Jury Selection Under Way in Hedgecock’s Second Trial

The second felony trial of San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock began Wednesday, as the judge and lawyers in the case asked prospective jurors whether the expected two-month-plus duration of the trial would impose a serious hardship on them and whether they have become biased because of widespread publicity.

Of the nearly 150 potential jurors questioned in Wednesday’s first stage of a three-stage selection process, 52 were excused after telling Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr. that, for either personal or professional reasons, they would be unable to serve as jurors in the case, expected to run through mid-October.

Some of the remaining prospective jurors later underwent a second round of questioning by Todd, Deputy Dist. Atty. Charles Wickersham and defense attorney Oscar Goodman aimed at determining whether the extensive publicity about the mayor’s case has impaired their impartiality.

Only six people have completed the second screening phase, a process that will continue today. In the third stage, which is not expected to start until next week, the opposing lawyers will ask more detailed questions of the individuals who survive the first two rounds.

Both Goodman and Wickersham admitted that they are taking extra care in the jury selection process for Hedgecock’s retrial, largely because the jury’s composition figured heavily in the outcome of the mayor’s first trial, which ended last February in a mistrial with the jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction. The sole juror who believed that the mayor was innocent of felony conspiracy and perjury charges in the first trial was a city sanitation employee.

“This is a very important process,” Wickersham said. “That was the difference in the last case.” Although Goodman has expressed doubts about whether it will be possible to find 12 jurors who have not formed opinions about the case, which has received extensive coverage in the local news media since early 1984, Wickersham said that he believes that a jury could be impaneled by the end of next week.

Hedgecock attended most of Wednesday’s court session, but had little to say publicly about the day’s proceedings. When he arrived at the courthouse, he said that he was “a little frustrated that we have to do it all again, because I’d rather be doing the job as mayor.” Later, after the first screening phase had been completed, Hedgecock, who spoke at length with reporters on most days during his first trial, quickly left the courthouse without comment.

Most of the 15 felony charges and one misdemeanor charge facing Hedgecock allege that he intentionally falsified financial disclosure statements in an effort to conceal allegedly illegal campaign and personal financial aid from J. David (Jerry) Dominelli and Nancy Hoover, who were principals in the now-bankrupt La Jolla investment firm of J. David & Co. A conviction likely would force Hedgecock from office.

Because of the large number of potential jurors called Wednesday, the day involved much more sitting around and waiting than action for the individuals who ultimately may decide Hedgecock’s legal and political fate. That, combined with the fact that most of Wednesday’s questioning was relatively superficial, produced what Todd conceded late Wednesday afternoon was “a long and boring day for all of you.”

However, Todd also stressed the importance of the sometimes-tedious process when he told one group of prospective jurors, “The goal under the law is to find 12 persons and several alternates who as nearly as is humanly possible will fairly try this case. . . . You are taking part in the greatest system the world has ever seen, the American jury system.”

The prospective jurors who said that they would be unduly burdened by the length of the trial were questioned individually by the judge and lawyers about the nature of their potential problems. Most ultimately were excused from the trial, but a handful of people, when pressed by Todd or one of the lawyers, agreed to try to juggle their work or personal schedules in order to serve on the panel. The potential jurors excused from the Hedgecock case likely will be reassigned to hear other, shorter trials.

Many of those excused were college students who explained that the trial would interfere with their class schedules, while many others cited potential economic hardships, noting that their employers were unwilling to pay them for being off work for such a lengthy period. Several of the excused jurors said that they were unemployed and that the trial would hamper their search for new jobs.

“Goodby . . . Have a good trip,” Todd said.

During the second round of questioning, the so-called “publicity screening” stage, seven potential jurors were asked about their newspaper reading, television viewing and radio listening habits, as well as about their knowledge of the Hedgecock case, in an effort to determine whether news coverage has tainted their ability to be impartial.

Each of the six jurors questioned admitted that he or she had been exposed to news coverage of the case, but each also contended that he or she would enter the trial with an open, unbiased mind.

Todd asked each of them: “Do you have any kind of fixed opinion in your mind as to who should prevail in this case?” All seven answered, “No.” Typical of their responses was that of potential juror Mary Clevenger, who told Goodman, “I honestly think that, given all the facts, I could form my own opinion.”

There were several light moments during Wednesday’s court session. One occurred when a warehouseman told Todd that serving on the jury would pose a severe economic hardship because he would not be paid for his time off work and that his wife “is half-pregnant.” The man paused a moment, then added, “Well, she’s pregnant.”

“Oh, I was going to say!” Todd replied.

Later, a man said that the trial would conflict with a planned Las Vegas vacation.

“It might be better if you stayed here,” Todd joked.

“If I don’t go, I lose before I even leave,” the man replied.

When Todd asked the visibly nervous man the name of his company, the potential juror thought for a few moments, then shook his head and said, “It’s amazing. I can’t think of it.”

“What do you do for them?” Todd asked.

“Quality control,” the man replied. Amid chuckles throughout the courtroom, he was excused.