SACRAMENTO, Calif. — District attorneys and law enforcement organizations across California are condemning Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to pursue commutations of all 548 death sentences in the state, arguing that the sweeping action disregards jury verdicts, the wishes of crime victims’ families and voters who have repeatedly upheld capital punishment.
The opposition includes district attorneys from Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, Fresno, Tulare, Kern and San Luis Obispo counties, along with the California District Attorneys Association and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which represents more than 90,000 public safety personnel.
Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper also issued a personal appeal to Newsom, invoking the 2014 killings of Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Danny Oliver and Placer County Sheriff’s Detective Michael Davis Jr. by Luis Bracamontes, who was subsequently sentenced to death.
“Governor, I urge you to reconsider any proposal to commute the death sentences of all 548 people on death row, especially that of Luis Bracamontes,” Cooper wrote in a public statement. “This isn’t just about the death penalty. It’s about accountability, honoring the decisions of juries, respecting the will of California voters, and standing with the families of victims who have already suffered unimaginable loss.”
Cooper recalled responding to the crime scene and later watching Bracamontes in court as the victims’ families, including Oliver’s two young daughters, observed the proceedings.
“I went to that crime scene and remember every detail vividly,” Cooper wrote. “I also remember watching Bracamontes laugh in court while their families, including Danny’s two young daughters, had to sit and watch.”
Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho also criticized the governor’s announcement, arguing that capital cases require individualized consideration rather than a blanket decision.
“Any discussion about ending California’s capital punishment must begin with the victims, their families, and the communities forever impacted by the most heinous crimes,” Ho said in a statement provided to the Vanguard. “Justice requires case-by-case consideration, not one-size-fits-all decisions.”
Ho said death sentences follow extensive legal proceedings, including jury determinations and appellate review, and argued that commuting all sentences together disregards the differences among individual cases.
“A blanket commutation of all death sentences disregards the individualized facts and circumstances of each case, the careful judicial process that led to those lawful sentences, and the voices of victims who have waited decades for justice,” Ho said.
He identified several high-profile cases, including Charles Ng, Richard Allen Davis and Cary Stayner, whose convictions involved multiple murders.
Ho also pointed to California voters’ rejection of death penalty repeal initiatives in 2012 and 2016, and their approval of Proposition 66 in 2016, which sought to expedite capital punishment proceedings.
“We remain committed to enforcing the law as enacted by the people of California and to ensuring that the interests of victims, their families, and public safety remain at the center of our criminal justice system,” Ho said.
The California District Attorneys Association issued a statewide statement Thursday condemning the proposed commutations.
Association President Jeannine Pacioni said the decision disregards individual sentencing judgments and the families affected by those cases.
“With the stroke of a pen, Governor Newsom has disregarded the decisions of hundreds of jurors and judges, and the anguish of families who lost loved ones to the worst crimes imaginable,” Pacioni said.
Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer offered one of the strongest responses, characterizing the governor’s decision as an act of mercy toward individuals convicted of serious crimes at the expense of victims and their families.
“Governor Gavin Newsom’s commutation of the death sentences of all 548 condemned inmates in California is mercy for the wolves and while inflicting the ultimate act of cruelty on the sheep,” Spitzer said in a statement released by his office.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman took a more measured position, acknowledging the governor’s constitutional clemency authority while emphasizing that California’s death penalty law remains in effect.
“The Governor has chosen to commute existing death sentences to life without the possibility of parole, as is within his constitutional power,” Hochman said. “But that power does not extend to eliminating the death penalty. Only the Legislature or the voters can do that.”
Hochman said his office would continue evaluating death penalty-eligible cases under existing California law.
“Until the law is changed, my office will continue to evaluate every death penalty-eligible case with the rigor, care and restraint these decisions demand,” he said.
In San Bernardino County, District Attorney Jason Anderson accused Newsom of disregarding victims’ rights and pursuing political objectives, while citing the case of Kevin Cooper, who was sentenced to death for the 1983 murders of four people in Chino Hills.
Anderson questioned whether the governor had consulted surviving victims and families before announcing the commutations.
“The Governor is concerned with politics, not people,” Anderson said in a statement. “The Governor ignores victims’ and their families’ constitutional rights with this decision.”
Central Valley prosecutors also issued objections.
Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp said 11 individuals sentenced to death for crimes prosecuted in her county would be affected, while Tulare County District Attorney Tim Ward identified 15 people sentenced to death in connection with crimes committed in Tulare County.
Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer indicated that she intended to challenge the commutations, raising the possibility of legal proceedings over the governor’s exercise of clemency authority.
San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow condemned the move and cited the families of Rachel Newhouse, Aundria Crawford and Kesha Gurke, victims in two capital cases prosecuted in his county.
“Juries chose justice case by case, voters chose it five times, and one outgoing governor is trying to erase it all with a pen,” Dow said. “This is a sickening abuse of power.”
The Peace Officers Research Association of California, known as PORAC, also opposed Newsom’s announcement, expressing concern that converting death sentences to life without parole could expose victims’ families to future proceedings involving additional sentence reductions.
PORAC President Brian R. Marvel said families who have endured lengthy court proceedings deserve certainty about the sentences imposed.
“Governor Newsom has unilaterally set aside the sentences imposed in each of these 548 cases, after juries, trial judges, and reviewing courts completed their work,” Marvel said.
“Those families deserve a clear explanation of why the punishment imposed for the murder of their loved ones is being reduced in every case, without regard to the individual facts.”
PORAC also disclosed that it has joined the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in litigation challenging Board of Parole Hearings regulations establishing procedures for recommending sentence reductions for certain incarcerated people, including some serving life without parole.
That lawsuit concerns the parole board’s authority and is separate from any potential legal challenge to Newsom’s death sentence commutations.
The governor’s announcement Thursday initiated a process that would replace death sentences with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole while leaving the underlying convictions intact.
Newsom defended his decision in an open letter to Californians, arguing that California’s death penalty system is inconsistent with the state’s values and poses an unacceptable risk of irreversible injustice.
“I take this action because I firmly believe that state-sanctioned killing is incompatible with California’s values, undermines the foundation of our legal system, and diminishes each of us,” Newsom wrote.
The governor’s clemency authority is established by Article V, Section 8 of the California Constitution. Of the 548 proposed commutations, 166 can proceed after the required notice period, while 382 involving people with multiple felony convictions require the recommendation of at least four California Supreme Court justices.
In an interview Thursday with the Vanguard, Natasha Minsker, director of the California Anti-Death Penalty Coalition, explained that the court’s role in reviewing clemency requests is limited.
“Well, the Supreme Court has put forward a memo explaining how they approach these questions, and their standard is an abuse of discretion,” Minsker said. “What that means is they’ve recognized the governor, the role of clemency is unique to the governor. The governor has wide authority to commute sentences.”
Minsker said the review is intended to identify potential abuses such as corruption or conflicts of interest rather than determine whether the justices personally favor a commutation.
“The classic example would be someone paid or gave a donation in order to get a commutation,” she said. “That’s what they’re looking for. That does not apply here.”
The California Supreme Court outlined its approach in a 2018 administrative order, explaining that its role is not to decide whether an individual deserves mercy but whether a proposed exercise of executive clemency would constitute an abuse of the governor’s constitutional authority.
In that order, the court described its recommendation as an acknowledgment that the governor may legitimately consider granting clemency rather than an instruction that clemency should be granted.
Minsker said she believes Newsom’s decision falls within that authority.
“Granting a commutation to spare someone’s life from execution, that is the most traditional use of the commutation power,” she said. “And this is something the court should approve. How quickly they will act, we don’t know.”
The governor has not yet formally completed the commutations, according to the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, and the California Supreme Court has not yet issued its recommendations in the 382 cases submitted for review.
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.
