Attorneys Cull Prospective Jurors With Leanings in Hedgecock Case

Attorneys continued to winnow the field of prospective jurors in the felony retrial of San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock on Monday, eliminating those who say they have formed opinions about the case.

Of the 29 potential jurors questioned Monday, 10 were excused by Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr., raising the number excused during three days of preliminary screening to 76--more than half of the nearly 150 called for possible service on the case.

Most of the prospective jurors excused Monday were eliminated, in courtroom vernacular, “for cause” after conceding that they would enter the case leaning toward either acquittal or conviction as a result of publicity about Hedgecock’s first trial, which ended in February in a mistrial with the jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction.

To date, 17 people have been excused for cause, while 59 others were eliminated after explaining that hearing the case, expected to run through mid-October, would impose severe personal or professional hardships on them.

Fifty-three people have cleared the first two stages of the three-step selection process--in the first round, by acknowledging that the trial’s length would not be a hardship on them, and in the second, by persuading Todd that the extensive publicity about the case has not impaired their impartiality. However, those prospective jurors face more detailed questioning by Deputy Dist. Atty. Charles Wickersham and defense attorney Oscar Goodman later this week when the competing attorneys begin to probe more deeply into jurors’ backgrounds and feelings about the case.

Six of the potential jurors excused Monday told Todd that they were inclined to believe that the mayor is guilty, with several of them explaining that their views on the case were influenced by the 11-1 jury split in the first trial.

“I feel that 11 out of 12 people found the mayor guilty in the last trial, and 11 out of 12 is pretty much guilty as far as I’m concerned,” said Gordon W. Boehler. Another potential juror, Sheila McGill, was excused when, under questioning from Goodman, she said that because Hedgecock had so narrowly avoided conviction in the first trial, she felt that the mayor “starts off with a bit of a strike against him” in the retrial.

One prospective juror, Erlinda Sanchez, was eliminated after admitting that she “wouldn’t be fair to the prosecution.”

“I feel partial towards Mayor Hedgecock,” Sanchez said, adding that she believes that the 15 felony charges and one misdemeanor facing the mayor are “a case of circumstances.” The charges stem from allegations of illegal campaign and personal financial aid that Hedgecock received from J. David (Jerry) Dominelli and Nancy Hoover, former principals in the bankrupt La Jolla investment firm of J. David & Co.

Moments after Todd had ruled that another woman, Sylvia Warren, was eligible to pass on to the final stage of questioning later this week, she mentioned that she had formerly worked for a telephone answering service whose clients included the J. David firm, Hoover and Parin Columna, a former J. David employee who supervised the renovation of Hedgecock’s South Mission Hills house, a project financed in part by a controversial $130,000 oral agreement loan from Hoover.

Although Warren emphasized that her former job would have no impact on her deliberations as a juror, Todd, after conferring with Wickersham and Goodman, decided to excuse her from the case.

Perhaps the only major surprise in Monday’s court session occurred when prosecutors did not challenge another potential juror, Henry Beukema, who, expressing opinions similar to those of Hedgecock himself, said that he detected “an undercurrent of vindictiveness” in the case, which Beukema said should have concluded “with no conviction of the mayor at the last trial.” Hedgecock has often charged that his prosecution is politically motivated and that Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller’s decision to retry the case after February’s mistrial demonstrates Miller’s vindictiveness.

Despite Beukema’s comments, Wickersham, much to the surprise of both Goodman and Todd, did not request that Beukema be excused from the case. Later, during a brief recess, Wickersham conceded that he may have misunderstood Beukema’s responses, but noted that he will have another opportunity to challenge the prospective juror when the final round of questioning begins Wednesday.

Most of the nearly 130 potential jurors questioned during the first three days in the selection process have displayed at least a general awareness of the mayor’s case, although most of them are unfamiliar with the specifics of the charges.

Recognizing that the extensive publicity about the case during the past 18 months would make it difficult, if not impossible, to find 12 jurors who know nothing about it, Todd has made it clear, via his rulings, that he is willing to accept jurors who are knowledgeable about the case, so long as they have not formed fixed notions about Hedgecock’s innocence or guilt.

For example, one potential juror questioned Monday, Dorothy Applegate, demonstrated a well-above-average familiarity with the case during her answers, prompting Goodman to challenge her on the basis that “she appears to have an inordinate amount of information or grasp of the facts in this case.”

Reponded Wickersham: “We’re looking for people who can be fair in light of all of the publicity. People are going to know a little bit (about the case). Let’s face it, that’s a given. The question is how they’re going to handle it. I thought this woman was very discerning.”

Todd agreed with the prosecutor’s reasoning, and decided to keep Applegate in the dwindling pool of prospective jurors.