DA’s Office In the News
Statewide Prosecutors Group to Aid ADDA’s Battle Against Gascón
Appellate Court Signals Approval of ADDA Lawsuit
Appellate Court Signals Approval of ADDA Lawsuit
Widow seeks justice for murdered sergeant
DA Drops Bid for Death Penalty in Accused Cop Killer’s Case
Kern DA Zimmer announces support of lawsuit against Los Angeles DA
Widow Of Slain LASD Sgt. Steve Owen Wants Killer To Face Death Penalty
Slain Deputy’s Widow Speaks Out Against New LA County DA
LA County District Attorney George Gascón Taking Heat Over Policies
New L.A. County D.A. George Gascón’s reforms are hitting courtrooms, and at least one judge wasn’t happy
Gascón Draws Judges’ Wrath Over Latest’ Special Directive’
Jon Hatami, Los Angeles deputy district attorney, pushes back against LA DA’s new directive reducing sentences for violent crimes
Sister of slain Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputy Joseph Solano ‘outraged’ over new justice reform proposals
Deputy DA speaks out against Gascon’s policies, ‘hostile’ work environment
LA County DA George Gascon’s plan to reduce sentences sparks concern from his own prosecutors
George Gascón can’t fire prosecutors for opposing his vision. Can he win them over?
Critics and family torn by violence hold a ‘Recall George Gascón’ vigil
L.A. Prosecutors File Lawsuit Against Their New DA George Gascon
New DA Gascón’s assault on the law
Reform Comes Straight From the People, Not From ‘Activist’ District Attorneys
Sacramento County DA Blasts George Gascon, Blocks His Jurisdiction on Crimes There
Former LA County DA Steve Cooley Joins Team Helping Victims Appeal Directives of Current LA County DA George Gascon
Judge rejects DA Gascón’s policy on cop-killer case
San Diego DA Will Get to Try Accused Cop-Killer Before LA Prosecutors
DA Gascon’s office seeks to dismiss special allegations in cold case murder of Inglewood boy, prompting backlash
CA District Attorneys Support Lawsuit by LA Assoc. of Deputy DAs against District Attorney George Gascón
The Lies Behind the Selling of Prop 47 & 57
By Michele Hanisee
Politics will never exist without spin doctors. Yet, as cynical as our political system has become, recent ballot measures sold to the public as “public safety” measures have gone beyond the pale. Nearly every soft on crime law enacted in the last half decade included the words “safe” or “safety” in the description. No two better examples exist than Propositions 47 and 57.
Prop 47 advocates called it the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.” Prop 47 did nothing for neighborhoods except to dramatically increase property crime. It did nothing for schools except for making undelivered promises to increase funding.
Last week, the California Supreme Court delivered some common sense reality to Prop 47 in People v. Valencia. At issue were “third strikers” — criminals who have two or more prior convictions for serious or violent crimes. Under the “three strikes” law, a criminal who had two or more prior “strike” convictions and who then committed any new felony offense would receive a sentence of 25 years to life. As originally written and implemented, that sentence was mandatory unless a judge used her discretion to “strike” one or more of the prior convictions at sentencing. But the public became disillusioned with a sentencing scheme that was, at times, perceived as inflexibly harsh.
In 2012, Proposition 36 was passed, limiting the 25 years to life sentence to cases where the new felony offense was also a serious or violent crime. It also allowed inmates sentenced under the old rules to petition for resentencing. Crucially, however, a judge could deny a petition to reduce the sentence if the court, in its discretion, determined that the inmate “would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public.”
Enter Prop 47. It reduced certain drug and theft felonies to misdemeanors. Prop 47 also had a resentencing provision which allowed inmates to petition for a reduction in their felony sentence if that crime had since been reduced to a misdemeanor. Like Prop 36, Prop 47 gave the court discretion to deny a reduction if resentencing “would result in an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. But the discretion granted was so limited as to be illusory. Under Prop 47, a judge could only refuse to reduce the sentence if he or she found an unreasonable risk that the inmate would commit one of eight specific types of violent crime: homicide, attempted homicide, murder, solicitation to commit murder, sexual assault on a child under age 14, assault with a machine gun on a police officer or firefighter, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, or any offense normally punishable by life or death.
Based on the overlap in these different provisions, two third-strike inmates petitioned for resentencing, arguing that the language contained in Prop 47 should apply to them.
The California Supreme Court observed that if the petitioners’ argument was correct, it would make it easier “for recidivist serious or violent offenders to have their life sentences vacated, and render them more likely to be released.”
The California Supreme Court wisely rejected the inmate’s appeal, holding that there was nothing in Prop 47 that suggested it was intended to apply to serious and violent third strikers seeking resentencing. “[N]either the initiative’s text nor its supporting materials describe any intention to amend the criteria for the resentencing of recidivist or violent felons. . ..” Nor, said the court, was such a result predicted by the Attorney General or the Legislative Analyst in their summary of the measure, or discernable to the voting public.
Most illuminating, however, was the dissent of Justice Liu, who in blasting the majority for the decision wrote: “The court today concludes that the drafters of Proposition 47 pulled a fast one on an uninformed public.” Truer words have never been spoken. With their deliberately misleading title referencing “safe schools” and platitudinal language about public safety, the drafters of Prop 47 fooled the public to accomplish their goal of decriminalizing property crimes and releasing convicted criminals from custody.
Those behind Prop 57 took their cues from Prop 47, selling the public with assurances that its early parole provision only applied to “non-violent” offenders. That’s news to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, whose published regulations on early parole explicitly include inmates sentenced to prison for violent offenses. This week, was an example of that regulation in effect, with the Fresno DA’s office highlighting an inmate who attempted to stab two people being paroled two years into an eleven year sentence thanks to Prop 57.
Lawyers can pore over the Valencia opinion for its lessons on the intricacies of statutory construction. The big takeaway from Valencia was contained in the dissent, which inadvertently highlighted a truth worthy of repeating: “The court today concludes that the drafters of Proposition 47 pulled a fast one on an uninformed public.”
Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.