As California pros­e­cu­tors and law enforce­ment offi­cials sub­mit­ted sig­na­tures back­ing a bal­lot ini­tia­tive intend­ed to speed up the state’s dys­func­tion­al death penal­ty appeals process, a coali­tion of inno­cence advo­cates and wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed exonerees warned that the pro­pos­al will sub­stan­tial­ly increase the risk that California will exe­cute an inno­cent per­son. The ini­tia­tive, spon­sored by dis­trict attor­neys with major fund­ing by the state’s prison guards’ union, would respond to appel­late delays caused by the state’s fail­ure to time­ly meet its oblig­a­tion of pro­vid­ing legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion to hun­dreds of death row pris­on­ers by man­dat­ing that lawyers who are deemed qual­i­fied to han­dle cap­i­tal appeals must accept court appoint­ments in these cas­es. The ini­tia­tive also would impose time lim­its on appel­late brief­ing and review of death penal­ty cas­es. The pro­pos­al would con­tin­ue a leg­isla­tive cap on the num­ber of lawyers the Habeas Corpus Resource Center — the state’s insti­tu­tion­al cap­i­tal defend­er with the most expe­ri­ence in cap­i­tal rep­re­sen­ta­tion — may hire and lim­it the types of assis­tance the cen­ter may pro­vide to oth­er lawyers appoint­ed to han­dle these cas­es. Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, whose office has been been dis­qual­i­fied from pros­e­cut­ing one cap­i­tal case and is under fire for with­hold­ing infor­ma­tion from defense lawyers and lying to courts about its use of prison infor­mants, said the crimes for which defen­dants have been sen­tenced to death ​“are so hor­ren­dous there is no real pun­ish­ment oth­er than the death penal­ty that will bring jus­tice in those cas­es.” He described the sub­mis­sion of the sig­na­tures as a ​“real­ly good day for the vic­tims of crimes across California.” But inno­cence advo­cates and exonerees dis­agree. Alex Simpson, Associate Director of the California Innocence Project, said ​“California’s legal process in death penal­ty cas­es exists for a rea­son: to make sure that inno­cent peo­ple aren’t exe­cut­ed. This mea­sure guts these impor­tant pro­tec­tions by apply­ing unre­al­is­tic and arbi­trary time­lines, great­ly increas­ing the chance that we send an inno­cent per­son to the death cham­ber and allow a guilty per­son a free pass to vic­tim­ize again.” Barry Scheck, Director of the nation­al Innocence Project in New York, warned that ​“California would be mak­ing a grave and irre­versible mis­take by approv­ing this ini­tia­tive.” And Randy Steidl, one of the nation’s 156 death row exonerees and cur­rent Board President of Witness to Innocence, summed up the prob­lems he sees with the ini­tia­tive, say­ing ​“This ini­tia­tive will lead to the exe­cu­tion of inno­cent peo­ple just like me.” 

California’s sys­temic fail­ure to pro­vide rep­re­sen­ta­tion to the state’s death row pris­on­ers led a fed­er­al judge to declare its death penal­ty uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. That deci­sion was lat­er reversed on appeal on procedural grounds. 

(S. Emery, ​“Signatures turned in for bal­lot mea­sure to over­haul death penal­ty sys­tem,” Orange County Register, May 19, 2016; Innocence Projects and wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed indi­vid­u­als, ​“Press Release: Innocence Projects and Wrongfully Convicted Individuals Express Concern that Proposed Ballot,” May 19, 2016.) See California, Arbitrariness and Innocence.

Citation Guide