Local Elections : Amos, Wickersham Seek Superior Court Seat : Rivals Approach the Bench in Own Way

To hear longtime political consultant Joseph Cerrell tell it, to challenge a sitting judge for an open judicial seat is like starting a race as the odds-on favorite to lose.

“Frankly, I have known very few instances where a judge running for an open seat has not been able to prevail over a deputy district attorney, or a city attorney, or you name it,” said Cerrell, whose Los Angeles firm has represented dozens of judicial candidates over the years.

Charles Wickersham, a deputy district attorney, concedes that a sitting judge enjoys an edge over his opponents. Nevertheless, the 48-year-old prosecutor said he decided last spring to enter the race for a seat on the San Diego County Superior Court and to take his chances against San Diego Municipal Court Judge E. Mac Amos.

The reason, Wickersham explained, is that as the successful prosecutor of former Mayor Roger Hedgecock, he believes the media attention he received made him, if not a household word, at least less of a stranger to voters.

“I felt the success I had in the Hedgecock trial gave me a chance,” said Wickersham, whose wife has filled three scrapbooks with newspaper articles chronicling his role in the Hedgecock case. “I have some basic name recognition to build on.”

Wickersham is banking on that recognition as the November general election draws near--an election made necessary after neither he nor Amos won the necessary 50% of the votes cast in June’s primary to avoid a runoff. A third candidate, Thomas Waddell, won 14.9% of the votes, while Wickersham and Amos won 40.1% and 44.3%, respectively.

While politicking last spring, Wickersham, a career prosecutor, predicted he was the candidate to beat for the seat being vacated by Superior Court Judge Earl H. Maas, who is retiring.

In an interview last week, he could not offer an answer why he was not victorious. Nor could he explain how Waddell, a former prosecutor who once was Wickersham’s immediate boss at the district attorney’s office, managed to garner as many votes as he did.

Whatever the reasons, Wickersham is now intent on drawing a clear distinction between himself and Amos, a generally soft-spoken man who was appointed to Municipal Court by then-Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., in August, 1982, and later elected and then reelected in 1984 to a six-year term by voters.

“The major difference between us is that I am taking a stand,” Wickersham said in an interview this week. “I am committed to being a tough judge.”

Wickersham, who has spent 20 years as a prosecutor, does not hesitate to discuss his law-and-order ideology. He said he is interested in seeing “justice done” and predicts the courts will “grind to a halt” if legal procedures are not simplified. He also said the courts have gone too far in recent years to protect people accused of crimes.

“My whole position is that the criminal justice (system) is out of sync, it is out of kilter,” Wickersham said. “If you liken it to a pendulum, it has swung too far center toward protecting the rights of the person accused of a crime and away from protecting society. And that has happened over a period of 20 years at least.”

Wickersham, who has won endorsements from four law enforcement groups, also speaks out against state Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird, who is fighting to retain her seat on the court in this fall’s election.

“She is a leader of a liberal court, and she is probably the most liberal justice on that court, and that is why I oppose her,” he said.

Despite his strong opinions--which Wickersham concedes probably antagonize some people--he said his personal beliefs would not prevent him from being a fair judge if he was elected.

“How can you be a human being without having convictions?” he asked. “. . . If I am elected, I will very carefully follow the law. But at the same time, I am not going to be a social activist.”

Wickersham is still upset by the “qualified” rating that the San Diego County Bar Assn. gave him, while handing his opponent its highest evaluation, a “well-qualified” rating. Such ratings, which are used by a number of bar associations, are important in issue-less and little-publicized judicial elections because many voters rely on them for guidance.

Although he said he does not have any proof, Wickersham believes his “qualified” rating--Cerrell said such a rating is equivalent to receiving a “C” on a school report card--was hastily done and was “political” in nature.

(Bar association President John M. Seitman said the rating, which is arrived at after judges and attorneys fill out questionnaires evaluating the character and performance of the candidate, was not done haphazardly and was objective.).

“If I don’t deserve a ‘well-qualified’ rating,” Wickersham said, “then it is difficult to say how anyone in (the district attorney’s) office does.”

Amos, 43, takes great pride in his “well-qualified” rating. His campaign literature boasts that he was the only candidate of the three to receive it--much to the chagrin of Wickersham.

Additionally, Amos said, he has received the support of nine past bar association presidents, and takes delight in the fact that Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr., who presided over the Hedgecock case, contributed $100 to his campaign, not Wickersham’s.

Amos said he, like Wickersham, supports the death penalty. And he said he has disagreed with many of the decisions that Bird has written. However, he declines to state whether he supports or opposes her.

“I just don’t think it is proper for a sitting judge to attack a justice,” Amos said.

Amos dismisses the contention that he refuses to let voters know where he stands on the issues, saying he does not understand the meaning of the phrase, “to be a tough judge.”

“There have been instances where I have imposed tougher sentences than the district attorney has recommended,” he said.

Rather, Amos points to his resume, saying he is better suited to be a Superior Court judge by virtue of his experience on the lower court, as well as his experience as a prosecutor and as an attorney in private practice. He said his background gives him a greater understanding of civil law than his opponent, who has largely practiced criminal law for the past two decades as a prosecutor.

If there is an issue in the race, it boils down to a simple one, Amos said. “I think the issue is who is best qualified, and that is what the voters have to decide.”