WILL OF VOTERS V. WILL OF LAWYER

Kathy Mount is taking her judicial campaign to Sacramento.

Since finishing third in the June election for a seat on the Alameda County bench, Mount has contacted the governor’s office about seeking a superior court appointment. And from the looks of things, she’s getting serious consideration.

Last week, Mount said the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission asked her to send in mailing labels with addresses for her 100-plus references, a sign that her name is moving quickly through the review process. She has also been asked to meet with the Alameda County Bar Association committee that evaluates judicial appointments, and forwards its own recommendations to the capitol.

But coming on the heels of the June election, in which Mount was widely expected to finish in first or second place, she said she is taking nothing for granted.

“I have been very gratified by [the JNE Commission review]. Doesn’t mean I’ll get appointed. It just means they’ll give me due consideration, and that’s all I can ask for,” said Mount, a partner at Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson in Oakland.

Public interest attorney Dennis Hayashi finished first in the June election with 31 percent of the vote. Deputy County Counsel Sandra Bean took second place with 21 percent, three points ahead of Mount. Hayashi and Bean will face off again in the November election.

� Matthew Hirsch



GOOD FOR E.T., NOT FOR CLIENTS

Clifton Terrell Jr.’s story may serve as a lesson to murder suspects everywhere: Resist the urge to call your momma.

When he was tried in San Francisco Superior Court for the murdering the son of a state senator, the trial court excluded Terrell’s confession to police. But the court allowed the prosecution to use a secretly recorded phone call Terrell made to his mother and three other relatives right after his interrogators left the room.

“He tried to grab the gun, and I pulled away and it went off,” he told his mother.

The trial judge allowed a videotape and transcript of the call to be used at trial, and last week, the First District Court of Appeal backed him up in a published opinion. So, for now, Terrell’s sentence to life without the possibility of parole stands firm.

Terrell’s appellate attorney, San Francisco solo Victor Morse, said the defense plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. “As my client testified at trial, he had no independent memory of committing this crime.”

At last year’s trial, Terrell testified he spent the night of the crime taking ecstasy, drinking Hennessey, smoking dope and driving around the city with three other men. He said he passed out in the car, that when he came to only Dwayne Reed was still with him, and that before ordering him out of the car Reed said Terrell had shot a “dude.” Terrell said he didn’t know what Reed was talking about, and it was only later, when he saw a story about the shooting on the news, that he grew scared he might have killed Hunter McPherson.

Reed testified that the two of them had robbed two other couples that evening, but that he stayed in the car when Terrell got out to rob McPherson and his companion.

Morse, Terrell’s appellate attorney, said last week that his client just regurgitated what Reed had told him after police exploited his fear of the death penalty. “Only much later did he start to question that.”

The First District concluded the prosecution overcame any obstacles it might have faced because it was Terrell’s idea to call his mother.

“He was not motivated by any desire for help or leniency from the police, but solely to obtain emotional support and comfort from his family,” Justice Sandra Margulies wrote. “Defendant’s telephonic confession was not tainted because the police did not obtain it by any deliberate exploitation of his first confession.”

Justices William Stein and Douglas Swager concurred in the published ruling, People v. Terrell, 06 C.D.O.S. 7241.

� Pam Smith