Death penalty reform initiative passes key hurdle, but our work has just begun

By Michele Hanisee

The crucial initiative to reform and preserve the death penalty for California’s most brutal criminals has cleared a significant hurdle by securing enough signatures to qualify for the November statewide ballot.

The Californians for Death Penalty Reform and Savings campaign recently submitted 593,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office. Qualifying an initiative requires about 366,000 valid signatures.

While this is an important step, our hard work has just begun. Over the coming months, we have to convince our friends, loved ones and acquaintances why it’s critical to support this initiative.

For starters, you can tell them that failure to pass the initiative will, quite simply, mean the end of California’s death penalty. Opponents are pushing a competing initiative to eliminate this form of justice for thugs who murder, torture and rape.

At the same time, you can explain to them that the current system is broken and in dire need of repair.

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 endless inmate appeal process of their death sentences has essentially turned a death sentence into life in prison. Indeed, California’s last execution took place more than a decade ago.

The Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act would solve 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 an earlier post, failure to pass this initiative is not an option. A donation of $25, $50 or $100 will go a long way toward helping the campaign educate voters about its importance. You can donate here.

You can read about this measure in detail, and learn how to help, at www.deathpenaltyreform.com.

Shirley You Jest – Stanford Sexual Assault

By Michele Hanisee

Fallout from the six-month sentence of rapist, Brock Turner, continues. This week, 16 California Legislators signed a letter to the Commission on Judicial Performance requesting disciplinary action against Judge Aaron Persky, the sentencing judge. A second letter sent to Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen demanded he appeal the sentence.  One signatory to the letters caught my eye (and an eye roll of disbelief is an understatement) — that of Assemblywoman Shirley Weber.

You see, Assemblywoman Weber authored AB 2590, cleverly named the Restorative Justice Act, which would change state law so that punishment is no longer one of the purposes of incarceration. Instead of incarceration, judges would have the ability to impose “community-based punishment” for all criminal defendants — including those convicted of sex offenses. The California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), which opposes AB 2590, says that the change would allow courts to explain away a defendant’s criminal behavior, absolve them of full accountability for their crimes, and that “given the right judge, a convicted defendant could avoid jail time altogether for almost any offense.

Unlike the recall effort, the letters requesting that Judge Persky be disciplined and the sentence be appealed, are really empty publicity seeking gestures. However as much I and others (like  Deputy District Attorney Alaleh Kianerci who has done a phenomenal job in the Brock case) strongly disagree, the sentence was fully within the limits of discretion granted judges by the state legislature. That discretion, as pointed out by the CDAA, would only be expanded under AB 2590. Sentences such as those imposed on Brock Turner will be more likely if this bill becomes law.

Unlike members of the public, Assemblywoman Weber has within her power the ability to ensure that no future defendant convicted of sexual assault will receive a sentence as lenient as Brock Tuners. She simply has to introduce a bill, with the support of her fellow signatories, to make the punishment for sexual assault an offense carrying a mandatory state prison sentence. Don’t hold your breath.

Incidentally, thanks to another pending Weber bill (AB 2466) that changes the definition of incarceration to exclude a county jail sentence and allows felons to vote, Brock Tuner will be able to vote while serving his sentence, if he is actually in County jail when the November election takes place.

As I considered AB 2590 and juxtaposed it with Weber’s letters on the Brock Turner case, a refrain ran through my mind: “Shirley you jest.”

To read my previous blog, “Stanford Sexual Assault Case Typifies California’s New Approach to Criminals,” click here.

Stanford Sexual Assault Case Typifies California’s New Approach to Criminals

By Michele Hanisee

National outrage ensued over a six-month county jail sentence imposed this past week on a former Stanford student who was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. A powerful 12-page letter by the victim describing the emotional and psychological devastation the attack inflicted upon her failed to sway the sentencing Judge, who explained he did not sentence the defendant to state prison because “a prison sentence would have a severe impact on him.” Sadly, the reasoning by the Judge encapsulates the wholesale turnover in the criminal justice system the past several years, spearheaded by Governor Brown, the State Legislature, and “criminal justice reform” groups.

One only has to look at actions by both branches of the Legislature and the Governor over the past months. The California Assembly passed AB 2590, explicitly removing “punishment” as a purpose for incarceration. For his part, the Governor is placing on the November 2016 ballot an initiative releasing violent convicts early from prison by allowing them to avoid serving sentence enhancements. Not be outdone, the State Senate recently voted to go one better on enhancements by repealing from the Penal Code a three-year enhancement imposed for a new conviction on criminals for selling or transporting drugs such as heroin, methamphetamine, or PCP.

Recently enacted legislation includes SB 261, rewarding those who were between 18-23 when convicted of crimes such as murder with accelerated parole hearings on the grounds that adults of those ages are less culpable because of incomplete judgement and decision-making skills-notwithstanding our country entrusting thousands of young men and women and police forces at the very same ages with authority to make life and death decisions.

Maybe those behind the rash of this legislation, like the Judge in the sexual assault case, do so because they lament the “severe impact” of prison on criminals. Perhaps, like Governor Brown, they believe attending a few classes in prison and saying the right things to a parole board is evidence of “rehabilitation” and should be rewarded with an early release. Or, maybe, the don’t believe convicted criminals should be sent to prison-after all, Governor Brown famously berated San Bernardino District Attorney Mike Ramos in a phone call last year, yelling at him that “Your county is sending too many people to prison.”

Forces have been long plowing the ground for this change, taking advantage of a public accepting as normal and permanent the drastic fall in crime since Brown’s last stint as Governor. It took legislation increasing criminal penalties and incarcerating repeat offenders to lead to a reversal of the massive crime rate during his last tenure.

Unfortunately, whether deceptively labeling their proposed changes, or convincing the public that California spends more on prisons than any other program, these forces have an upper hand. On the budget, for example, government spending, the Governor’s latest proposed budget will spend $65 billion on education, $32 billion for social services programs, and $10 billion on prisons. Deception is symbolized by Proposition 47, which proponents referred to as the “Safe Neighborhood and Schools Acts.” It had nothing to do with schools, but as predicted by District Attorneys across California, has led to a rising crime rate and an ever increasing number of victims in this state.

A hand-wringing Los Angeles Times editorial on the sentencing of the Stanford student trumpeted that “Criminal sentencing decisions belong to judges, not the outraged public” It is ironic that the same Times Editorial Board lauded a system where carefully crafted sentences are handed down by “trained and experienced judge with the evidence and the probation report before him” yet praised Governor Brown’s initiative which will transfer that power to eviscerate those sentences to unelected and unaccountable parole boards.

Perhaps those spearheading the changes in the adult criminal justice system want it to become the juvenile justice system. There, convictions are called “true findings“, records are sealed in a matter month, the failure to pay restitution to victims is ignored, informal probation which requires little more than an apology letter is common, and after arrest the accused is often released on “home supervision” (i.e., a curfew) to the very adults that have usually failed to supervise said accused in the first place.

Whether it be a lenient sentence handed down by a Judge dismissive of harm to a sexual assault victim, a haughty editorial dismissive of public outrage over that sentence, a Legislature determined to unravel punishments the public has demanded via initiative and hard-fought legislation, or a Governor who is willing to deceive the public on the impact of his prison release initiative to get it passed, there is one common thread.

In California, victims are taking a distant second fiddle to the convicted criminals who victimized them. Perhaps we will soon even stop referring to people who commit crimes as criminals, as Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently did when calling juveniles accused or convicted of crimes as “justice involved youth.” Sadly, it appears that in California only when the number of victims grows to unbearable levels will the “impact” of a crime on the victim will outweigh the “impact” of punishment on the convicted criminal.

Governor’s spokesperson confirms his initiative will allow early release of violent inmates

By Eric Siddall

Governor Brown’s charade is over!  His own spokesperson admitted that his initiative will allow early release of violent prison inmates.

Well respected Sacramento columnist Dan Walters, following up on the excellent analysis by California District Attorney Association, got the governor’s spokesperson to admit the truth. The spokesperson “confirmed the association’s interpretation is correct.”

This means inmates serving sentences for a laundry list of what Walters correctly labeled “despicably violent crimes” would qualify for early release from their imposed sentences.  The crimes listed by Walters included assault with a deadly weapon, soliciting murder, intimidating or harming a crime victim or witness, resisting arrest that injures a police officer, violent elder or child abuse, arson with injury, and human trafficking.

Just the week before Governor Brown was s parceling out misleading soundbites in a never ending stream as he attempts to “mainstream” his initiative reducing prison sentences for all inmates. In pitching his proposal last week to more than 1,000 business professionals and Capitol insiders, he touted his initiative as an injection of flexibility into a rigid sentencing.  In fact, what the initiative does is transfer flexibility that does exist in the criminal justice system from judges—who impose a sentence after hearing from the prosecutor, defendant, and victims- to an unaccountable parole board who can reduce prison sentences based on whatever whim a parole commissioner decides to follow. And no one, not even the state legislature, would have the power to overrule their policy decisions.

The truth, as exposed by CDAA, and now Walters is that prisoners would be eligible for parole after serving just a fraction of their primary offense – regardless of any enhancements for the harm and damage caused by their crime.  Enhancements for a prior offense such as rape, torture, and murder -also known as strikes- could be ignored by a parole board. A criminal could have three, four, even 10 strikes and still be eligible for a parole hearing after on serving a few years in prison.

The key factor in this full-fledged assault on public safety is placing the ultimate authority for a sentence -one which not even a Court of Appeal could change -with a 12-person parole board.   These unelected bureaucrats would decide, without input from victims or prosecutors and without regard to the facts of the crime, whether the sentence imposed by a judge after hearing from all parties could be drastically shortened.

George Hofstetter, President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, may have said it best, “The governor longs for a return to the ‘bad old days’ of his first term that began in 1974 when parole boards freed inmates who had served extremely short sentences.”

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

By Michele Hanisee

I’m not usually one to cry out for the assistance of the ACLU, defense attorneys, or “civil liberties activists” – but where are they when you need them?  Lt. Governor Newsom’s Safety for All initiative would adversely impact law abiding gun owners, but it would also strip criminals of their Constitutional Rights.  So where is the outcry from the defense bar?  Or from the ACLU?  This initiative proposes to suspend the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution for individuals charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.  Yet the liberals — who generally care more about the rights of criminals than law abiding citizens –remains strangely silent.  Do they just not know what this initiative does?

Here is a brief summary of the particularly unconstitutional bits.

The initiative language states that a court, upon a conviction of a prohibited person shall “Require the defendant to declare any firearms that he or she owned, possessed, or had under his or her custody or control at the time of his or her conviction and require the defendant to describe the firearms and provide all reasonably available information about the location of the firearms to enable a designee or law enforcement officials to locate the firearms.”

Adios, Fifth Amendment privilege!  A defendant is just supposed to tell the court and government about all the other guns he / she possesses regardless of whether they are illegally possessed, stolen, have obliterated serial numbers, or were used in a crime.  There is no immunity from prosecution if those additional weapons are evidence of crimes other than the one defendant stands convicted of.

Moreover, the initiative goes on to say, “If the court finds probable cause that the defendant failed to relinquish any firearms as required, the court shall order the search for and removal of any firearms at any location where the judge has probable cause to believe the defendant’s firearms are located.”

Adios Fourth Amendment!  There is no need for pesky search warrants filed under oath!  A probation officer’s report is more than enough probable cause to conduct a search of a private residence.  Staleness?  Who cares!  If the defendant isn’t convicted until four years later – let’s search his / her last known residence anyway.  And judicial neutrality is treated as a mere inconvenience and kicked to the curb in favor of direct judicial instigation of searches of private property.

The ACLU, defense bar, and those who “cherish civil liberties” have been engaged in a full court press to reduce incarceration, remove penalties for repeat criminals, and critical of powers granted police.  Yet, strangely, when an initiative eviscerates constitutional protections, and imposes new criminal penalties for what has heretofore been law abiding conduct, there is silence from that crowd.

As a prosecutor, I might be expected to support new laws which claim to advance public safety and grant new powers to the prosecution.  However, in this case, I oppose Newsom’s initiative because it tramples on the rights of the law abiding while doing nothing to advance public safety.  When you add to that the wholesale evisceration of Constitutional rights of those who have been convicted of a crime, it is shocking not to see the ACLU and defense bar standing shoulder to shoulder with me in opposing this initiative.  The integrity of our judicial system is rooted in our Constitution and in the concept that society as a whole is better off with a system that protects the rights of the individual against a tyrannical government.  This concept that society is clearly better off with laws that protect individual rights, including the rights of those who comprise a minority of the whole, is clearly lost on Lt. Governor Newsom  If ever there was a law which both prosecutors and defense attorneys could proudly oppose, the Newsom initiative is it.

Skid Row — The Emergency That Cannot Wait

By Michele Hanisee

The criminal justice system, burdened with being the de facto forum for dealing with the mentally ill population in Los Angeles County, has now becoming the forum of last resort to deal with the homeless population of which the mentally ill are a subset.

For three decades the Central City East Association (CCEA) has been warning that drugs, criminality, and mental health issues would converge at the epicenter of homelessness on skid row.  Add into the mix Prop. 47, which in essence decriminalized theft and drug offenses, and a series of court rulings which have allowed the homeless to take over public streets and sidewalks, and you have an ungovernable mess.  Yet homeless advocates and the attorneys they employ call it a civil right to live in squalor, and judges render decisions from their sterile courtrooms that play out far differently on the streets. Perhaps it would be considered untoward of us to suggest that the City sponsor a new homeless encampment on the sidewalks of 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, the location of the Federal courthouse.

The street population is at nearly 2,000 in skid row alone.  Businesses that remain do so despite the public safety and public health threat, wanting to stay in an area that is centrally located and to provide much-needed industrial jobs.  However, an increasing wave of crime makes victims of area workers, residents and the homeless themselves.  The violent nature of these crimes is escalating.

CCEA has released a powerful 5-minute video  that allows the voices of the law enforcement, residents, and business community speak for themselves.  “Emergency” is an intense tour of the daily gauntlet that is Skid Row.  It contains disturbing images of inhumane conditions on public sidewalks with vivid descriptions of Skid Row as told by the people who live and work there.  We urge everyone to watch the moving video and listen to the police officers who work on Skid Row. The question that is posed is one the leadership of Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County need to answer – how long will this nightmare be tolerated?

It is well-documented that support for the mentally ill in our society has declined over the years and that a significant number of the homeless living on our streets are mentally ill. When they cause a disturbance in the community, the police are the first to be called. If and when an arrest is made, it then is deposited in the laps of Deputy District Attorneys and Deputy City Attorneys to decide if charges will be filed – with the low expectation that any misdemeanor charge will result in a meaningful sentence.

Despite law enforcement’s extensive training and new resources, the problems of homelessness and mental illness are vast.  Last year, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey presented a comprehensive plan to the Board of Supervisors that recommends enhanced treatment and services to safely divert mentally ill offenders from the county jail.  In Los Angeles, the Sheriff’s Department and the LAPD are constantly collaborating with the various public and private sector organizations to better address the behavior of mentally ill individuals.  However, at the end of the day, it is the community of Los Angeles that must demand of our elected leaders at both the state and local level a comprehensive plan to combat the true roots of homelessness.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously stated, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”  In the skid row area of Los Angeles, the homeless population is now not just swinging, but connecting, into the body of the law abiding residents who wish to walk the sidewalks or work in downtown Los Angeles.

Inexcusable execution delay underscores need for death penalty reform

By Michele Hanisee

California houses a quarter of the nation’s death row inmates, but we last executed a brutal criminal more than a decade ago.  Since then, we have sentenced at least 167 people to death. Incredibly, that’s more people than are on death rows in all but four states, according to a recent Washington Post article.

These delays in justice are caused by a system that is flawed, but those flaws would be corrected by a ballot initiative that would enact desperately needed reforms. It’s critical that this initiative passes in November. Failure will mean the end of California’s death penalty; opponents are supporting a competing initiative to eliminate this form of justice for the state’s most notorious murderers.

The problems with California’s death penalty 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. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer in an opinion last year remarked that the “unconscionably long delays … undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose.”

The reform initiative would solve 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 an earlier post, failure to pass this initiative is not an option. A donation of $25, $50 or $100 will go a long way to help qualify this crucial reform measure for the November ballot. You can donate here.

ADDA strongly opposes parole for vicious murderer Leslie Van Houten

By Michele Hanisee

On Aug. 10, 1969, Leslie Van Houten held down Rosemary LaBianca 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.

Nineteen times since she participated in the infamous slaughter, Van Houten applied for parole. Nineteen times, the state parole board turned her down.

Until last week, when a two-member panel inexplicably recommended to grant her parole.

The ADDA vehemently opposes this mind-boggling decision, as does District Attorney Jackie Lacey. There was a very good reason the parole board denied her 19 times. How was her 20th petition any different?

Van Houten’s attorneys have painted her as a model prisoner. They said she earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees and ran self-help groups for incarcerated women.

Maybe so. But let’s not forget the facts.

Van Houten brutally murdered an innocent woman while her cohorts carved up her victim’s husband, wealthy grocer Leno LaBianca. She was sentenced to death; her sentence was commuted to life in prison only because the California Supreme Court struck down the death penalty.

Even if she has been a model prisoner, her behavior behind bars doesn’t mitigate the savagery of her crime. And time does not erase the fact that she willfully committed the crime.

“We still suffer our loss,” Leno LaBianca’s daughter, Cory LaBianca, told the Los Angeles Times. “My father will never be paroled. My stepmother will never get her life back.”

Van Houten’s parole is not a done deal.

The parole board’s legal team has to review the recommendation. If they uphold it, Gov. Jerry Brown will decide whether she goes free or remains in prison.

Sometimes justice means compassion, and compassion means justice. But not in this situation.

The ADDA will keep you updated on the status of Van Houten’s case. If it ends up on Gov. Brown’s desk, we will provide you with information on how to express your opposition to freeing this brutal murderer.

Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys. The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles. 

Supreme Court decision preserves public employees’ voice

By Michele Hanisee

The Supreme Court tie vote that preserved “agency shop” rules for public labor unions, kept in place a decades-old rule that allows public unions to require non-members to pay fees to help cover collective bargaining costs. Former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and former San Diego City Councilman Carl DeMaio abandoned efforts to put a pension-busting initiative on the November 2016 ballot because they hoped the Supreme Court would rule against unions in the “agency shop” case and hamper the ability of unions to raise fund to fight their initiative.  Despite the Supreme Court ruling, challenges are plentiful for Deputy District Attorneys and other public sector employees in California.

On the labor front, those opposed to public employees have vowed to continue ballot attacks on our pay and benefits.  Reed and DeMaio have not given up.  They have vowed to slap a pension-busting initiative on the 2018 statewide ballot.

While past efforts to destroy the statewide public pension system have crashed spectacularly three times in the past two years, their disdain for hard-working government employees and desire to keep their names in the limelight assure us that they will continue their efforts to qualify an initiative to eliminate public pensions.  In the interim, they and their allies will continue to churn out op/eds that exaggerate problems with pension and public employee pay/benefits in an attempt to poison public opinion.

If some day they succeed, it would spell disaster for communities throughout California. One has to look no farther than the City of San Jose.  There, the fallout from Reed’s 2012 assault on public pensions in San Jose spurred an exodus of police officers and other public employees from that city, leading to soaring crime rates.

Additionally, various initiatives are proposed for the upcoming November ballot which may greatly affect the criminal justice system.

On the criminal justice front, Gov. Jerry Brown is pushing an initiative that would flood communities throughout California with dangerous felons after they have served only a portion of their prison sentences.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing a separate, misguided initiative – the laughably named “Safety for All Act of 2016”-which would make criminals out of law-abiding gun owners while incentivizing criminals to commit burglaries and robberies to obtain weapons.

Finally, the ADDA also is strongly supporting a critically important measure that would save the death penalty as a sentencing option by enacting much-needed reforms of the current badly broken system.

ADDA members know that our collective efforts will be needed to defeat ongoing and future threats to our employment.  We remain committed to supporting smart public policies that will preserve the protections California’s residents currently enjoy.

Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys. The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles. 

Cop Killer Stays In Prison – For Now

By Eric Siddall

Voltaire Alphonse Williams will continue to remain in prison for the brutal murder of LAPD Detective Thomas C. Williams.

The Board of Parole Hearings (BPT) listened to reason and decided Williams must remain in prison – for now. We say “for now” because a new state law that took effective January 1, 2016, makes him eligible for an SB 261 Youthful Offender Hearing by the end of 2017. We must remain vigilant and continue to follow this case closely. Williams deserves to remain in prison for the long term for the crime District Attorney Jackie Lacey has cited for its “extreme degree of callousness and dangerousness.”

Williams was one of the conspirators in the plot which lead to the murder the detective on October 31, 1985.  He was convicted of conspiracy to murder Det. Williams and was sentenced to 25 years to Life. Daniel Jenkins, the actual killer and instigator of the conspiracy, was sentenced to death and remains on Death Row.  Another conspirator was also convicted of murder and was sentenced to Life without Parole.

Williams had been found unsuitable for parole in hearings in 2001, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011 and February 2014.  The 2014 panel denied him parole for three years.  In an administrative review under their rules, the BPT granted him an earlier hearing, held in August 2015.  He was found suitable for release on parole at that hearing.

Since Williams was not convicted of murder, the governor could not reverse the grant of parole, and could only refer it back to the full twelve-member Board requesting reconsideration. The governor did request such reconsideration in November 2015.

District Attorney Lacey, Chief of Detectives of LAPD, and the Captain of the Robbery-Homicide Division of LAPD all spoke at the en banc BPT meeting on December 22, 2015, requesting the 2015 parole grant be rescinded.  The full Board ordered a rescission hearing to determine if the August 2015 grant had been improvidently granted, based on the concerns expressed by the governor.

BPT Commissioners Cynthia Fritz and Arthur Anderson (former Asst. Commissioner of the CHP), and Deputy Commissioner Kathleen Newman held the rescission hearing on Thursday at Solano State Prison in Vacaville.  The 2015 decision, which had incorporated all prior hearing transcripts by reference, was reviewed by the panel in detail.  In his summation, Deputy District Attorney Lawrence Morrison of the Crimes against Peace Officers Section referenced Williams’ many conflicting statements under oath in all the hearings DDA Morrison attended since 2006, pointing out his consistent lack of credibility and overall lack of insight.

After an hour long deliberation, the panel found the 2015 grant was not supported by the evidence considered by the 2015 panel.  They referred to his statements in prior hearings. Specifically, as the governor had noted in his referral, they found the inmate has not accepted full responsibility for his actions or explained the reasons he entered into a plot to assassinate a witness, still minimizes his role in the crime, and still does not fully understand the effect of his crime upon the community.  They rescinded the 2015 grant of parole.

Under BPT rules, Williams will have another de novo parole consideration hearing within 120 days.  Since he was one month shy of his 23rd birthday at the time of the crime, he now qualifies as a “Youthful Offender” under SB 261 as of January 1, 2016.  Therefore, even if the next panel finds him unsuitable for the minimum three year denial period, he must have an SB 261 Youthful Offender Hearing by the end of 2017.  Under SB 261, BPT will be required to consider “the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to that of adults” in determining his suitability for parole.

This case will be one of the first tests of SB 261.  We shall watch closely to see if it turns out to be a rationale law that makes sense in extraordinary circumstances or another case of a new law with unintended consequences undermining the criminal justice system.

Eric Siddall is Vice President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.  The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.