Hedgecock, Backers Request Delay in Trial on Civil Suit by State

Attorneys for Mayor Roger Hedgecock and five of his supporters, accused in a $3.2-million lawsuit of violating campaign disclosure laws, asked a judge on Friday to delay the start of their civil trials until criminal cases against them are settled.

Superior Court Judge Mack P. Lovett took the request under submission but said he was leaning against granting a delay. An attorney for the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state political watchdog agency that filed the suit in October, argued against the delay but admitted that even without it the cases will not come to trial for at least two years.

A seven-month FPPC investigation uncovered 450 alleged violations of state laws on reporting campaign contributions. Hedgecock was sued for $974,662 and the Roger Hedgecock for Mayor Committee was sued for $667,000. FPPC officials said the investigation into Hedgecock’s finances was the most exhaustive in the agency’s 10-year history.

In addition to Hedgecock, those named in the complaint were Nancy Hoover; J. David (Jerry) Dominelli; Tom Shepard, Hedgecock’s political consultant; Peter Q. Davis, president of the Bank of Commerce and treasurer of Hedgecock’s campaign committee, and Roque de la Fuente, a San Diego area auto dealer. Dominelli was the only defendant not represented in court Friday.

Attorneys for Hedgecock, Hoover and Shepard argued for the delay on grounds that their clients still have to go to trial on criminal charges of perjury and conspiracy relating to Hedgecock’s campaign finances. Hedgecock’s trial on the criminal charges ended in a hung jury on Wednesday, and prosecutors have moved to retry the mayor. Hoover and Shepard have yet to go to trial on the criminal charges.

If the delay is denied, the defense attorneys said their clients would have to deal with discovery matters in the civil case. Speaking with reporters outside the courtroom, the lawyers said that even if the trials do not start for two years, their clients would be prevented from adequately defending themselves against the criminal charges if they have to go to court to answer FPPC discovery demands.

Lawyers for the three said it would be unfair for their clients to face multiple litigation and asked for a six-month delay on the civil matter, or less if the criminal trials end before then.

“There will be very substantial prejudice to the defendants,” said Dwight Worden, Hoover’s attorney. “They will be compelled to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege (against self-incrimination) in the civil case . . . It makes common sense to stop the civil action, finish the criminal action, and then go through with the civil action.”

Davis and De la Fuente have not been charged with criminal violations, and FPPC attorney Roger Overholser argued there was no reason to delay their trials on the civil complaints. But attorneys for both men asked for a delay anyway, arguing that their clients’ right to a fair trial would be undermined if their co-defendants in the matter pleaded the Fifth Amendment when called to testify on their behalf.

John M. Seitman, who is Davis’ lawyer, in asking for the delay argued that his client was named in the FPPC suit only because he was victimized by Hoover and Shepard.

“Mr. Shepard and Nancy Hoover engaged in certain conduct and concealed it from Mr. Davis. He engaged in no wrongful doing,” said Seitman.

Lovett granted one motion to Robert Schraner, De la Fuente’s lawyer, who argued that the FPPC failed to properly charge his client. Lovett agreed, but he allowed FPPC lawyer Overholser the opportunity to amend the complaint against De la Fuente. Lovett denied another motion by the five attorneys, who argued that the FPPC lacks jurisdiction to charge their clients.