Proposition 57 Unmasked: A Detailed Analysis of the Misleading Initiative

By Michele Hanisee

Proposition 57 is a many headed monster that will wreak havoc on public safety. It allows the early release of inmates serving time in state prison for violent and non-violent offenses through parole grants or accelerated sentence credits. In addition, it changes the juvenile system by disallowing prosecutors to directly charge juveniles who commit murder, rape, or other heinous crimes. Instead, a Judge will decide based on criteria that ensures few, if any, juveniles will be charged as adults.

In order to explain the various provisions, a detailed handout has been prepared which breaks out the adult parole components of Prop. 57. That handout is posted on our website and can be downloaded if you click here.

The initiative, misleadingly titled “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act” is so sloppily and poorly drafted; that it is necessary to go step by step through multiple Penal Code sections to understand why, contrary to the false claims by Governor Brown, Prop. 57 will give violent felons, including rapists, child molesters and murderers, early release from state prison. As my colleague Eric Siddall pointed out in a previous column, the Governor’s spokesperson was forced to admit that Prop. 57 will allow the early release of violent inmates.

The fact sheet includes sentencing examples that illustrate the drastic changes to parole eligibility that will occur in the case of serious felonies, strike priors and sex crimes. A reference to multiple voter enacted initiatives that Prop. 57 contradicts and overrides, such as “Three Strikes,” “The Victim’s Bill of Rights” and “Marsy’s law,” is also included.

I urge everyone to review the document, “Facts About Proposition 57.”

Recent news provides additional reasons for defeat of Governor’s early release initiative

By Eric Siddall 

Two events this past week sharpened the focus on why Proposition 57, Governor Brown’s initiative to release early tens of thousands of state inmates, is a dangerous experiment that should be rejected by voters.

The first was news that crime is continuing to rise in Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles for a second straight year.  As reported by the Los Angeles Times, this rise in crime “continues last year’s trend across California. Statewide, violent offenses jumped 10% and property offenses 8% compared…”  We have written about this rise in the crime rate since the passage of Proposition 47, including the fact that California’s property crime rate has risen while in the next five biggest states the property crime rate has dropped.  Proposition 47, AB 109, and re-alignment-all early release experiments-have led to flood of convicted felons on our streets.

The second piece of news was the denial of parole to Manson family killer Leslie Van Houten.  We strongly opposed a release  approved by two members of the  Board of Parole, and are glad Governor Brown overturned the parole board and blocked her release. This is not the first time these unelected bureaucrats made the wrong call with the governor reversing. This happened with the murderer of a San Diego Police Officer Archie Buggs.  In another case, a felon convicted of conspiring to kill Los Angeles Police Detective Thomas Williams was granted parole and only after the governor ordered the parole board to reconsider was the parole grant rescinded.

These two pieces of news relate to each other because Proposition 57 will allow the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) staff to invent new sentence credits to ensure state prisoners are granted early. In addition, these same bureaucrats who want to grant early release for cop killers, will now have constitutional authority to grant early release by allowing inmates to avoid serving time imposed by judges for sentence enhancements. This constitutional mandate will make the governor, the legislature, the courts, and prosecutors powerless to stop or reverse their decisions. Proposition means this: No checks. No balances. CDCR and the parole board will have absolute power when it comes to the early release of murders and rapist.

Proposition 57 will simply pour an accelerant on the crime rate increase in California.  It is an insult to crime victims, an undeserved gift to convicted criminals, dangerous to citizens everywhere-and must be defeated.

State Legislature again moving to tilt playing field in favor of criminals

By Eric Siddall 

The latest assault on the criminal justice system is a little gem called AB 1909.

This piece of legislation would make it a felony punishable by up to three years in prison for any prosecuting attorney to withhold or falsify evidence. Nothing wrong with that, right? Wrong.

Why? Because the bill targets prosecutors but says nothing about defense attorneys. So, by inference, it would be OK for defense attorneys to “intentionally and in bad faith alter, modify, or withhold” evidence.

We fully agree that prosecutors should be held to the highest of standards, and we have no tolerance for those who flaunt the rules. But these standards should apply to all attorneys in the criminal justice system – defense and prosecutors alike.

The current system acknowledges this. Both sides have equal responsibilities to disclose evidence before a trial begins. As a result, the playing field is even. AB 1909, by contrast, tilts the playing field to benefit defense attorneys and the criminals they represent.

AB 1909 would be troublesome enough if it existed in a vacuum. But, unfortunately, it isn’t an outlier or a random piece of legislation.

AB 1909 is part of a pattern of attacks on public safety and crime victims, and it must be considered in the contest of other troubling pro-criminal ballot initiatives, legislation and judicial decisions. Such as Prop. 47, which has flooded the street with violent felons, contributing to a surge in crime throughout the state. And Gov. Brown’s felon-freeing November ballot initiative, which would make felons eligible for parole after serving 50 percent of the sentence for their primary offense – regardless of any enhancements that had been added onto the sentence, and regardless of previous strikes for brutal crimes such as rape and murder. And a judge’s recent decision to give a gentle slap on the wrist to a Stanford student who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman.

Not surprisingly, the liberal-dominated State Assembly passed AB 1909 by a 60-18 vote. The Senate’s Public Safety Committee subsequently approved it by a 6-1 vote, and it is now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The ADDA will lobby hard against this latest piece of misguided legislation, and will keep our membership informed about our efforts and the status of the bill.

Gov. Brown rightly rejects parole for Manson family murderer

By Michele Hanisee

The ADDA commends Gov. Jerry Brown for denying parole to brutal murderer Leslie Van Houten.

Brown on Friday rejected the state parole board’s recommendation to grant parole to the Manson family member.

Van Houten originally was  sentenced to death for holding down Rosemary LaBianca on Aug. 10, 1969 so fellow Manson-follower Tex Watson could skewer her with a bayonet. Then, she took a knife and stabbed the helpless woman 14 more times in the back. Her sentence was commuted to life in prison only because the California Supreme Court struck down the death penalty.

The parole board turned down Van Houten’s requests to be freed 19 times before a two-member panel in April inexplicably recommended to free her.

Brown, however, correctly ruled that Van Houten posed “an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison,” according to the Los Angeles Times. In his five-page decision, Brown cited the brutality of the crime itself, the mark that the Manson followers’ crimes left on society, their motive to trigger a race war by randomly slaughtering innocent people, and Van Houten’s admission more than two years after the murders that she would have no difficulty killing someone again.

However, Brown’s unequivocal ruling is not the end of the line for Van Houten. She will have future parole hearings, and her lawyer said he will challenge Brown’s decision in court.

The ADDA will keep you updated on the status of Van Houten’s case.

Competing death penalty initiatives could spur confusion Prop. 66 will preserve and reform the death penalty system

By Michele Hanisee

This November, California voters will be presented with two of the most important ballot initiatives in state history.

One – Proposition 66 – would preserve the death penalty for the most heinous criminals by enacting critically needed reforms to the system.

The other – Proposition 62 – would scrap the death penalty, allowing criminals who kill cops or rape and murder children to live out their lives in the relative comfort of prison.

I cannot overstate the importance of supporting Prop. 66, and doing everything we can – no matter how small – to educate others about it. If Prop. 66 fails, and California scraps the death penalty, the kind of brutal criminals who ambushed and slaughtered five police officers in Dallas Thursday night would only face life in prison if they committed those crimes here.

To be sure, the problems with California’s current death penalty system are by no means new, and they have literally transformed a death sentence into life without parole. Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, the state has executed only 13 inmates. A quarter of the 700-plus inmates on California’s death row have been there for more than 25 years. The average death-row inmate has spent 16 years with a death sentence.

One of the primary problems is the endless inmate appeal process of their death sentences. Prop. 66 would fix this problem, and many more.

Among other things, it would require that a defendant who is sentenced to death be appointed a lawyer at the time of sentence, meaning the defendant’s appeal will be heard sooner. It would also allow the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to reduce the cost of housing death-row inmates, and make it easier for the department to enact an execution protocol.

As we said in earlier posts, failure to pass this initiative is not an option; not only would Prop. 62 eliminate the death penalty going forward, but it would apply retroactively to people already sentenced to death.

You can sign up for campaign email updates, and volunteer for and donate to the campaign, by visiting the Californians for Death Penalty Reform and Savings website and clicking on the links on the right side of the home page. 

California’s Legislature blazes new path in deterring dangerous activities

By Michele Hanisee

The California Legislature has come up with a brilliant way to keep our youth from using a dangerous product that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year, and leads to billions in medical costs. Make the product legal to possess and use! Wait, what?

Several months ago the California Legislature passed, and Governor Brown signed, Senate Bill 7 raising the age to be able to purchase tobacco products in California to 21. According to the bill’s author, this legislation was necessary to prevent or severely restrict youth access to these “highly addictive and deadly products that lead to a lifetime of adverse health effects.” That underage age use leads to use as an adult is confirmed by a National Survey on Drug Use and Health, finding 80% of tobacco users start before age 18.

However, what SB 7 also did was eliminate prior law making it a crime for those under 18 to possess, receive or purchase tobacco products. The penalties were hardly draconian-a fine of up to $75 and up to 30 hours of community service could be imposed by a Judge for minors caught possessing or buying tobacco products. In short, a small but meaningful consequence to deter behavior.

In its infinite wisdom, the California Legislature decided the way to deter smoking was only to make it a crime to sell or furnish tobacco products to those under 21. However, thanks to the Legislature, once those under 21 get tobacco products, they can possess and smoke them with abandon. Or, to borrow the catchphrase from the child’s game hide and seek allowing those hiding to come out without losing, smokers under age 21 have been given the “olly olly oxen free” chant by the Legislature.

It’s simply brilliant of the Legislature to discourage an activity by making it legal to engage in that activity. Next up, to address the property crime wave created by Prop 47 making thefts under $950 consequence free, expect a bill legalizing the possession of stolen property!

Heckuva job, California Legislature, heckuva job.

Those Who Care About Victims of Sex Crimes Should Oppose Gov. Brown’s Initiative

By Michele Hanisee

The Senate Public Safety Committee recently passed AB 2888 in response to the outrage in California and across the country over the probation sentence given to Stanford swimmer Brock Turner for his sexual assault of an unconscious woman.

AB 2888 would make prison mandatory for anyone convicted of eight specific sexual assault crimes, with most of those changes affecting sex crimes involving alcohol and any other “intoxicating or anesthetic substance.”  However, this legislation (which I suggested in a recent blog) will be drastically undercut should Governor Brown’s initiative, providing for early release of sex offenders and other violent felons, pass this November.

The reaction to the Brock Turner sentence reflects the thinking of most people that sex offenses are degrading crimes that must be punished by meaningful incarceration.  Even those considered liberal on crime and punishment such as State Senator Mark Leno weighed in to support the bill, with Leno referring to the sex crimes covered by the bill as “despicable crimes.”  I say most, because predictably the ACLU was opposed, claiming mandatory prison sentences punish communities of color.  No doubt sex offenders were grateful for the undying support of the ACLU.

However, this well intentioned bill and all other current laws punishing sex offenses are about to be drastically undercut by Governor Brown’s initiative.  These include laws punishing sex crimes such as rape of an unconscious person, rape by use of an intoxicating substance, or rape where the victim was legally incapable of giving consent.  Likewise, Penal Code Section 667.6, subdivision (c), permitting the imposition of a full, separate, and consecutive term for each violation of certain sex offenses and subdivision (d), permitting the imposition of a full, separate and consecutive term for additional crimes involving different victims or the same victim on a separate occasion, will be gutted by Governor Brown’s initiative.

How are these sex crimes law eviscerated?  As the California District Attorneys Association analysis explains, Governor Brown’s initiative rewards prison inmates by allowing them to only serve the term for one count for which they were convicted (their “primary offense.”)  Any additional time they were sentenced to by a judge, be it a consecutive sentence as in Penal Code section 667.6 or an enhancement for harm done or loss caused, can be ignored and the inmate paroled. Thus inmates convicted of sex assaults against multiple victims will only have to serve the same amount of time as inmates who committed one sexual assault against one victim.

Other laws affecting sexual offenses, such as those aimed at human trafficking, are likewise gutted. Governor Brown’s initiative allows for consecutive sentences for multiple victims of a human trafficker to be disregarded.  In addition, the initiative allows for increased “conduct credits” for all inmates, including those convicted of human trafficking, thereby providing these inmates an earlier release from prison.

Governor Brown’s initiative devalues victims of sex offenses by allowing inmates to escape increased prison sentences imposed for multiple offenses or multiple victims.  Those who believe every sex assault victim deserves a measure of justice by having the person who assaulted them serve time in state prison should oppose Governor Brown’s initiative.

Likewise, those who believe every victim of human trafficking deserves individual justice, and that the person trafficked should serve time for every person they put into sex slavery, should oppose Governor Brown’s initiative.   As I perused the list of the legislators who supported AB 2888 and their reasons why, I wondered how many of them will be opposing Governor Brown’s initiative?

Prisoner, Prisons and Jails-A Reality Check Which Includes A Discussion About Victims

By Michele Hanisee

Several pieces in the Los Angeles Times regarding prisoners, mental health, and TV shows portraying same caught my eye, and frankly, require a response.  It is clear that a false narrative is developing of state prisons packed with non-violent offenders.  Baloney.

It’s important that any discussion be guided by facts, not anecdotes or singular cases. First, a little statistical analysis courtesy of the California Department of Corrections is in order.  California’s most current “Prison Census Data” ending December 31, 2013, tells a revealing story about the 128,211 male and 6,128 female inmates serving time in state prison.  More than 70% of the total inmate population is serving time for “Crimes Against Persons.”  What are “Crimes Against Persons” as defined by the report: “Murder, Manslaughter, Robbery, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Assault/Battery, Lewd Acts with a Child, Oral Copulation, Sodomy, Penetration with a Foreign Object, ‘Other Sex Offenses’, and Kidnapping.”

But wait, what about those “non-violent offenders” and “drug offenders” filling our prisons?  Well, 6% of inmates were convicted of the “non- violent” offense of residential burglary,less than one percent are in for all other “property crimes.”  Those in for “non-violent” drug offenses include inmates convicted of possessing, selling or manufacturing drugs, and they represent just more than 8% of the prison population.  The oft-touted “inmate in for marijuana,” that is the person serving time for marijuana sales, represented .03% of the inmate population; those for possession of marijuana a whopping 0.0%.

I detail those statistics above to remind those who opine on the criminal justice system that the inmates represent real people who have suffered.  No, not the inmate, their victims. The victims who did not make a decision, as did the 70% of prison inmates, to engage in a violent crime. They, instead, were subjected to the awful trauma inflicted on them by the inmates. The resources provided by the State to these victims is a mere band-aid – basic burial expenses or a few sessions of counseling, at best. They are not glorified in TV shows or “documentaries” to lament their plight.  Instead, victims get to make an appearance at a preliminary hearing and trial, to relive their trauma under often hostile questioning from a defense attorney, are allowed to make a victim impact statement at sentencing. They are then promptly forgotten by a system that pours its resources into incarcerating and “rehabilitating” their victimizer.

There is an escalating mantra, exemplified by Meredith Blake, an entertainment reporter for the Los Angeles Times, of a growing awareness of “mass incarceration…and its disproportionate effects on communities of color.” That liberal hyperbole places the victimizer ahead of the victim.  Don’t the citizens of the “communities of color” deserve protection from those 70% of inmates who committed murders, sexual assaults, kidnappings and other violent crimes? Take Chicago, which has suffered 303 homicides in 2016 with 75% of victims Black and 19% Hispanic.  Is there an acceptable level of victimization in a particular community before we can begin incarcerating those who committed the crimes?

Likewise, the growing claim that prisons are just populated by low level, non-violent offenders who would probably provide amusing anecdotes at a cocktail party deserves a bit more scrutiny. Let’s be very clear – I am not averse to actress Laverne Cox’s statement that her show Orange is the New Black has sparked a conversation “that really is about humanizing people who are incarcerated.”  What I object to is falsely representing the type of crimes that have led to incarceration, and most particularly, the obsessive focus on those who have chosen to victimize others and the abject indifference to the real pain and suffering of their victims.

California State Senate votes to reward repeat drug dealers

By Michele Hanisee
The California State Senate voted to reward repeat drug dealers by repealing a three-year enhancement imposed for a subsequent conviction for selling drugs such as heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and PCP.

Senate Bill 966 was introduced by State Senator Holly Mitchell, and in its original version would have repealed the enhancement in its entirety.  The original bill was defeated, but then resurrected and passed with two slight changes-enhancements would still apply to those who used a minor to sell drugs, and to those who manufactured drugs.  These changes are meaningless, applying to only a small fraction of those who are engaged in the business of selling drugs.

Senator Mitchell’s reasons for this legislation are, quite frankly, absurd.  “Piling extra years onto jail sentences for repeat offenders of nonviolent crimes overcrowds our prisons, sucks money out of taxpayers’ pockets and makes punishing a greater priority than preventing crime,” she said. “It doesn’t work. Why continue to waste lives and money on a failed policy?” Note to Senator Mitchell, the enhancements are added to “prison sentences”, not jail sentences. You would think a legislator making public safety policy would know the difference.

Let’s examine Senator Mitchell’s arguments one at a time.

  1. The “piling” of extra years reflects the foundation of our criminal justice system, where first offenders get treated less harshly than those on a second, third, fourth or more offense.  Such individualized justice is designed to both deter offenders, and punish those who persist in repeating their criminal conduct.  Reducing punishment for those who engage in the same repeated criminal conduct serves neither to deter nor punish.  (Kudos to Senator Mitchell for working in the magic buzz words “non-violent offender” which are used in Sacramento to justify every inane “criminal reform” change one can imagine.)
  2. The argument that taxpayers would “save money” by this change is likewise puzzling.  First, while there might be some savings from not housing the convicted drug dealer for another 18 months, when a previously convicted drug dealer resumes selling drugs and is caught, there will be money spent to arrest and prosecute said dealer-not to mention the rehab programs for their buyers when they decide or are ordered to attend rehab to end their drug use.  Of course, if we took Senator Mitchell’s “logic” to the natural extreme—we should stop putting drug dealers in prison, and exult in the taxpayer savings!
  3. As for the claim that we make “punishing a greater priority than preventing crime”, where to begin?  How, exactly, does the good Senator believe reducing punishment for selling drugs will result in prevention of that crime?  Inquiring minds want to know.  On a similar note, when Senator Mitchell claims that imposing a three-year enhancement is a failed policy, she was unable to note any study that supports her claim.  We look forward to that data as well.

One of the Deputy District Attorneys in the Major Narcotics Division wrote to me about a case he is currently prosecuting to provide an example of the type of repeat drug dealer Senator Mitchell and her Senate colleagues voted to reward.  The defendant in his case had just served five years in prison for selling drugs, and was recently found in possession of one pound of methamphetamine, two rifles, and a handgun.  Maybe this “non-violent offender” will send a thank you card to Senator Mitchell for knocking a potential three years off his next prison sentence.

ADDA encourages members to get involved and help the community

By Michele Hanisee

One of the great things about being a Deputy District Attorney is the countless opportunities we have to get involved with charitable organizations that provide terrific networking opportunities while enabling us to give back to the community. The ADDA encourages all of our members to participate in charitable organizations. Here are just a few.

Korean Prosecutors Association (KPA)

The Korean Prosecutors Association is a global non-profit organization of public prosecutors of Korean descent. It was formed for networking, information sharing, mentoring, and serving the community by providing information and education on public safety matters.

Its activities include joint happy hours with other bar organizations, and it is MCLE accredited so members give presentations on topics including elder abuse, domestic violence and juvenile delinquency. Members also can participate in an annual conference that is hosted by the Korean government in Korea every third year.

How to Join:  www.koreanpa.com

Latino Prosecutors Association (LPA)

The Latino Prosecutors Association sponsors regular social events and activities throughout the year including participation in the annual Mexican American Bar Association softball tournament.  Its charitable arm, the Latino Prosecutors Foundation (LPF) primarily sponsors one and sometimes two scholarships for law students who are interested in becoming prosecutors. The scholarships are awarded annually each June. Membership is open to any prosecutor, including city attorneys and federal prosecutors, regardless of race or ethnicity.

How to join: latinoproa@yahoo.com

Black Prosecutors Los Angeles (BPLA)

The BPLA is a chapter of the National Black Prosecutors Association. Its mission is to ensure that justice is provided through fair and firm prosecution; to honor the history of African-American prosecutors; to help facilitate interdisciplinary communication, innovative training, professional development and camaraderie among African-Americans in law enforcement; to educate the community about the criminal justice system; and to offer scholarships, mentoring and assistance to African-American students.

BPLA offers scholarships to deserving high school seniors who have been accepted to a college or university and have expressed interest in the field of criminal prosecution.

BPLA sponsors numerous social events throughout the year such as the annual bowling tournament and Thursday night football toy drive.  BPLA’s premier event is the annual Alfred Jenkins Scholarship and Awards Dinner which occurs in June.  At the dinner, BPLA honors Champions of Justice in the Los Angeles Community and raises money for college scholarships.

BPLA has a Facebook page.

How to join: BPLA@gmail.com

National Asian Pacific Islander Prosecutors Association (NAPIPA)

The National Asian Pacific Islander Prosecutors Association is dedicated to promoting justice and to advancing the interests of prosecutors of Asian and Pacific Islander (API) heritage. The Association organizes the efforts of API prosecutors for the collective benefit of the American criminal justice system and of the legal profession. To that end, it advocates for fairness, equality and justice for crime victims, the criminally accused, people working in the criminal justice system, and the community at large.

Activities include joint happy hours with other bar associations and an annual scholarship dinner for law students.

How to Join: www.napipa.org

Hollenbeck Youth Center

The Hollenbeck Youth Center is a non-profit organization that provides inner city kids with a safe haven from gangs and crime.  The center is open after school and all day during the summer.  The center offers after school tutoring and several sports programs including boxing, karate, basketball and weight lifting.

During the holidays, the center sponsors a turkey dinner and toy giveaway.  This year’s toy giveaway, organized by DDAs Steve Lopez and James Evans, will be on December 17th, 2016.  The goal is to collect 5,000 – 10,000 toys to distribute to inner city youth.   There is also an annual Gala every August.

Volunteer opportunities at the center include after school tutoring, coaching athletics, acting as a community advisor and helping to organize the many functions sponsored by the center.

To contribute or join: priscilla@hollenbeckpbc.org or Like on Facebook

International Footprint Association – Chapter 58

The International Footprint Association (IFA) is non-profit association that promotes and encourages fellowship, respect, cooperation and helpfulness among all arms of law enforcement and civilians who are sympathetic to law enforcement.  IFA Chapter 58 supports police explorer programs for multiple police agencies by sponsoring them and providing the funds for supplies and uniforms.

IFA 58 holds a dinner meeting on the last Tuesday of the month at Taix restaurant in Echo Park.  The cost for dinner is $45 for members and $55 for non-members.  Each meeting includes a speaker presentation on a law-enforcement related topic.  The big annual event is the June dinner meeting at which the explorer groups are hosted and presented to their sponsors.  Current IFA board members include former DA Steve Cooley, former DA Robert Philobosian, Sheriff Jim McDonnell and Judge Phillip Soto.  Members include DDAs, judges, defense attorneys, police officers, bail bondsmen and others working within the criminal justice system.  The meetings are a great place to get acquainted in an informal setting.

To attend dinner as a guest or to join as a member contact Vanessa Evelia Cuellar by email at footprinter58@aol.com