Inmate Chants Lead Sheriff to Consider Hedgecock Isolation

Expressing concerns about Roger Hedgecock’s safety, San Diego County Sheriff John Duffy said Wednesday that the former mayor likely would be isolated from other prisoners at the County Jail if and when he is imprisoned for his felony conviction.

At a news conference the day after Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr. imposed a one-year sentence of local custody on Hedgecock, Duffy said that, because of safety considerations, Hedgecock likely would be held in a so-called “X-cell”--a larger-than-usual single cell isolated from other inmates--during whatever time he spends at the County Jail.

Hedgecock is free on his own recognizance pending the outcome of an appeal of his 13-count conspiracy and perjury conviction--a process that could last more than a year.

Shortly after Todd sentenced Hedgecock on Tuesday, Duffy said, inmates at the County Jail began chanting, “We want Roger! We want Roger!” Similarly, when Hedgecock was convicted on Oct. 9, prisoners began chanting and yelling remarks such as, “They got the mayor!” while Hedgecock was led by marshals past the jail to the Probation Department.

“The entire jail was kind of rocking with the chanting,” Duffy said of Tuesday’s incident. “That’s obviously a security concern.”

Also Wednesday, the former mayor’s attorneys angrily denounced the manner in which Todd imposed the sentence at Tuesday’s court hearing.

Saying that Todd “illegally . . . rushed through” Hedgecock’s sentencing immediately after denying his motion for a new trial, defense attorney Oscar Goodman predicted that an appeals court would overturn the sentence and force Todd to repeat the process in a new hearing.

Todd, however, defended his actions and suggested that Goodman’s ire stemmed from his “misunderstanding” of events leading up to Tuesday’s court session. Legal experts described the judge’s timetable as unorthodox, but not illegal.

At his news conference, Duffy said that if Hedgecock eventually loses his appeal and is placed in the sheriff’s custody, a four-member commission appointed by Duffy would determine whether Hedgecock would serve his sentence at the jail, an honor camp or in a work-furlough program.

While conceding that he has “some control” over the prisoner assignment process through his selection of the Sheriff’s Classification Committee, Duffy added that he does not “personally get involved” in those decisions.

Duffy also asserted that his frequent past disputes with Hedgecock during the latter’s tenure as a county supervisor would “absolutely not” affect Hedgecock’s treatment in custody.

“Political controversies aside, I am a professional sheriff,” Duffy said. Nevertheless, Duffy had few kind words for the man who could become one of his most celebrated inmates.

“I really do feel sorry for his family,” Duffy said. “But . . . I have

not one whit of sympathy for Roger Hedgecock. Where he finds himself today (is) exactly where he made himself go. Roger has never believed that the rules apply to him, and he’s got a history of that. And it finally caught up with him.”

The safety concerns posed by Hedgecock’s potential incarceration are comparable to those faced by law enforcement officers who are imprisoned, Duffy said.

“The bottom line . . . is that when and if the former mayor (is jailed), he will not receive any favored treatment,” Duffy said, adding that Hedgecock’s “unique security requirements” would be considered.

Although Todd imposed a one-year sentence on Hedgecock, Duffy said that the former mayor probably would spend only about 245 days in custody because of time off for good behavior and work credits.

Typically, a prisoner spends at least his first several weeks at the County Jail, pending a review of his status by the sheriff’s commission, Duffy said. That board, which meets weekly, usually conducts that review within the first 10 days of a prisoner’s sentence, he added.

‘Wait His Turn’

Noting that there generally is a waiting list for positions in the county’s honor farm and work-furlough programs, Duffy said that Hedgecock would have to “wait his turn” for possible placement in those programs.

While at the County Jail, Hedgecock likely would be housed in an “X-cell,” one of several single cells--formed from old storerooms--that are isolated from the general jail population. X-cells are equipped with toilets, sinks and television sets, Duffy said. However, because solid walls, rather than bars, separate the units, “you’re pretty much by yourself,” he said.

Hedgecock reported to a county probation supervisor Wednesday afternoon to learn about guidelines he must follow during his probation.

Meanwhile, Goodman’s anger over Todd’s handling of the sentencing hearing, which surfaced in court Tuesday, mounted Wednesday as he complained bitterly that he was “not given time to prepare” for the sentencing session.

Goodman also charged that Todd’s handling of the sentencing was designed to prevent Hedgecock from trying to hold onto his office during an appeal of the judge’s denial of the new-trial motion.

“They wanted Roger Hedgecock out of office and they wanted the job done quickly--it’s as simple as that,” Goodman said. “They accomplished that end, though in my mind it was done illegally. This thing was like a speeding bullet that I tried to step in front of, but it went right past me and through my client.”

Goodman conceded that, because Hedgecock already has resigned, the former mayor has “little to gain” from a legal maneuver aimed at gaining a new sentencing hearing, where Todd’s original sentence--one year in local custody, three years’ probation and a $1,000 fine--likely would be repeated.

“The stakes have changed, the ante’s a lot less now,” Goodman said. “But at least we’d make sure that the process was handled properly.”

Goodman also stressed that Hedgecock does not run the risk of receiving a stiffer sentence later if his current one is overturned, because “courts can’t penalize defendants for utilizing their appeal rights.”

Phone Call Debated

Pointing out that Todd’s written order setting Tuesday’s hearing mentioned only that the new-trial motion would be considered, Goodman said that he telephoned the judge on Monday to double-check whether sentencing also might occur.

“I specifically asked if the new-trial motion was going to be the only thing considered, and he said yes,” Goodman said. “I said, ‘So, I assume we don’t have to worry about sentencing then?’ And he said, ‘That’s correct.’ When the conversation ended, that point was crystal clear.”

The judge disputed Goodman’s account of their discussion.

“I didn’t tell him that,” Todd said. “It was just a misunderstanding on his part. It’s unfortunate, but that’s all it was.”

In response to Goodman’s allegation that Todd deliberately refused to hold the sentencing hearing later to preclude a defense appeal in the interim, Todd said, “That was not my intention. That’s not the case.”

Todd insisted that Goodman asked him only whether his written order referred to the sentencing, “and I told him it did not.” While one perhaps could draw a strong inference from that response that sentencing would not be debated, Todd said that Goodman did not specifically ask him whether that subject might be taken up if the new-trial motion was denied.

Goodman, though, was clearly caught off guard when Todd, after rejecting the new-trial motion Tuesday afternoon, indicated that he intended to immediately proceed with the sentencing hearing.

“I’m not prepared to go forward with this,” Goodman told Todd Tuesday. “I not only am not prepared, but I didn’t even discuss the (Probation Department’s) pre-sentencing report (with Hedgecock).” Despite Goodman’s complaint, Todd started the sentencing hearing about one hour later.

During that interval, Hedgecock resigned rather than wait to be ousted from office when Todd sentenced him. Hedgecock’s attorneys had been prepared to file a motion seeking to postpone his sentencing--and thus allow him to remain in office--pending the outcome of his appeals, but Todd’s timetable derailed that plan.

Was Action Legal?

Charles Sevilla, also on Hedgecock’s defense team, said Wednesday that he believes that, because Goodman told Todd that he was unprepared for the sentencing hearing, the judge “had no authority to proceed” with the hearing.

Other legal experts, however, agreed with Robert Simmons, a law professor at the University of San Diego, who termed Todd’s back-to-back scheduling of the new-trial and sentencing hearings “highly unusual but not improper.”

“I find it extraordinary that the judge didn’t schedule the sentencing for another time,” said Henry McGee, a UCLA law professor. “On the other hand, I know of no rule that says he can’t impose sentence on the spot.”

San Diego lawyer Michael Aguirre, meanwhile, speculated that Goodman, himself a master of complex legal maneuvers that often delay trials, may be most angered by the notion that he was outflanked by Todd.

“It looks like (Hedgecock’s attorneys) just got outsmarted and outmaneuvered,” Aguirre said. “The judge was within his rights . . . but I guess they’ve (the lawyers) got a legitimate gripe. I’d call it bad form but not illegal procedurally on the part of the judge. But it seems like a moot point now, because Hedgecock can’t unresign.”