[Cris Alarcon, Placerville Newswire]
On Thursday, August 24, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Briggs v. Brown, which upheld Proposition 66, the 2016 initiative to “mend not end” the death penalty in California, which was approved by the voters last November.
El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson commented,
“As a supporter of Prop. 66 I am pleased that the California Supreme Court upheld the will of the people and allowed the initiative to stand. The reforms contained in this law are critically important to ensure justice for victims and that the death penalty process is carried out in a timely matter for the most vicious criminals."[District Attorney Vern Pierson, August 25, 2017]
In November 2016, voters in the state of California passed Proposition 66, the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016,” a ballot measure that changed the procedures and limited the time during which death sentences could be appealed, with just 51% of the vote.
Proposition 66 introduced measures that, among other things:
- Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences.
- Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions.
- Establishes time frame for state court death penalty review.
- Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals
Ron Briggs and John Van De Kamp had challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 66 before the California Supreme Court, seeking injunctive relief to stay its implementation.. Plaintiffs argue that Prop 66 is unconstitutional because it violates the California Constitution’s single subject rule for ballot provisions, improperly interferes with the jurisdiction of appellate courts to hear habeas petitions, violates the separation of powers doctrine by setting deadlines for processing habeas corpus petitions, and violates the equal protection rights of capital defendants by limiting their ability to file successive habeas petitions.
On December 20, the California Supreme Court granted the stay.
On March 30, the Brennan Center filed an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioner. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. is universally regarded as one of the most influential and liberal justices of the second half of the 20th century.
Amici were represented pro bono by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, In its brief, the Brennan Center and co-signatories argue the proposition places unlawful obligations on how and when courts can hear these petitions, violating the separation of powers doctrine. It also argues that the petition strips the California Supreme Court, California Court of Appeals, and other state superior courts of their constitutionally granted original jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions by limiting such petitions to only the superior court that issued the death sentence. Because the provisions of this proposition are non-severable, the Center argues that the proposition must be struck as a whole.
The California Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a ballot measure approved by voters to change the state’s death penalty system and speed up executions.
SUDHIN THANAWALA and BRIAN MELLEY:
The highly anticipated ruling concerned Proposition 66, a push to “mend not end” capital punishment in California. The measure aimed to expedite death sentences in part by setting a five-year deadline on court appeals by condemned inmates...
Arguments before a divided California Supreme Court in June focused on whether the measure’s five-year deadline to hear appeals was realistic and enforceable. Supporters of the measure surprised observers when they conceded the time limit was not mandatory but more of a guideline...
Several justices seized on that issue and asked a lawyer from the attorney general’s office how the deadline could be met without radically altering the court system and how it could be effective without consequences.
Death penalty supporters argued the measure would not create chaos and could be upheld without a hard deadline. They urged justices to give it a chance to work...
The measure — approved by 51 percent of voters — was designed by prosecutors to revamp the appeals process so the “worst of the worst” murderers are actually executed...
