Hedgecock’s Attorney Again Asks Appeal Court to Overturn Conviction

Saying that “a prosecution fox was sequestered in the jury house,� an attorney for former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock on Wednesday once again asked the 4th District Court of Appeal to overturn Hedgecock’s felony conviction because of jury-tampering allegations.

In a 24-page brief that essentially represented an appeal of an appeal, Charles Sevilla addressed the admittedly difficult task of trying to persuade the appellate justices that they erred in their decision in the case last week.

In that ruling, a three-justice panel ordered a Superior Court judge to hold a hearing on the jury-tampering charges, but failed to reverse Hedgecock’s 13-count conspiracy and perjury conviction outright. If the lower court judge eventually denies Hedgecock a new trial, the justices added in their 139-page opinion, Hedgecock’s conviction and one-year jail sentence should stand.

A Marked Difference

Sevilla, however, argued in Wednesday’s brief that the evidence supporting the jury-tampering allegations is sufficient to merit a reversal of Hedgecock’s conviction, not merely another hearing on their import.

Earlier this week, prosecutors also asked the appeal court to reconsider its decision, though their purpose in seeking a rehearing was markedly different from that of Sevilla. In their brief, prosecutors encouraged the justices to eliminate even the hearing on the jury-tampering charges, arguing that such a hearing would violate a California law designed to protect jurors’ rights.

The tampering allegations stem from sworn allegations from two jurors--contradicted in part by statements from the 10 other jurors--that a court bailiff improperly discussed the case and the progress in their deliberations with jurors during their sequestration. In denying Hedgecock a new trial in December, 1985, then-Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr. rejected the defense’s contentions that the bailiff’s actions tainted the jury’s verdict.

But Sevilla, largely repeating arguments that he offered during a hearing before the 4th District court last year, used Wednesday’s brief to renew his efforts to convince the justices that the jury-tampering allegations are serious enough to merit setting aside Hedgecock’s conviction.

“Inspection of the (jury’s deliberative) process reveals that a prosecution fox was sequestered in the jury house to pressure for a desired verdict,� Sevilla wrote, referring to Todd’s former bailiff, Al Burroughs Jr. Noting that the appellate justices stated in their decision that Burroughs “conducted himself improperly . . . at times,� Sevilla added that the bailiff’s actions were “fatal to this verdict.�

Among other arguments in the brief, Sevilla also contended that Todd’s denial of Hedgecock’s original new-trial motion was invalid because the judge had not properly responded to a defense motion seeking to disqualify Todd from presiding over that hearing 2 1/2 years ago. Sevilla also argued that there were legal flaws with some of the other counts on which Hedgecock was convicted.

The 4th District court has until May 25 to decide whether to reopen the case to consider either Sevilla’s arguments or those raised earlier by the prosecution. If the appeal court does not rehear the case, both sides have 10 days to ask the California Supreme Court to consider the appeal.