Hedgecock Case Statement Cleared for Hoover Trial

The judge in the Nancy Hoover Hunter fraud trial ruled Friday that parts of a statement, signed by Hunter in a plea-bargain agreement in the case of illegal funding of Roger Hedgecock’s 1983 mayoral campaign, can be introduced as evidence.

However, it remains unclear how prosecutors will be able to introduce the edited statement as evidence because they have no witnesses who can testify about the document.

Although U. S. District Judge Earl B. Gilliam has ruled that the jury cannot be told about Hunter’s previous conviction, he said he will allow jurors to see the portions of the statement that contain background material on Hedgecock’s connection to J. David & Co.

“She confessed to conduct that is direct evidence of the crimes in this case,” argued Assistant U. S. Atty. Stephen Clarke.

Funding Link?

Prosecutors want to use the statement because it supports their contention that Tom Shepard & Associates, the firm that managed Hedgecock’s campaign, was set up specifically to illegally funnel money into the successful mayoral campaign. Clarke said that, in the statement, Hunter admits financing the Hedgecock campaign with J. David funds and acknowledges discussing the campaign before the establishment of Tom Shepard & Associates.

Hunter was the primary financial backer of the company, and, if it was set up for illegal campaign contributions, then the losses she claimed on her 1983 tax returns are also illegal. Tax evasion for the years 1980 through 1983 are four of the 234 counts that Hunter is facing in federal court.

Tom Shepard, who testified in June about the statement he signed in his plea bargain stemming from the Hedgecock scandal, vehemently denied that his firm was established with Hedgecock in mind.

Defense attorney Richard Marmaro warned Gilliam that, “in a worst-case scenario,” allowing the statement into evidence would require a retrial of the case.

“It’s not a statement about the Ponzi (scheme),” Marmaro said. “It’s not about the tax case. It’s a statement about the Hedgecock case.”

Marmaro also argued that the statement should not be introduced because it would force Hunter to take the stand to explain her previous statements.

But Gilliam overruled this objection, saying it is up to the defense to determine a way around this obstacle.