SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As two California prosecutors urge Gov. Gavin Newsom to preserve hundreds of death sentences, research documenting racial disparities in capital punishment and a pending constitutional challenge have placed renewed attention on how the state determines who receives the death penalty.
In an Oct. 21 Los Angeles Times opinion article, El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson and former Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert argued that Newsom should reject blanket commutations and instead review each case individually.
The governor is considering whether to commute some or all of California’s remaining death sentences to life without the possibility of parole. Approximately 560 people remain on death row.
California has not carried out an execution since 2006, and Newsom imposed a moratorium on executions in 2019. The death penalty remains legal, and courts continue to impose death sentences.
Pierson and Schubert argued that blanket commutations would disregard jury verdicts, judicial decisions and California voters’ repeated support for retaining capital punishment.
They cited voters’ rejection of death penalty repeal initiatives in 2012 and 2016, along with the approval of Proposition 66 in 2016, which was intended to accelerate death penalty appeals.
The prosecutors acknowledged that clemency can be appropriate in individual cases, including those involving wrongful convictions, but maintained that each sentence should be evaluated separately.
They cited the murders of 8-year-old Michael Lyons and 12-year-old Polly Klaas as examples of cases in which juries imposed death sentences after considering the evidence.
Robert Boyd Rhoades was sentenced to death for Lyons’ murder, while Richard Allen Davis received a death sentence for Klaas’ murder.
The prosecutors’ defense of individual death sentences comes as statewide research has identified significant disparities in the application of capital punishment.
A 2024 study published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies examined more than 27,000 California murder and manslaughter convictions involving offenses committed between 1978 and 2002.
Researchers Catherine Grosso, Jeffrey Fagan and Michael Laurence found that Black and Latino defendants were substantially more likely to receive death sentences than similarly situated white defendants after accounting for factors including culpability and statutory aggravating circumstances.
Depending on the statistical model, Black defendants faced between 4.6 and 8.7 times the odds of receiving a death sentence compared with similarly situated white defendants.
Latino defendants faced between 3.2 and 6.2 times the odds.
The researchers also found that defendants convicted of killing at least one white victim faced significantly higher odds of receiving a death sentence than those convicted of killing victims of other races, even after controlling for other legally relevant factors.
The study identified disparities at multiple stages of capital prosecutions, including charging decisions and sentencing outcomes.
A separate 2019 study published in the same journal examined 27,453 California murder and manslaughter convictions involving offenses committed between 1978 and 2002.
Researchers David Baldus, George Woodworth, Catherine Grosso, Michael Laurence, Jeffrey Fagan and Richard Newell found that approximately 95% of first-degree murder convictions were eligible for capital punishment under California’s 2008 statutory framework.
However, only 4.3% of death-eligible cases resulted in death sentences.
The researchers examined whether California’s broad eligibility provisions and sentencing practices complied with constitutional requirements intended to prevent arbitrary application of capital punishment.
Another study examining California homicides and death sentences between 1987 and 2019 identified substantial geographic disparities, finding that death sentencing rates varied significantly among counties.
The research findings have become part of a pending constitutional challenge to California’s death penalty system.
In April 2024, the California Office of the State Public Defender, the Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations filed a petition alleging that the state’s capital punishment system is administered in a racially discriminatory manner.
The case, Office of the State Public Defender v. Bonta, argues that racial disparities in capital charging and sentencing violate the California Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.
In May 2026, the California Supreme Court ordered the attorney general to show cause why relief should not be granted, allowing the challenge to proceed in Sacramento Superior Court.
The order did not determine that California’s death penalty system is unconstitutional. The lower court proceedings will examine the evidence and legal arguments presented by the parties.
Prosecutors opposing the petition have disputed the research and the requested statewide remedy.
The Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, which has intervened in the case, has argued that challenges to capital sentences should be addressed individually rather than through a statewide proceeding.
Riverside prosecutors have also questioned the relevance and reliability of the statistical evidence relied upon by the petitioners.
The Office of the State Public Defender has published the petition and related legal filings.
The dispute over death sentence commutations also involves differing views among homicide victims’ families.
In their Los Angeles Times article, Pierson and Schubert emphasized the experiences of surviving relatives and argued that blanket commutations could require families to confront additional clemency proceedings in the future.
They acknowledged that victims’ families do not all share the same position on capital punishment but maintained that their views should be considered individually.
Schubert also responded to a recent Davis Vanguard article about possible commutations, warning on Facebook that some death penalty opponents favor eliminating life without the possibility of parole.
In an Oct. 23 letter published by the Los Angeles Times, Judy Kerr, whose brother was murdered in 2003, challenged the prosecutors’ position.
Kerr, an opponent of capital punishment, argued that executions do not provide healing for victims’ families and that resources devoted to capital cases could instead support investigations of unsolved murders.
Research examining homicide survivors has also documented differing experiences with capital punishment.
In her 2012 book, Killing McVeigh: The Death Penalty and the Myth of Closure, Jody Lyneé Madeira examined the experiences of survivors and victims’ families following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Timothy McVeigh was convicted of carrying out the bombing, which killed 168 people, and was executed in June 2001.
Madeira documented differences among survivors over whether McVeigh should be executed, whether they wanted to witness the execution and whether carrying out the sentence would provide emotional resolution.
Some supported his execution, while others opposed it or questioned whether it would contribute to their healing.
A separate 2012 study published in the Marquette Law Review compared homicide survivors in Texas, which permits capital punishment, and Minnesota, which does not.
Researchers Marilyn Peterson Armour and Mark S. Umbreit found that survivors in Minnesota whose cases had been adjudicated reported better physical, psychological and behavioral health outcomes than their counterparts in Texas.
The researchers identified prolonged legal proceedings, including appeals and repeated court appearances, as possible factors affecting survivors’ experiences.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
