« "Populist Prosecutorial Nullification" | Main | US Sentencing Commission releases data revealing COVID's impact on federal sentencings »

October 26, 2020

Court filing by California Gov seeks tougher rules for state’s death penalty

This local article, headlined "Newsom, California district attorneys seek tighter standards for application of death penalty," reports on a notable new court filing by Governor of California. Here are the details:

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has already declared a moratorium on executions in California, went a step further Monday with an unprecedented court filing that asserted the state’s death penalty law is applied in a racist manner against African Americans.

Newsom’s state Supreme Court filing did not call for abolition of the death penalty — an option narrowly rejected by California’s voters in 2012 and 2016 — but argued that a jury imposing a death sentence should be required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the proper punishment, rather than life in prison without parole.

The governor also said jurors should be allowed to consider factors favoring the death penalty, such as other violent acts by the defendant, only if they agreed unanimously that those events had occurred. Those standards would make it more difficult for prosecutors to persuade jurors to return a death sentence....

“Since its inception, the American death penalty has been disproportionately applied — first, to enslaved Africans and African Americans, and, later to free Black people. With this filing, we make clear that all Californians deserve the same right to a jury trial that is fair, and that it is a matter of life and death.”

The brief was the first ever filed by a California governor challenging the state’s application of the death penalty and calling for restrictions.  A similar brief was submitted in the same case Monday by four district attorneys — Chesa Boudin of San Francisco, Diana Becton of Contra Costa County, Jeffrey Rosen of Santa Clara County and Tori Verber Salazar of San Joaquin County — and two former district attorneys, George Gascón of San Francisco and Gil Garcetti of Los Angeles County.

The six have varying views on capital punishment, but said in their filing that they wanted to “ensure that the death sentence is chosen (if at all) for only the worst offenders and offenses.”

Boudin, who like every San Francisco district attorney since 1995 has vowed not to seek the death penalty, said, “California’s death penalty is not only inconsistent with the values of a humane society, but is administered in a racially biased way.” Gascón, San Francisco’s chief prosecutor from 2011 to 2019, is running for district attorney in Los Angeles.

Newsom issued an executive order in March 2019, his third month in office, suspending executions in California, which has not executed a prisoner since January 2006.  He said at the time that the death penalty “is inconsistent with our bedrock values and strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a Californian.”

The state has 711 inmates on Death Row — more than one-third of them Black, Newsom said in his court filing. African Americans are also much more likely than others to be arrested and searched by police and to be the victims of police violence, the governor’s lawyers told the court.

The moratorium on executions has not stopped most county prosecutors from seeking death sentences, and has not stopped Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office from defending those sentences before the state’s high court.

Monday’s filings were submitted in the case of Donte McDaniel, sentenced to death for fatally shooting two people in Los Angeles in 2004 in what prosecutors described as murders related to gangs and drugs.

In preparing for a hearing in McDaniel’s case, the state Supreme Court asked lawyers whether the California law should be interpreted to require jurors to decide beyond a reasonable doubt — the same standard required for convictions — whether death was the proper punishment.  The court also asked whether the law prohibits jurors from considering so-called aggravating factors, like a defendant’s past violent acts, unless they agree on those facts unanimously.

Newsom’s brief and the filing by the current and former prosecutors answered both questions affirmatively.  Requiring jurors to “unanimously determine beyond a reasonable doubt factually disputed aggravating evidence and the ultimate penalty verdict” are essential to preserving “the full protections of the jury right in capital sentencing,” said the governor’s lawyers, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Prof. Elisabeth Semel of the UC Berkeley Law School.

UPDATE: I came across the filing by the six current and former DAs, and it can be accessed at this link.  Here is the first paragraph of the filing's introduction:

On June 17, 2020, the Court asked the parties to address the following question: “Do Penal Code section 1042 and article I, section 16 of the California Constitution require that the jury unanimously determine beyond a reasonable doubt factually disputed aggravating evidence and the ultimate penalty verdict?”  This brief addresses that question from the perspective of four present district attorneys and two former district attorneys.  While these amici take different positions as to whether the death penalty should be abolished, they unanimously believe that death sentences are arbitrarily imposed under the current California death penalty statutes, and that the failure to construe the California Constitution and Penal Code Section 1042 to require the jury to choose death beyond a reasonable doubt and to unanimously find disputed facts relating to aggravating circumstances exacerbates the arbitrariness inherent in the State’s death penalty regime.

October 26, 2020 at 07:48 PM | Permalink

Comments

Requiring jurors to find death is the proper punishment beyond a reasonable doubt could perversely stack the deck against capital defendants anymore as it will be even easier for prosecutors to excuse jurors for cause. Death-qualified juries already give the state a major thumb on the scale in capital cases, and this would make the problem even worse. IIRC, Kozinski tried to do something about this problem years ago and was reversed by Kennedy et al.

Posted by: Poirot | Oct 27, 2020 12:23:57 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB