Hedgecock Will Remain in Office : San Diego Mayor to Await Ruling on Allegations of Jury Tampering

By BARRY M. HORSTMAN

Oct. 19, 1985 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writer

SAN DIEGO — Mayor Roger Hedgecock announced Friday that he intends to remain in office “until there is a fair and clear and legal resolution” of jury-tampering claims that could result in the reversal of his felony conviction.

Hedgecock, who after his 13-count felony conviction had pledged to resign Friday, told a City Hall news conference that the “sudden and wholly unexpected turn of events”--prompted by sworn allegations that a court bailiff tampered with the jury during deliberations--had caused him to “postpone any decision” to resign until a Nov. 4 court hearing on his attorney’s request for a new trial.

“Last week, when the jury verdict came back guilty, I was shocked and disappointed, but I prepared myself and my family . . . (for) the consequences of the verdict,” Hedgecock said. “I believed, then, in the integrity of the system and announced publicly that I would resign as mayor . . . effective today.

“This week, evidence has been brought forward that the verdict may be tainted.”

Because of the jury-tampering allegations, detailed in sworn statements signed by one juror and by the attorney for another, Hedgecock explained, he decided to drop his plan to resign Friday.

A Tumultuous 9 Days

Hedgecock’s decision to remain at City Hall, at least temporarily, capped a tumultuous nine-day period that began with his conviction by a Superior Court jury of one conspiracy and 12 perjury counts on Oct. 9. Two days later, conceding that he could “no longer offer leadership” in the wake of the conviction, Hedgecock announced plans to resign.

However, the case took a dramatic turn when The Times revealed the jury-tampering allegations on Thursday. Since then, Hedgecock’s office has been deluged with calls urging the mayor to remain at City Hall; as of 4:15 p.m. Friday, the calls were 2,827 to 268 in favor of Hedgecock retaining his office, according to Mel Buxbaum, the mayor’s press secretary. An equally unscientific KGTV (Channel 10) call-in poll Thursday night, however, showed viewers favoring Hedgecock’s resignation by 4,405 to 4,163.

Conceding that he and his family “have felt . . . like we’re on a roller coaster,” Hedgecock said that he ultimately decided to remain in office pending a ruling on a new trial because “if there is no valid verdict, there’s no basis for resignation, there’s no cloud over the city.”

“A worse cloud over this city would be the acceptance of a tampered jury, of a tainted verdict,” said Hedgecock, adding that his wife and parents strongly encouraged him to stay in office. His interpretation of public reaction to the jury-tampering charges, the mayor added, is that most people believe that it would be premature for him to step down now, because a resignation would “give validity to a tainted verdict.”

Standing Still in Sandstorm

J. Michael McDade, Hedgecock’s former chief of staff and one of his closest advisers, added that another major factor in the mayor’s decision was “the feeling that it makes sense to sort out the facts before . . . doing something you might regret later.”

“When you’re in the middle of a sandstorm and can’t see where you are, it’s probably wise to stand where you are rather than risk stepping off a cliff,” McDade said.

Earlier Friday, about 200 Hedgecock supporters staged a rally at the Community Concourse outside City Hall. Although the mayor did not appear at the rally, some of his staffers looked out their 11th-floor office windows while the crowd chanted: “Stay, Roger, stay!”

The Rev. Robert Ard, president of the San Diego Black Leadership Council, told the crowd: “We have come to tell those who sent their letters and telegrams of condolence and to view the body that they’re lining up too soon.”

Hedgecock, who last week did not attend City Council meetings while planning for his anticipated departure from City Hall, said that he intends to resume his official duties while awaiting the Nov. 4 court hearing. Ironically, the cover page of the council’s agenda for next week, which lists the names of the mayor and council members, lists the mayor’s office as “Vacant”--a description rendered inaccurate by Friday’s developments.

Bewildered and Drained

“I don’t intend to propose any long-range programs . . . but I will resume the daily routine things,” Hedgecock said, smiling wryly, in his private office shortly before his news conference.

Saying that the bizarre twist in his case left him “feeling like a leaf in the rapids,” Hedgecock added, “It’s a very pleasant turn of events. But I’m still bewildered and, frankly, a little drained by all this.”

Hedgecock was convicted of conspiring with Nancy Hoover and J. David (Jerry) Dominelli, who ran the now-bankrupt La Jolla investment firm of J. David & Co., and with Tom Shepard, who ran the mayor’s 1983 election campaign, to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign. Those three are yet to face trial on the charges. Hedgecock also was convicted of 12 counts of perjury involving campaign disclosure statements. The mayor’s first trial ended in February with a hung jury. After four days of deliberations, jurors voted 11-1 for conviction.

Asked Friday about his attitude toward the prospect of a third trial, Hedgecock sighed loudly, then said: “I don’t think the city or Roger Hedgecock or anyone else should be put through a third trial . . . I don’t think we should have to go through it. I’m not saying that we won’t go through it. I’m saying we should not have to go through it.” The mayor added, however, that he currently has “no interest in a plea bargain.”

The genesis of Friday’s developments was sworn declarations by juror Kathy Saxton-Calderwood and John Learnard, the attorney for juror Stanley J. Bohensky, alleging that bailiff Al Burroughs Jr. helped the jurors to define the crucial legal term of “reasonable doubt,” and persistently pressed them during their 6 1/2-day deliberations to reach a verdict, rather than deadlocking as did the jury in Hedgecock’s first trial.

In addition, Burroughs asked one juror for the name of other jurors who were “holding up” deliberations and referred to Saxton-Calderwood as “trouble” after she complained to another bailiff about Burroughs’ behavior, according to the sworn documents. On other occasions, Burroughs purportedly drank alcoholic beverages with jurors.

The state attorney general’s office has agreed to investigate those charges--allegations that Hedgecock’s attorneys contend have been corroborated by at least two other jurors. If the allegations are confirmed in court, “this verdict is history,” defense attorney Oscar Goodman predicted Friday. Other attorneys, however, have argued that Hedgecock’s attorneys may have difficulty persuading a judge to overturn the verdict, even if the charges are verified.

Although a statement released by the district attorney’s office Thursday stated that “new information” from Marshal Michael Sgobba had prompted the attorney general’s entry into the investigation, a source familiar with the case disputed that version of events on Friday.

The allegations included in a report forwarded to the attorney general’s office, the source explained, are the same charges of impropriety on the part of bailiffs that have already been publicized.

“There’s nothing different,” the source said, adding that there have been no allegations about possible wrongdoing by attorneys or Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr.

Meanwhile, in a prepared statement released Friday, Bohensky--whose remarks to his attorney, Learnard, ignited the latest controversy in the much-publicized case--explained why he decided to step forward.

“As I sorted out my thoughts on the days immediately following the verdict reading, it became quite apparent to me that I had to make a decision,” Bohensky said. “What was the lesser of two evils--a politician who violates the campaign contribution laws, or a system that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars and has unlimited resources to reach its means? When I narrowed it down to our basic right of having a fair trial, my decision was made.

“I didn’t come forward to save Roger Hedgecock. I came forward to ensure the judicial system would make good to everyone subject to that system.”

Richard Stark, the jury’s foreman, said in an interview Friday that he was “shocked” by the jury-tampering allegations.

“I just don’t understand what and when it might have happened,” said Stark, a bank executive. “I don’t recall any statements that were made (by the bailiffs). It’s just unfortunate and very sad.”

In addition, Anthony Beccarelli, who represents Burroughs, said Friday that it “doesn’t make sense that Burroughs would do anything to influence the jury’s decision.”

“There has been no indication that they ever discussed at any time the case and all the facts, but that after hours, so to speak, standing around or sitting around, just in normal conversation, they implied certain things,” Beccarelli said, referring to the allegations as “out of context.”

Hedgecock’s tenure at City Hall, meanwhile, hinges on whether a judge accepts Beccarelli’s or Goodman’s perception of the allegations. If Goodman, who argues that the jury was “contaminated and tainted” by “improper communications” from Burroughs, loses his motion for a new trial, Hedgecock still could be ousted from office when he is sentenced Nov. 6. However, Goodman said Friday that if his request for a new trial is denied, he probably will request a postponement of the sentencing, pending an appeal.

Many of the mayor’s supporters, however, chose to temporarily put aside those bleak possibilities in order to savor Friday’s announcement--the latest improbable turn in a case that already has had more plot twists than a John Le Carre novel.

“This has been a real emotional trauma for the city, especially (Hedgecock’s) supporters,” said Jay Powell, coordinator of the San Diego chapter of the Sierra Club and a strong Hedgecock ally. “It’s been a roller coaster. Woooooo! Now we’re going up! It’s a hell of a drama.”

Times staff writers Glenn F. Bunting, Jim Schachter, Ralph Frammolino and H.G. Reza contributed to this article.