Pierce County Superior Court Judge Michael Hecht starts the fight of his life today.

At stake – his reputation and career.

Hecht is charged with felony harassment and patronizing a prostitute. The street-level description cuts deeper: He’s accused of paying one man for sex multiple times, and threatening to kill another whom he suspected of spreading rumors.

Elected in August 2008, Hecht, 58, has been on paid leave since the charges were filed in March. His annual salary is about $148,000.

The key witnesses in the trial that starts today are Joseph Hesketh IV, who accuses Hecht of threatening to kill him; and Joseph Pfeiffer, who told Tacoma police and The News Tribune that Hecht paid him for sex on numerous occasions during the past two years.

Hecht denies the charges, and contends he is a victim of opportunists, political enemies, overzealous cops and media smears.

Jury selection will begin today in Pierce County Superior Court.

To avoid the appearance of local conflicts of interest, King County Superior Court Judge James Cayce is presiding. John Hillman, a prosecutor with the state Attorney General’s Office, is handling the case. Tacoma attorney Wayne Fricke is defending Hecht.

The run-up to the trial has been rocky for Hecht, who came up short on a series of pretrial motions filed over the past several months.

Fricke moved for dismissal of the prostitution charge in May. Cayce denied the motion. Fricke sought a change of venue, arguing that publicity made it impossible to try the case fairly in Pierce County. Cayce denied that motion too.

The thorniest pre-trial arguments revolved around examples of “prior bad acts” by Hecht, submitted by Hillman as admissible evidence. They include allegations of Hecht’s past activities with prostitutes and Hecht’s alleged attempts to cover up those activities by telling people not to talk about them.

Fricke and Hillman wrestled all summer over the admissibility of the “prior bad acts” material, which includes 10 sets of allegations. Fricke moved to exclude all of them. Cayce settled the argument Aug. 25 in a verbal ruling that the two sides are distilling into a written order.

“Basically, he (Cayce) granted the bulk of my motion,” Hillman said Friday.

Fricke, also reached Friday, would not comment on the substance of the order.

Based on Hillman’s description, more than half of the allegations are admissible. They include statements from security guards and business owners in Tacoma’s Antique Row area, who say they saw Hecht pick up male prostitutes in the past.

Additional allegations come from two men who say Hecht paid them for sex in the past. The allegations are not included in the criminal charges because the statute of limitations has passed.

One of the men, listed in court documents as “John M.,” told police he met with Hecht 10 to 15 times between 2001 and 2002, and exchanged sex for money. A summary of the man’s statement appears in court documents.

Hecht “told John M. that he would run for judge one day and if elected he would take care of John M. by having his prior criminal cases ‘exonerated,’” the statement reads.

Fricke’s memorandum opposing the admissibility of the “prior bad acts” alluded briefly to the John M. statement, characterizing it as irrelevant to the main case.

The trial is shaping up as a credibility contest – allegations from key witnesses matched against affidavits attesting to Hecht’s character and the unreliability of state witnesses, some of whom have criminal records.

The arguments hinge on fine distinctions. A typical example appears in the statements of Pfeiffer, the key witness in the prostitution charge.

In separate interviews, Pfeiffer told police, The News Tribune and investigators for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct that Hecht paid him for sex. Pfeiffer’s statement to police was recorded and transcribed. It appears in court documents.

“Q: Okay. And he would pay you for these services?

A: Yes.

Q: How much would he pay you?

A: Twenty to twenty-five dollars.

Q: Okay. Uh, was that in cash?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And how many times do you think you had oral sex with him?

A: From eight to ten times.

...

Q: Okay. And how would you decide how much he was gonna pay each time?

A: I don’t know. He decided that.

Q: Okay. He would just tell you this is what I want for this amount or how would that go?

A: Uh, we would just perform; and then afterwards, before I would get out, he would just give me some money.”

Fricke later obtained a signed affidavit from Pfeiffer, which includes the following statement:

“I do not deny saying to the officer that Michael Hecht had exchanged money for sex with me, but that is not accurate. Michael Hecht has provided me money when I have been in times of need, which have occurred on a regular basis over the years. At no time did he or I exchange money for sex.

“I still state that I had sex with Michael Hecht, but again, that was not in the context of the exchange of money.”

A pre-trial motion filed by Hillman distills the argument over Pfeiffer’s statements to a single sentence: “It is for the jury to decide whether the money the defendant gave Pfeiffer was a gift or payment for something else; or payment for sex.”

Whatever the outcome of the case, the verdict will not end Hecht’s public trials.

In November, he faces a fact-finding hearing before the judicial conduct commission. The hearing will determine whether Hecht violated judicial canons. The underlying allegations touch on the incidents associated with the Pierce County case.

Hecht denies the allegations.

The 10-member commission will decide whether to dismiss them or impose sanctions that could include recommending the Washington State Supreme Court remove Hecht from office.

Sean Robinson: 253-597-8486

sean.robinson@thenewstribune.com