California's top court appears divided on ballot measure to speed up executions

Los Angeles Times - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 by Maura Dolan

The California Supreme Court appeared closely divided Tuesday over
the constitutionality of a ballot measure passed in November to speed
up executions.

Proposition 66, sponsored by prosecutors, would require courts to
rapidly review death penalty appeals, force more criminal defense
lawyers to represent death row inmates and remove public review
requirements for the state's lethal injection procedures.

An opponent of the death penalty sued to block the measure after the
election, arguing it usurped the power of the judicial branch to run
the courts.

During arguments in Los Angeles, several justices said it was clear
that the California Supreme Court could not meet the measure's
five-year deadlines for resolving death penalty appeals without
sacrificing attention to other kinds of cases.

When told by the measure's advocates that the deadlines were mere
targets, the justices noted that the wording of the ballot measure
suggested otherwise.

"So it is a mandatory deadline that is toothless?" asked Justice
Leondra Kruger.

Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar said the measure appeared to
contain "pretty stark time limits."

"If you are asking us not to view the five-year time limit as
binding, what exactly is the speed-up?" Cuellar asked.

Justice Goodwin Liu also seemed doubtful of the measure's validity.
If the deadlines are not true mandates, how is the court to know what
compliance means, he asked.

"We are talking about systemic change" if the initiative is enforced, he said.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a moderate Republican appointee who
has joined the liberals at times, could be the swing vote on the
seven-justice court.

She was the first to raise the point that there appeared to be no
consequence for the court if the deadlines were missed. So the time
mandates were merely "aspirational, directory, hopeful?" she asked.

The court has a backlog of more than 300 death penalty appeals ready
to be heard and decided. Legal analysts have said the deadlines would
force the court to decide death penalty cases almost exclusively for
the next several years if the court upholds them.

Liu asked Jose A. Zelidon-Zepeda, defending the measure for the state
attorney general, whether the deadlines were binding.

"Yes and no," he said.

Cuellar told him to clarify his answer. Zelidon-Zepeda said the time
limits were binding but there was no consequence for failing to meet them.

"The initiative tries to speed up the process," he said.

Kent S. Scheidegger, arguing for the proponents of the measure, told
the court it could strike down the provision establishing the
deadlines and still keep the rest of the measure.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Ming W. Chin removed
themselves from the case because the lawsuit named the Judicial
Council as a defendant.

Both serve on the council, a policy-making body for the court system,
which would have to make new rules to implement Proposition 66.

Two court of appeals judges took their place: Santa Ana-based Justice
Raymond J. Ikola, an appointee of former Gov. Gray Davis, and
Sacramento-based Justice Andrea L. Hoch, an appointee of former Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The few questions the two asked indicated possible support for the measure.

"Who knows that a five-year time limit can't be made until we try
it?" Ikola asked.

Justice Carol A. Corrigan, a former prosecutor and one of the court's
more conservative members, also seemed inclined to rule in favor of
the measure.

When a lawyer for the challenger argued that voters were promised the
courts would meet the new deadlines, Corrigan appeared irritated.

Did that mean it would be impossible to "dispose of these capital
cases in less than 15 years," the average time it now takes resolve
death penalty appeals? she asked skeptically.

Kermit Alexander, a former UCLA and NFL football player whose mother,
sister and two nephews were murdered in 1984, sponsored Proposition
66. He sat in a center seat in the back row of the courtroom, wearing
a black suit.

Alexander noted that one of the killers of his family members has
been on death row for nearly 32 years. Alexander wants to see him executed.

If allowed to take effect, the measure could result in the resumption
of executions within several months. It passed with 51% of the vote.
A competing measure to replace the death penalty with life without parole lost.

Supporters of Proposition 66 argue that major change is necessary to
clear up a backlog of hundreds of appeals and begin executing inmates
after an 11-year hiatus. California has more than 750 condemned
inmates, the largest death row in the nation.

Proponents blame defense lawyers for requesting too many time
extensions to file written arguments and the California Supreme Court
for granting them.

A decision is due within 90 days.

Source link:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-death-penalty-court-20170606-story.html