In May 2008, the California Supreme Court threw out the death sentence of convicted murderer Adam Miranda and ordered a new sentencing trial, ruling that Los Angeles County prosecutors failed to disclose key information that likely affected the sentencing of Miranda. A Los Angeles Times editorial highlights the arbitrariness of this case, noting that many defendants without dedicated representation might not have fared so well. This editorial asks about the other inmates on California’s death row:

Miranda had an attorney whose firm was willing to donate millions of dollars worth of time to his case. Most of the 669 people on San Quentin’s death row aren’t nearly as lucky. If they have lawyers at all, they’re usually harried, well-meaning professionals who do the best they can with the limited resources the state gives them to pursue their appeals. Earlier this year, one defense lawyer told the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice that, in a single death-penalty case, he typically must review 100 boxes of files and explore 40 areas in which things may have gone wrong — but must tell his clients that “maybe I can only do seven of them” because there isn’t enough money to do the rest.

Confronted with the enormous cost of the death penalty in California, its supporters argue that it would be cheaper if the process were sped up. Yet Miranda’s case shows how important those seemingly endless appeals can be… . California’s death penalty costs too much — in time and money, but mostly in its potential for injustice — to be sustained.

(Editorial “A Death Sentence Voided” Los Angeles Times, May 7, 2008). See also Costs and Editorials.

Citation Guide