be sent to Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller summarizing what his client has told him. Bohensky insists on remaining anonymous but agrees to testify in court under oath.

The letter to Miller is hand-delivered at 4:30 p.m. to a receptionist in Miller’s office at the County Courthouse. The envelope is marked “Personal and confidential--to be opened by addressee only.” Similar parcels are delivered for Deputy Dist. Atty. Charles Wickersham, who prosecuted Hedgecock in the second trial; Judge Donald W. Smith, presiding judge of the Superior Court, and Goodman.

Wednesday, Oct. 16

Bohensky meets again with Learnard and Goodman at Learnard’s office. This time, Bohensky tells his full story. According to a statement from Learnard, the juror accuses Burroughs of helping the panel arrive at the guilty verdicts by pressing the jury to reach a unanimous verdict. Bohensky recalls that Burroughs told at least one juror that “there could not be a hung jury.”

After the meeting, Learnard begins drafting his statement at McDade’s office on the 23rd floor of a high-rise one block from City Hall. He works all afternoon, struggling to capture his client’s words and context.

At 6 p.m., members of the local media who have covered Hedgecock’s troubles gather for a reunion dinner and party at the Hanalei Hotel--where jurors had deliberated for more than 60 hours before deciding to convict the mayor. About 7:30 p.m., Learnard completes his four-page statement and signs it. The final page must be retyped and signed again after it is discovered that Learnard’s name, typed by a secretary, is misspelled below his signature.

Learnard and Goodman prepare to return to Learnard’s office. Goodman insists on walking rather than enduring the odor of Learnard’s ubiquitous Spanish Honduras cigars. For the first time, Learnard agrees to halt his smoking during the drive.

Kathy Saxton-Calderwood attends a night course in advanced statistics at San Diego State University, where she is a candidate for a master’s degree in public administration.

Thursday, Oct. 17

News accounts of the jurors’ allegations are published. Goodman calls a press conference for 11 a.m. to provide copies of the motions he files that morning seeking a new trial. He releases the sworn statements from Saxton-Calderwood and Learnard.

Goodman says Hedgecock has been “cheated” and vows to leave the case if the mayor resigns on Friday, as scheduled.

“I’d be very surprised if he didn’t decide to hang around to find out what happens,” Goodman says of Hedgecock. “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.”

Calls flood in to City Hall. Hedgecock’s office announces that 1,350 citizens have urged him to stay. Sixty suggest he resign as promised. A call-in poll conducted by KGTV (Channel 10) shows viewers favoring Hedgecock’s resignation by 4,405 to 4,163.

The City Council docket for Oct. 21 and 22 is distributed. On the cover sheet, the spot for the mayor’s name says: “Vacant.”

Other members of the jury contradict the statements of the two. The allegations, Mt. Helix housewife Marian Pierce says, are “without merit. The fact remains that the evidence to convict Roger Hedgecock was overwhelming and conclusive.”

County Marshal Michael Sgobba issues this statement: “The Marshal’s office will not comment on raw newspaper allegations except to say that they are basically not true. Response to any official charges or accusations will be made when and if the matter comes before the court.”

District attorney’s spokesman Steve Casey calls the day’s disclosures a “substantial media event” and says that the office has no aplans to investigate the matter beyond what is required to respond to the charges in court.

Later, Casey says that “new information” has surfaced, and the marshal and district attorney ask the state attorney general’s office to investigate the charges of jury tampering.

Late in the day, Hedgecock’s attorney, Michael Pancer, reports that two more jurors have confirmed parts of the tampering allegations. He refuses to provide details.

Friday, Oct. 18

About 200 Hedgecock supporters gather at the Community Concourse to urge the mayor to remain in office. One man says he believes the mayor should stick to his pledge to resign. “He’s had two trials,” the man says. “That’s enough.”

At a 4:30 p.m. press conference carried live on local television, Hedgecock announces that he will not quit until questions about the jury’s deliberations are answered.

In a private interview, Hedgecock says the turn of events has left him “feeling like a leaf in the rapids.”

“But I’m still bewildered, and, frankly, a little drained by all this,” Hedgecock says.

Contributing to this story were Times staff writers Barry M. Horstman, Armando Acuna, Glenn F. Bunting, Ralph Frammolino, Tom Greeley, H.G. Reza, Jim Schachter and Janny Scott.