Senator Leland Yee has been pushing for the end of life without parole sentences for juveniles for several years now and his legislation, SB 9, awaits the governor’s signature. In the meantime, the State Supreme Court has overturned a death sentence based on prosecutorial misconduct by a former DA, now a Santa Clara judge.
Meanwhile, in Ohio, a potential exoneree has balked at taking an Alford Plea that would have resulted in his release from prison after 24 years. At issue is Brady Material, exculpatory information that must be released to the defense by the prosecution, and now a deceased witness.
Legislator Pushed Governor to Sign SB 9 Ending Juvenile LWOP
Senator Leland Yee has been pushing for the end of life without parole sentences for juveniles for several years now and, as said, his legislation, SB 9, awaits the governor’s signature.
In a release yesterday, Senator Yee’s office said, “While many law enforcement organizations have opposed Senate Bill 9, several public safety leaders today joined child advocates, medical professionals, faith communities, and civil rights groups to urge Governor Jerry Brown to sign legislation that would give youth serving life without parole an opportunity to earn a second chance.”
“SB 9 holds youth responsible for their actions, but also creates a strong system of checks and balances that provides a chance for young offenders to prove they have changed – both to a judge and to a parole board,” said George Gascón, San Francisco District Attorney and former San Francisco Police Chief.
“As a law enforcement professional for over 30 years, I know first-hand the importance of protecting our communities and ensuring that individuals who commit serious offenses are sentenced appropriately,” said Mr. Gascón. “However, I also recognize the high costs of incarcerating youth who are sentenced to LWOP – as much as $90 million per year nationwide – and the ability of young people to reform their behavior and be rehabilitated as they mature. That is why I am urging the Governor to sign SB9 into law.”
“When California condemns a young person to life behind bars, it utterly disregards the human capacity for rehabilitation and ignores the very real physical and psychological differences between children and adults,” said Ronald Hampton, Executive Director of Blacks in Law Enforcement of America. “Punishment should reflect the capacity of young people to change and mature”
“Children do not have adult levels of judgment, impulse control, or ability to assess risks and researchers estimate that many will not reach full adult cognitive development until the age of 25,” said Carl Wicklund, Executive Director of the American Probation and Parole Association. “Therefore, it is irresponsible to impose an irrevocable sentence on youth who still have the ability to grow and develop positively.”
While no other country in the world sentences youth to life without parole, there are approximately 300 offenders who have been sentenced to die in California’s prisons for crimes they committed as juveniles.
Governor Brown will have until September 30 to sign or veto SB 9.
“I am pleased to see many members of the law enforcement community realize that SB 9 is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it is an incredibly modest proposal that respects victims, international law, and the fact that children have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults,” said the bill’s author, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo).
“The neuroscience is clear – brain maturation continues well through adolescence and thus impulse control, planning, and critical thinking skills are not yet fully developed,” said Yee, who is a child psychologist. “SB 9 reflects that science and provides the opportunity for compassion and rehabilitation that we should exercise with minors.”
Under Senate Bill 9, courts could review cases of juveniles sentenced to life without parole after 15 years, potentially allowing some individuals to receive a new minimum sentence of 25 years to life. The bill would require the offender to show remorse and be working toward rehabilitation in order to submit a petition for consideration of the new sentence.
California Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence, Citing Prosecutorial Misconduct
The San Jose Mercury News reported recently that the California Supreme Court overturned a double-homicide death sentence, “finding that the prosecution’s failure to turn over key evidence tainted his 1987 trial.”
The California Supreme Court has rarely overturned death sentences, but they “ordered a new penalty phase trial for Miguel Bacigalupo, who was sent to death row for the 1983 slayings of two brothers in their San Jose jewelry store. The Supreme Court left Bacigalupo’s murder convictions intact, but concluded that prosecutorial misconduct could have altered the jury’s death sentence recommendation.”
“Substantial evidence supports the (lower court’s) determination and it is reasonably probable that petitioner’s penalty phase jury would have returned a verdict of life in prison without parole had it heard the evidence withheld by the prosecution,” Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the court.
The paper reports that the court “largely followed the findings of a superior court judge assigned to explore allegations that the lead prosecutor, current Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Joyce Allegro, and her lead investigator decades ago did not reveal crucial evidence to the defense that a Colombian drug cartel was involved in the crime.”
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Judge Allegro has served on the bench since 1998.
Judge Richard Arnason of Contra Costa County ruled that “the prosecutor’s office withheld critical evidence from Bacigalupo’s lawyers.”
The Chronicle indicates “an informant had told Sandra Williams, a district attorney’s investigator, that the informant’s then-boyfriend had ordered the Guerrero brothers killed because they had stolen drugs from him. The boyfriend, Jose Angarita, had connections to a Colombian drug cartel and met with Bacigalupo the night before the murders, Arnason said.”
The Chronicle reports, “After defense lawyers learned about Angarita in a police report, Arnason said, Williams falsely told them he had not been involved in the killings. The D.A.’s investigator also told the informant not to talk about Angarita’s role during a closed-door legal hearing in 1985, Arnason said.”
The cover-up prevented defense attorneys from identifying the informant, who is now deceased, and calling her as a witness, the Supreme Court said.
The Chronicle reports, “Prosecutors argued that they had met their legal duties by turning over the police report to Bacigalupo’s lawyers. But the court, in an opinion by Justice Joyce Kennard, said prosecutors had violated their obligation to disclose all evidence potentially helpful to the defense.
“It is ‘reasonably probable’ that jurors would have sentenced Bacigalupo to life in prison if they had heard the evidence, Kennard said.”
Appellate attorney Robert Bryan indicated that the case revealed “corruption and fraud” in the prosecutor’s office.
The Chronicle reports, “He said Allegro, who derided Bacigalupo’s claim of coercion to the jury, must have known there was evidence in her files to support that claim, and should be sanctioned by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.”
“Our system doesn’t work properly when this type of thing occurs,” Mr. Bryan told the Mercury News.
The Chronicle indicates that the county’s current DA, Jeffrey Rosen, found misconduct by the DA Investigator Williams but “that the extent of Allegro’s knowledge and responsibility remains unclear.”
He told the Mercury News, “Any time you have a death penalty decision overturned, it should have everyone in the DA’s office refocusing and making sure they’re turning over all information they’re supposed to.”
Mr. Rosen will decide whether to seek another death sentence within six months. Given the fact that the informant is dead and considering the current nature of the state’s death penalty system, it seems unlikely they will seek to reinstate the sentence.
Potential Alford Plea Taken Back
The Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting today that former death row inmate Michael Keenan “was prepared to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter Wednesday for a 1988 slaying if he could walk out of the Justice Center a free man.”
However, the paper reports, “The proposed plea deal with county prosecutors hit a snag when Keenan balked at the prospect of spending five years under supervised release with regular visits to a parole officer.”
Mr. Keenan and Joe D’Ambrosio had spent nearly twenty years on death row for the 1988 killing. Mr. D’Ambrosio “was freed in 2009 after a federal judge determined that evidence that could have exonerated him had been withheld from his trial attorneys. In April, a federal judge ruled that Keenan had to be tried again or have his murder conviction set aside.”
For the plea, Mr. Keenan would have been forced to admit involvement in the death, something that he has denied. He was willing to take it because the plea would have allowed for his immediate release after 24 years in prison – most of it on death row.
Prosecutors will have difficulty if the case goes to trial: the only witness in this case died in 2009 and his prior testimony is now inadmissible.
The paper adds, “Prosecutors also will have to deal with evidence that could have exonerated Keenan and D’Ambrosio, but was withheld from defense attorneys at their previous trials.
“A Catholic priest who befriended D’Ambrosio in prison helped lawyers uncover the evidence that could have exonerated both men. That evidence included police statements that concluded Klann [the victim] could not have been killed at Doan Brook as Espinoza [witness] claimed and that another man connected to the case had a possible motive for killing Klann.”
–David M. Greenwald reporting
I agree with Mr. Gascon that sentences should be appropriate for the crimes committed. I hope SB 9 is just the beginning to changing sentencing guidelines. Some of the sentences given are utterly ridiculous.
You would think that prosecutorial misconduct would be a crime; Some how I have a feeling that the former DA who committed prosecutorial misconduct will remain a judge with no repercussions.
Here we go again about prosecutorial misconduct. It’s only going to stop when prosecutors are sent to prison for it. What a shame that DA’s are given so much power and when they abuse it, nothing happens. You wonder what it will take to wake people up about this?
Thanks David for bringing these stories to light. You might want to fix the heading for the second story.
Nemesis, i will – just getting here – thanks!
Not sure I could support one set of rules if one defendant is 17 1/2, and another was 18 1/2, assuming the exact same crime.