Appeals Court Overturns Challenge to California Death Penalty on Procedural Grounds

A three-judge pan­el of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit has over­turned a California fed­er­al dis­trict court deci­sion that had declared California’s death penal­ty uncon­sti­tu­tion­al, say­ing that the issue pre­sent­ed ​“a nov­el con­sti­tu­tion­al rule” that was beyond the pow­er of the fed­er­al courts to address in a habeas cor­pus pro­ceed­ing. The appeals court did not address the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of California’s death penal­ty, say­ing that because of tech­ni­cal pro­ce­dur­al rules ​“we may not assess the sub­stan­tive valid­i­ty of [this] claim.” 

U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney had ruled in 2014 in the case of Ernest D. Jones that the lengthy delays and arbi­trari­ness in California’s death penal­ty sys­tem ren­dered it uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly cru­el and unusu­al. Judge Susan P. Graber (pic­tured), who wrote the 9^th Circuit’s deci­sion, said, ​“Many agree with peti­tion­er that California’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem is dys­func­tion­al and that the delay between sen­tenc­ing and exe­cu­tion in California is extra­or­di­nary.” However, she said ​“the pur­pose of fed­er­al habeas cor­pus is to ensure that state con­vic­tions com­ply with the fed­er­al law in exis­tence at the time the con­vic­tion became final, and not to pro­vide a mech­a­nism for the con­tin­u­ing re-exam­i­na­tion of final judg­ments based upon lat­er emerg­ing legal doctrine.” 

California has the largest death row in the nation, but has car­ried out only 13 exe­cu­tions since 1978, and none since 2006. Jones has been on California’s death row since 1995. The appeals court deci­sion sends the case back to the dis­trict court to address oth­er chal­lenges to the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of Jones’ con­vic­tion and death sen­tence that Judge Carney did not decide when he declared California’s death penalty unconstitutional.