New Charges Filed Against Hedgecock

Increasing the already considerable legal burden facing Mayor Roger Hedgecock, the San Diego County district attorney’s office on Wednesday filed new charges against the mayor, accusing him of a conflict of interest while he was a county supervisor and of failing to disclose a gift of $500 in legal services.

The new allegations, which stem from evidence in Hedgecock’s seven-week felony conspiracy and perjury case that ended in a mistrial last week, were added to two other felony perjury counts facing the mayor that are the subject of a March 14 preliminary hearing.

Calling the new charges “part of the D.A.’s ongoing smear campaign,” Hedgecock dismissed the allegations as “just another attempt to throw around enough mud in the hope that some of it will stick.”

The filing of the new charges Wednesday in Municipal Court also appears to contradict a pledge made by Assistant Dist. Atty. Richard D. Huffman in the wake of last week’s mistrial. After the inconclusive end to the trial, which ended with the jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction, Huffman said he did not intend to “legally pursue” the purported conflict of interest or other allegations of wrongdoing by Hedgecock that emerged during the first trial.

However, Steve Casey, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, claimed Wednesday that Huffman “meant only that there were no plans for new investigations” and did not intend to rule out the possibility of new charges in the case.

“This was evidence that bubbled to the surface in the first trial . . . that properly belongs in there the next time,” Casey said.

The additional charges accuse Hedgecock of perjury and a conflict of interest stemming from his 1982 vote as a county supervisor on a proposal to develop the county’s bayfront parking lots. Then-Supervisor Hedgecock should have disqualified himself from voting on the matter in March, 1982, prosecutors charge, because he received $500 in free legal services in late 1981 from investment counselor Harvey Schuster, a bidder for the project.

Under state law, public officials are barred from participating in governmental decisions affecting persons from whom they have received a gift of more than $250 during the previous year.

The alleged conflict of interest is a misdemeanor, while the perjury charge--based on Hedgecock’s failure to report the $500 gift on financial disclosure statements--is a felony.

Hedgecock, however, pointed out that Schuster testified that he never told the mayor about the $500 legal bill, which paid for the services of Century City lawyer Ronald Blanc, whom Schuster took Hedgecock to see in November, 1981, when Hedgecock was experiencing severe financial problems because of an unsuccessful condominium development partnership.

“It’s a little weird for them to say I didn’t report something when their own witness said I didn’t know about it,” Hedgecock said. “The first time I knew that any money had been paid for this conversation with this lawyer was during the trial.”

In his summation to the jury, however, Huffman argued that Hedgecock, himself a lawyer, should have realized that “somebody had to pay” for Blanc’s legal services, and charged that it was “absolutely ludicrous” for the mayor to contend that he did not surmise that Schuster had paid for the visit when he (Hedgecock) did not receive a bill.

The evidence about the $500 legal bill was secondary, however, to the major disclosure that Schuster, a key prosecution witness, made during Hedgecock’s first trial. Called as a surprise witness, Schuster testified that Hedgecock had boasted to him after their meeting with Blanc that he knew that J. David (Jerry) Dominelli, founder of the now-bankrupt La Jolla investment firm that bore his name, intended to invest heavily in Tom Shepard & Associates so that the political consulting firm would be able to run Hedgecock’s 1983 mayoral campaign.

Schuster’s testimony bolstered prosecutors’ central allegation that Hedgecock conspired with Dominelli and former J. David principal Nancy Hoover to funnel tens of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions to his 1983 campaign via Shepard’s firm.

Hedgecock has consistently denied knowing that Dominelli invested in Shepard’s firm. The mayor says he was aware that Hoover helped underwrite Shepard’s firm, but argues that her investments were designed primarily to help Shepard start his own business, not to get Hedgecock elected mayor.

In an attempt to discredit Schuster’s testimony, Hedgecock and his defense attorney, Michael Pancer, argued that the Sorrento Valley investment executive lied because of his anger over not receiving the lucrative 1982 county contract.

The two perjury counts to which Wednesday’s new charges were attached allege that Hedgecock failed to report a $3,000 check that he received from Dominelli in December, 1981, as either income or a campaign contribution. The mayor has said that he regarded the money as a payment from Shepard for the right to use Hedgecock’s computerized mailing list in his business.

In legal parlance, those two perjury counts had been filed “in the alternative,” meaning that a jury could convict Hedgecock of one or the other but not both. However, Casey said that Wednesday’s amendment to the earlier charges makes it possible for Hedgecock to be found guilty of both perjury counts, as well as the conflict of interest charge.

“This is a little like piling on” in football, Hedgecock said. “If there were a referee around, I think I’d hear a whistle blowing.”

A hearing to set a date for the retrial on the 13 felony counts that resulted in last week’s mistrial is scheduled for next Thursday. At that hearing, prosecutors are expected to ask that the conflict of interest charge and two additional perjury charges be included in the retrial.