Hecht detective tells of skepticism

Tacoma police detective Brad Graham is no fool.

When he learned late last year of criminal allegations against Pierce County Superior Court Judge Michael Hecht, Graham considered the source, he testified Tuesday.

The initial accusation came from Morgan Armijo, son of Sergio Armijo, a veteran judge who lost his seat to Hecht last summer.

Hecht is on trial for one charge of felony harassment and another of patronizing a prostitute. He is pleading not guilty, and contends the charges reflect a vendetta by political enemies.

In Tuesday’s court action, assistant attorney general John Hillman took dead aim at the notion of political payback before resting his case. His closing witness was Graham, a 20-year police department veteran and ex-Marine.

Graham said he received a packet of information from Morgan Armijo last November that included a report of an alleged death threat by Hecht and observations from witnesses on Tacoma’s Antique Row.

Hillman noted that Armijo is a private investigator who has worked for local defense attorneys. Graham said he knew that, knew about the family connection and knew the results of last year’s election.

“Did that cause you any pause when you first received the case?” Hillman asked.

“I was skeptical,” Graham said. “I wanted to make sure my office wasn’t being tossed into some sort of political agenda.”

Graham said he interviewed witnesses himself, and dug up information that hadn’t been mentioned in the initial report he received from Armijo.

His inquiries eventually led to Joseph Pfeiffer, a 21-year-old homeless man and admitted prostitute who was not mentioned in Armijo’s report.

Pfeiffer is a key witness in the trial – his testimony is the basis for the prostitution charge. Monday, he testified that he sold sex to Hecht eight to 10 times between 2006 and 2008.

Graham said he tracked Pfeiffer down in January of this year. Pfeiffer was in the Cowlitz County Jail, serving 28 days for a parole violation. He hadn’t expected a visit from Tacoma police.

“We blindsided him,” Graham said. “He had no idea we were coming.”

Graham said he didn’t explain the purpose of his visit to Pfeiffer – only that police wanted to ask a few questions. Pfeiffer guessed the reason.

“Was that when he brought up Michael Hecht?” Hillman asked.

“Yes,” Graham said.

Accounts of police contacts with Pfeiffer led to another thread. For two days, Hillman has stitched a web of circumstance that hints at possible witness tampering.

The circumstances, based on phone records, revolve around Pfeiffer’s disappearance in August and September, which delayed the trial for a month. Police issued a warrant for Pfeiffer’s arrest, but could not locate him for weeks.

Hillman has established that Pfeiffer was in contact with Hecht and one of the judge’s friends at the time.

Monday, Hillman questioned Leonard Nigro, Hecht’s one-time bartender and close friend.

Nigro said he spoke to Pfeiffer on the phone Sept. 8. That was the day Hecht’s trial began, and the day it was delayed due to Pfeiffer’s absence. Hillman asked Nigro what he said to Pfeiffer.

“Did you tell him to lay low and stay away from court, and eventually this case would be dismissed?” Hillman asked.

“No,” Nigro said. In response to a similar question a few moments later, he added, “I never told him to stay away as far as I know. That’s witness tampering and I wouldn’t do that.”

During Pfeiffer’s testimony Monday, Hillman posed the same question and uncovered an apparent contradiction. Pfeiffer recalled the Sept. 8 conversation with Nigro. “Did he ever tell you that if you just laid low the warrant would go away?” Hillman asked.

“Basically that it would blow over,” Pfeiffer said, nodding.

Tuesday, Hillman returned to the same topic, citing phone records gathered from Hecht, Nigro and Pfeiffer. Comparing the three sets of records, Hillman focused on a 40-minute span on the evening of Sept. 8, after court had ended.

The records showed the following sequence:

6:01 p.m. – Nigro called Hecht. The call lasted four minutes.

6:14 p.m. – Nigro called Pfeiffer. The call lasted 11 minutes.

6:25 p.m. – Nigro called Hecht. The call lasted five minutes.

Two more strings of calls among the three men appeared in records from Sept. 9 and Sept. 14. During his testimony Monday, Pfeiffer admitted sending Hecht a text message on Sept. 14. Hecht never responded to the message.

In cross-examination of Graham, defense attorney Wayne Fricke spotlighted the lack of clarity in the phone records, which went back more than a year. Many, including calls from Pfeiffer to Hecht, lasted one minute.

That was a standard billing practice, Fricke said. Wireless phone carriers typically bill for one minute on any type of connection. Graham agreed that was true.

Fricke added there was no way to know whether any conversation took place. “You know there’s a connection, but whether there’s a conversation, you can’t tell?” he asked.

“That’s correct,” Graham said.

Fricke took particular note of calls between Pfeiffer and Hecht. Virtually all of them came from Pfeiffer – wasn’t that so? Graham said it was.

Finally, Fricke focused on the Sept. 14 text message from Pfeiffer to Hecht. Wasn’t it true Hecht and Fricke had relayed this message to the prosecutor, who had then given it to Graham, who had used it to locate Pfeiffer?

Didn’t that mean Hecht had helped police track down the witness, as opposed to concealing him from police?

“We did use that information to assist us, yes,” Graham said.

Sean Robinson: 253-597-8486

sean.robinson@thenewstribune.com