State Supreme Court to Review Perjury Conviction of Former San Diego Mayor

The state Supreme Court, granting appeals from both the prosecution and defense, agreed Friday to review the perjury and conspiracy conviction of former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock.

Hedgecock resigned from office shortly after he was convicted in October, 1985, on 13 felony counts for failure to report campaign donations made to his political consulting firm. An earlier trial had ended in a jury deadlock.

Last April, a state Court of Appeal rejected a series of claims made in an appeal by Hedgecock but did order that a hearing be held by the trial court over defense contentions of jury tampering by a court bailiff.

In affidavits, two jurors said that the bailiff drank late at night with jury members after their deliberations and pressured them into a verdict by commenting on the expense of housing jurors in a hotel, implying that any hold-out jurors were being unreasonable and stating incorrectly that there could be no hung jury in the second trial. The bailiff, Al Burroughs, later denied the accusation.

Free Since Appeal

The appellate court said that if the hearing court denied a new trial, Hedgecock’s conviction would be upheld.

After his conviction in 1985, Hedgecock was sentenced to a year in jail and three years on probation. He has been free since then while his appeal is pending and has been working as a radio talk-show host.

In the appeal to the state Supreme Court, Charles M. Sevilla, a lawyer for Hedgecock, contended that there already was sufficient evidence of jury tampering to require reversal of the conviction. “A prosecution fox was in the jury house,” he said.

Prosecution Appealed Too

Prosecutors also appealed, saying that there was insufficient basis for a hearing and that calling trial jurors back to testify on the bailiff’s conduct would improperly “put them on trial.”

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Howard M. Wayne welcomed the high court’s decision Friday to review the issue. “After a trial is held that long ago it would be a terrible burden on the jurors, even if you could chase them all down,” said Wayne. “We expect to prevail on this question.”

In his appeal, Sevilla argued also that the trial judge erroneously decided that Hedgecock’s allegedly false statements or omissions in his campaign reports were material, or significant, enough to support perjury charges. That issue, the lawyer said, should have been left to the jury. “We’re very pleased with the Supreme Court’s action,” Sevilla said.

In Friday’s order granting review, the justices asked attorneys to submit briefs on both the issue of jury tampering--and the question of whether jurors could be required to testify--and of the judge’s ruling on the legal significance of Hedgecock’s statements. No date was set for argument before the high court, but it was considered unlikely that the case will be heard until late this fall.

The charges against Hedgecock were based on an alleged plot to finance his 1983 mayoral campaign with more than $350,000 from the defunct investment firm of J. David & Co. The company’s founder, J. David Dominelli, is serving a federal prison term for fraud on charges that he swindled hundreds of investors out of $80 million.

The perjury counts stemmed from allegations that he falsified his campaign disclosure statements to conceal the improper financial assistance he received from Dominelli and Nancy Hoover, another figure in the firm.