’ . . . I know I’m telling the truth and doing the right thing, so I’m comfortable’ : ‘Apathetic’ Bohensky Thrust Into Jury Cross Fire

Stanley J. Bohensky describes himself as a somewhat withdrawn person who normally tends to “just mind my own business . . . and not get involved in things.” Passionate about sailing but little else, Bohensky rounds out his self-portrait by conceding that he is “very apathetic,” that he has not voted “for years,” and generally doesn’t pay “much attention” to the news.

So it is more than mildly ironic that Bohensky, one of two jurors who last month threw San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s felony conviction into legal limbo by signing sworn jury-tampering allegations, now is the news. And, for Bohensky, the 15 minutes of fame that Andy Warhol suggested would touch everyone at least once have been, on balance, rather unpleasant.

In recent weeks, Bohensky has been accused of, at best, having an overly active imagination or, at worst, being a liar by prosecutors and some of his fellow jurors who dispute the jury-tampering charges that he and juror Kathy Saxton-Calderwood lodged against a court bailiff. In addition, a female bailiff alleged that Bohensky made “sexually suggestive” remarks to her during the jury’s deliberations. And, in what Hedgecock’s attorney, Michael Pancer, calls “a reprehensible smear campaign,” prosecutors publicized Bohensky’s 1973 felony drug conviction. In short, Bohensky finds himself embroiled in almost as much controversy as the jury-tampering charges that he brought forth.

All of which leads to one obvious question: If Bohensky had it to do over again, would he still have spoken out or turned his head?

“If I said I had mixed emotions about it, that would be the understatement of my life,” Bohensky said, smiling wryly during an interview. “But even as bad as things got, with seeing your reputation trashed in the papers, right now I’d do the same thing again. I guess what it comes down to is, I know I’m telling the truth and doing the right thing, so I’m comfortable. But I can’t say it’s been a lot of fun to pick up the newspapers or turn on the TV lately.

“In particular, not only am I glad that I came forward, but I think that the district attorney’s people are being exposed for what they really are. Seeing all they’ve done lately to protect their verdict--like saying this whole thing is just a concoction in my mind and Kathy’s mind--has raised a lot of questions in my mind about whether Hedgecock even had a fair trial. If they’ve gone after me like this . . . you can imagine how they must feel about Hedgecock. Heck, at this point, I’ve got my doubts about anything that went on at that trial.”

Citing the jury-tampering allegations made by Bohensky and Saxton-Calderwood as evidence that Hedgecock was “cheated of a fair trial,” the mayor’s attorneys have filed a motion seeking to reverse his conviction on 13 felony counts. That hearing has been postponed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court on whether to review Hedgecock’s request to have Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr. disqualified from ruling on the new-trial motion.

Hedgecock’s attorneys argue that Todd, who presided over both of the mayor’s trials, should be removed from the case because he is “both the employer . . . and friend” of Al Burroughs Jr., the bailiff accused of tampering with the jury. The high court’s next scheduled meeting is Wednesday.

The genesis of the uncertainty surrounding Hedgecock’s political and legal fate was a conversation that Bohensky, a 35-year-old radiation testing engineer from Paradise Hills, had with his attorney, John N. Learnard, on Friday, Oct. 11. Two days earlier, the Superior Court jury on which Bohensky served had convicted Hedgecock of conspiracy and perjury charges stemming from alleged illegal contributions to his 1983 mayoral campaign.

During his conversation with Learnard, Bohensky shared his misgivings about some of the purported actions and comments of bailiff Burroughs during the jury’s 6 1/2 days of deliberations. Those misgivings were prompted, Bohensky said, by Hedgecock attorney Oscar Goodman’s angry response in the press to jury foreman Richard Stark’s earlier published explanation that the jurors “didn’t want” the trial to end in a hung jury, as Hedgecock’s first trial did.

When Bohensky told Learnard that Stark’s remark was little more than a recitation of the advice that Burroughs “gave us time and time again,” the lawyer, aware of the potential legal import of his client’s revelation, contacted Hedgecock’s attorneys. Later, Bohensky told the mayor’s attorneys that Saxton-Calderwood--and other jurors--could corroborate his allegation that Burroughs, in violation of court rules, talked with jurors on numerous occasions about the case and the progress in their deliberations.

Learnard warned Bohensky about “the heat I could expect” as a result of making an allegation that could overturn the verdict in one of the most controversial and publicized cases in local history.

“But I already knew what I was getting myself into,” Bohensky said. “I knew I’d take my lumps. I just knew it. In fact, I’m surprised it took this long before it started.”

Bohensky said that his wife, Alicia, a Mexican citizen, initially encouraged him to “back off and just forget about” his concerns over the alleged jury tampering.

“I told her, ‘Look, I’ve got to tell you something,’ ” Bohensky said. “I said, ‘This is what makes our two countries different--this stuff isn’t supposed to happen here.’ After a couple of days, she realized how strongly I felt about it and started backing me.”

Hoping to temporarily preserve his anonymity, Bohensky told Learnard that he was willing to repeat his allegations under oath in court, but asked his attorney not to name him in a sworn statement detailing his charges. That plan’s purpose crumbled in less than a day, however, as easily available court records revealed that Learnard was Bohensky’s attorney.

Most of his friends, family and co-workers “were supportive right off the bat,” Bohensky said, though he noted that he was the subject of some kidding from his colleagues at the IRT Corp. where, among other things, he helps test parts used on the space shuttle. For example, his co-workers posted an altered version of a newspaper cartoon that showed Hedgecock with City Councilman Uvaldo Martinez, who faces possible legal problems of his own because of alleged misuse of a city credit card to pay for personal meals. The cartoon depicts Martinez saying, “Cheer up, Roger. Come on, I’ll buy you lunch.” Bohensky’s co-workers, however, scratched out Hedgecock’s name and inserted his name.

Bohensky’s first tangible indication that his action might prompt more than good-natured ribbing, though, came when Saxton-Calderwood was the only other juror to back up his charges about Burroughs’ alleged improper activities.

According to the two jurors’ sworn statements, Burroughs helped the jurors to define the crucial legal term of “reasonable doubt,” persistently pressed them to reach a verdict, drank alcoholic beverages with the jurors at night and asked Bohensky to take notes on other jurors who were “holding up” deliberations. Bohensky also has said that Judge Todd appeared to call his bailiff “about every two hours” to check on the jurors’ progress, adding that the jurors were aware of the judge’s frequent phone calls.

While Bohensky emphasized that “maybe half” of the jurors were not present when the bailiff’s alleged improprieties occurred, he said that he expected “four or so others who definitely knew . . . what went on” to also quickly come forward to corroborate the jury-tampering charges.

In fact, just the opposite has occurred. Sworn affidavits from the 10 other jurors, as well as Burroughs and bailiff Holly Murlin, dispute the allegations, and have been cited by Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller as proof that “there was nothing even remotely approaching jury tampering.” Goodman, however, argues that portions of the 10 other jurors’ statements released by the district attorney’s office confirm “improper contact” between the bailiff and the jurors.

Last week the state attorney general’s office said that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the bailiffs--a finding that pleased Bohensky because, he explained, “I certainly didn’t want to ruin Al Burroughs’ life over this.” Hedgecock’s attorneys, however, have stressed that the attorney general’s report does not mean that jury tampering did not occur, only that the bailiffs will not be charged with any criminal wrongdoing.

“I never, ever thought it would end up being just Kathy and me to confirm all of this,” Bohensky said. “I felt, hey, with two people coming forward, the others will, too. These are average people. They have no reason to lie.”

Bohensky’s explanation for why, in his words, some jurors “are lying . . . to cover their butts” is that they “just plain want to protect themselves.”

“The ones who know about these things are also, unfortunately, the ones involved in some of the late-night drinking and things like that,” Bohensky said. “Maybe they don’t want to be embarrassed by having that come out. Maybe they’re just glad the trial’s over and want to try to forget about it and stay out of this.

“Looking at what’s happened to me, I guess you couldn’t blame them for feeling that way. What bothers me is that it didn’t have to be this way if they would have just told what really happened. . . . I’ve felt some anger over that, but now a feeling of being let down is the main emotion.”

Bohensky also expressed “total disgust” with both the district attorney’s and attorney general’s investigations, usually prefacing his remarks with the words “so-called investigations.”

“They seemed to approach this from the premise that Kathy’s and my statements were false, so let’s do everything we can to prove that,” Bohensky said. “I guess I was naive enough to think that this information that we came forward with would be just as important to them . . . to check out whether the court system was working.

“But to me, it looks like it was more important to them to protect their verdict than to try to protect the integrity of the court system itself. Instead of investigating what I told them happened three weeks ago, they’re investigating what happened to me 12 years ago.”

However, Steve Casey, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, responded that Bohensky’s allegations were properly investigated.

“You can’t fault an investigation just because it doesn’t produce the result you want,” Casey said. “The substance of his allegations have been dealt with, not only at length but decisively in the declarations of the other jurors and the bailiffs. Any suggestion that Mr. Bohensky’s charges were ignored is simply incorrect.”

Bohensky’s emerging public perception as Hedgecock’s potential legal savior is tinged with considerable irony because he was one of the first jurors to become convinced of the mayor’s guilt--a fact that Hedgecock’s attorneys contend lends credence to his jury-tampering allegations. To Bohensky, his unwavering conviction that Hedgecock was guilty also helps explain why, as he put it, prosecutors “have come after me so hard.”

“See, I presented a real problem for them,” Bohensky said. “I came forward on my own. I was one of the strongest jurors for guilty. So, adding this up is a big problem for them. It’s not like this is coming from someone who fought for the mayor in deliberations. I look at what they’ve done as an attempt to get even and try to discredit me any way they can.”

In bailiff Murlin’s sworn declaration, she alleges that Bohensky “made sexually suggestive remarks to me which I ignored . . . on a number of occasions” during the jury’s deliberations. Early one morning, Murlin added, she “was awakened by (Bohensky’s) loud knocking on the door to my room,” and summoned Burroughs to escort Bohensky back to his room.

Bohensky, however, said that the two bailiffs “really twisted that story around” in an attempt to ascribe sinister--or at least questionable--motives to an incident that he describes as “nothing but a practical joke” similar to others that occurred during deliberations. Once, for example, Murlin entered the hotel room that Bohensky shared with jury foreman Stark, “jumped in Stark’s bed and pulled the covers over her head” while Stark was in the bathroom, Bohensky said. Thomas Ryan, Murlin’s attorney, said that he “sincerely doubts” that such a prank occurred.

On the night detailed in Murlin’s statement, Bohensky said, he, other jurors and the bailiffs had been drinking while celebrating Murlin’s birthday.

“I knocked on Holly’s door and a bunch of other doors that night just trying to rouse people,” Bohensky said. “It was Holly’s birthday and I was just giving her a hard time. That’s all there was to it. We all had a big laugh about it.”

If Murlin’s allegations showed Bohensky that prosecutors and those he pointed a finger at in his sworn statement “were going to play rough,” the public disclosure of his 12-year-old drug conviction left no doubts in his mind.

Last week, prosecutors disclosed that Bohensky had pleaded guilty in July, 1973, to a felony charge involving the sale of marijuana, for which he was sentenced to 120 days in jail and three years’ probation. Technically, a person convicted of a felony is barred by state law from serving on a jury. Prosecutors, however, say that Bohensky’s service on the jury is not grounds for a mistrial.

During jury questioning last summer, Bohensky referred to the incident as a misdemeanor violation--an explanation based on, he says, a San Diego County jury commissioner’s interpretation that his sentence would not prohibit him from serving on a jury. A spokesman for the commissioner has denied that Bohensky received such advice. In addition, court records indicate that the charge was a felony.

“I honestly don’t know whether it’s a felony or misdemeanor right now,” Bohensky said. “There had been a lot of plea bargaining. When I came in for jury duty . . . I told them about it.”

Noting that Bohensky “made no effort to hide” his conviction when questioned during jury voir dire, Pancer has characterized prosecutors’ effort to publicize Bohensky’s criminal record as “an absolute, total smear.”

“Something that happened to a young man 12 years ago . . . is legally and logically irrelevant,” Pancer, an attorney for Hedgecock, said. “It has no bearing on whether or not he’s telling the truth today. There’s no indication that (Bohensky) has been anything other than truthful in this situation.”

Goodman added: “When you can’t refute the factual content of a witness’ testimony, you try to discredit him by digging up bad things from his background. That’s what the D.A. and attorney general have done here. This is character assassination, pure and simple.”

District attorney’s spokesman Casey, however, argues that Bohensky’s drug-related conviction “speaks to his credibility, and his credibility is a substantial issue in judging whether to put any stock in what this guy says.”

“It may be unfair that this guy’s past has become something of a public spectacle, but we didn’t put him in that position,” Casey said. Pancer’s suggestion that Bohensky’s adverse publicity is attributable to prosecutors’ attempt to pillory the juror, Casey said, “is out and out nonsense.”

“Whatever bad has happened to Mr. Bohensky is the direct and proximate result of an effort set in motion by the defense,” Casey said. “I’m not blaming the defense. But what’s happened is a consequence of that process. One can’t start a process and then complain about the fallout.

“Besides, if we’re going to start feeling sorry for someone, I’m not sure that Mr. Bohensky would be at the top of my list. His allegations put some other jurors on the spot and made Al Burroughs the subject of stories that, to be delicate, I guess you’d say were uncharitable.”

Bohensky said that his several weeks of undesired celebrity have left him “really, really worn out” and hoping only “that all of this finally gets a fair and impartial hearing.” Even now, Bohensky said, he does not care strongly about the outcome of Hedgecock’s new-trial motion, though he concedes that his feelings have shifted toward the mayor since the jury-tampering allegations surfaced.

“I found him guilty and I have no problem with that, but I guess I’ve started to put two and two together and realize that some of the other (jurors) maybe got some help they shouldn’t have in reaching that same decision,” Bohensky said.

“All I could ask for is that this thing receive a fair hearing and that my testimony be given equal weight with others. Then, if a judge decides, ‘Well, OK, these things happened, but I don’t think it affected the outcome,’ then so be it. I served my purpose by pointing out what happened.

“When I came forward, I didn’t care at all how it came out with Hedgecock. In fact, I thought he was going to resign and then fight it out later. But now . . . I feel that maybe he didn’t get a fair shake, and I’m almost starting to back the guy and feel glad that he stayed on as mayor.”

Bohensky admitted that the recent onslaught of negative publicity has been “a terrible distraction . . . and embarrassing.” Until last week, his family, including his three stepchildren--ages 12, 15 and 17--were unaware of his drug conviction, Bohensky said. However, the experience has caused friends and family “to rally around me even more,” he added.

“There are times when I feel like my emotions are a vacuum, like all my life has just been sucked right out of me,” Bohensky said. “The thing I’m most interested in is sailing, but now when I get sailboat magazines, I can’t even concentrate on the pictures. It’s been hard to concentrate at work. My mind’s been racing since the trial ended.”

Even so, Bohensky said, the recent adversity has not undermined his satisfaction with his original decision to take a step that he knew could undo the verdict that he helped to produce, and prolong a case that has become San Diego’s longest-running political soap opera.

“I never really thought of it as being a matter of courage to step forward,” Bohensky said. “I knew the risks involved for me personally, but it was a question of choosing the lesser of two evils.

“Had I opted to let it go and Hedgecock got a severe sentence, I probably would have had a worse time living with myself. At least years from now, I’ll be able to get over this and forget about it. It will be the past. I’ll know that I did the best I could.

“And I can live with that, regardless of how this comes out.”