Hedgecock Appeal Hearing Set : Courts: On June 12, the California Supreme Court Court will the hear ex-mayor’s appeal of his felony conviction.

More than 4 1/2 years after former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s felony conviction, the California Supreme Court will hear an appeal in the case next month, the court announced Monday.

Ending a nearly two-year hiatus since the last court action in the case, the state Supreme Court on Monday scheduled oral arguments in the appeal of Hedgecock’s 13-count conspiracy and perjury conviction for June 12 in Los Angeles. The high court had agreed to hear the case in August, 1988, but a backlog of other appeals delayed a hearing in the Hedgecock case.

The focal point of next month’s hearing will be an April, 1988, ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeal ordering a lower court to hold a hearing on Hedgecock’s claim that his conviction on campaign-law violations should be overturned because of jury-tampering allegations.

In that ruling, which one dissenting justice complained set the stage for “a trial after a trial,” the appellate court said that, if a Superior Court judge eventually denies Hedgecock’s request for a new trial, the October, 1985, conviction that forced his resignation from office should stand. Hedgecock, now a radio talk-show host, faces a one-year jail sentence, but the sentence has been postponed pending his appeal.

Based on the Supreme Court’s record in recent cases, Robert Foster, a supervising deputy state attorney general said, the court’s decision on Hedgecock’s appeal probably will come about two months after next month’s hearing.

That decision could either move the case closer to a resolution or simply add a new, inconclusive chapter to a voluminous story that Hedgecock himself once described as “San Diego’s longest running political soap opera.”

If the Supreme Court were to agree with prosecutors’ request that it overrule the 4th District’s order for the jury-tampering hearing and uphold Hedgecock’s conviction in its entirety, Hedgecock conceivably could face the prospect of beginning his jail sentence as early as mid-summer.

However, if the court were to overturn Hedgecock’s conviction, prosecutors would have to decide whether to simply drop the case or try it a third time, thereby setting in motion another cycle of trials and appeals that could last for years. Hedgecock’s first case ended in a mistrial in February, 1985, with the jury deadlocked 11 to 1 in favor of conviction.

The third major option available to the Supreme Court, upholding the appellate court’s decision, would indefinitely postpone the case’s conclusion pending the outcome of the hearing on the jury-tampering charges.

In briefs filed in the case, Hedgecock’s attorney argues that the passage of time would make such a hearing problematical, because jurors’ faded memories would make it difficult to reconstruct the key details relating to the 4 1/2-year-old tampering allegations. Because any hearing on the charges would therefore be flawed, Hedgecock argues, any error is sufficient reason for overturning his conviction.

Saying that Hedgecock’s argument “borders on the absurd,” Foster has characterized the former mayor’s appeal as “the desperate act of a convicted perjurer grasping at straws.”

Hedgecock was convicted on felony conspiracy and perjury charges stemming from illegal contributions to his 1983 mayoral campaign from the now-defunct La Jolla investment firm of J. David & Co.

Shortly after the conviction, two jurors signed sworn affidavits--contradicted by statements from the 10 other jurors--alleging that a court bailiff improperly discussed the case and its progress during their deliberations.

The defense has claimed that the bailiff’s actions, which also included providing alcoholic beverages for the jurors after their daily deliberations, affected the jury’s verdict, entitling Hedgecock to, if not outright dismissal of his conviction, at least a new trial. Prosecutors, however, argue that the bailiff’s behavior had no effect on the jury’s deliberations or its decision.