The Associated Press
Posted: 01/27/2012 05:36:54 AM PST
Updated: 01/27/2012 03:45:44 PM PST
SACRAMENTO, Calif.—California’s voter-approved standards for revoking parole violate parolees’ rights to legal representation and tips the scale toward sending them back to prison, a federal judge ruled.
Read Full Post
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento issued Tuesday’s ruling on parts of Proposition 9, which was approved in 2008 with 54 percent of the vote.
Known as Marsy’s Law, the initiative was intended to add crime victims’ rights to the state constitution.
Parolees had filed a class-action lawsuit against the state over provisions that didn’t guarantee them a right to present evidence at hearings when they were accused of violating terms of their release and allowed parole agents to testify about incriminating statements by witnesses who were not in court.
Proposition 9 also required the parole board to consider the safety of victims and the public when deciding whether to revoke parole, without weighing the costs and burdens of imprisonment.
Karlton said in his ruling that it “violates parolees’ right to a neutral decision-maker by placing a thumb on the scale of justice and tipping the balance towards incarceration,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported ( http://bit.ly/x16DyH).
The judge previously struck down the parole provisions in 2009, saying they violated a previous order he had issued to protect parolees’ rights. But an appeals court sent the case back, telling him to reconsider it by constitutional standards.
In Tuesday’s decision, Karlton cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that parolees have a right to present evidence at revocation hearings and question all opposing witnesses, unless the state has a legitimate reason to keep a witness out of court, Karlton said.
Other provisions of Proposition 9, including one that extends the amount of time that prisoners must wait between parole hearings, remain intact.
Luis Patino, spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, told the Chronicle that officials are reviewing the ruling.
| Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Judge tosses Calif. standards for revoking parole )
The Crime Victims Action Alliance formally opposed AB 109 today sending a strong opposition letter to the Governor and members of the Legislature.
As we have been reporting to you, AB 109 passed the legislature in matter of hours after being introduced. There was no opportunity for the public to comment on this legislation, no time for you to contact your representative. The vote was done without public input – period!
Now the bill sits on the Governor’s desk. He has until midnight tonight to take action on this bill. No action will allow the bill to go into law. We have asked the Governor to either veto this bill or send it back to enrollment.
Crime Victims Action Alliance has sent our letter of opposition into the Governor and a copy to every member of the legislature. In addition, Victims Action League in San Diego has also made their voice heard by sending in a letter of opposition.
Click the following link to read our letter sent to the Governor today. AB109 opposition letter
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( Comments Off on CVAA Opposes AB 109 )
Thursday, March 26, 2009
(03-26) 16:18 PDT Sacramento, CA (AP) —
A federal judge on Thursday blocked a portion of a crime victims’ rights measure approved by California voters in November that restricts legal rights for parole violators.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton of Sacramento ruled that a permanent federal injunction previously agreed to by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration trumps voters’ support for Proposition 9.
The administration agreed in 2004 to provide, at taxpayers’ expense, lawyers for ex-convicts who risk being sent back to prison for violating parole conditions. It also requires the state to act quickly on parole violation allegations and to set up rehabilitation programs that can be used instead of returning the violator to a cell.
Karlton rejected the administration’s argument that voters’ approval of the ballot measure nullifies the administration’s settlement of the class-action inmate rights lawsuit. The measure was supported by 53 percent of voters.
While the Schwarzenneger administration supported the original settlement, its lawyers say the administration is legally bound to uphold voters’ will. The authors of Proposition 9 had written language into the initiative intended to overturn the lawsuit settlement.
That’s not enough to overturn the injunction, Karlton concluded:
“A change in state law standing alone is not the type of change in factual circumstance that renders continued enforcement of a consent decree inequitable,” he wrote in a 34-page opinion.
It costs the state about $30 million annually to provide alleged parole violators with lawyers, according to corrections officials. Victims groups say the agreement exceeds constitutional requirements, though attorneys representing inmates say it is cheaper than other ways of protecting ex-convicts’ legal rights.
Proposition 9 writes victims’ rights into the California Constitution and contains numerous other restrictions on criminals that are not affected by Karlton’s ruling.
Administration lawyers previously said they are required by state law to appeal Karlton’s decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“This is an unfortunate reversal of the will of California voters,” Nina Salarno Ashford, founder and board member of Crime Victims United of California, said in a statement. “What’s worse is that we should never have been at this point in the first place.”
She blamed the administration for agreeing to the 2004 settlement.
The settlement ensures that parole can’t be revoked without a proper and swift hearing, responded attorney Ernest Galvan, who represented parolees in the case.
“What Judge Karlton did protects that process,” Galvan said. “I think it’s a win for public safety in California. I think what we’re learning every day is we need to use our scarce prison beds to keep the dangerous people behind bars and to give the parole agents the tools to keep the less dangerous parolees in the community.”
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Seth Unger said the administration is reviewing Karlton’s decision. Corrections officials never implemented the portions of Proposition 9 overturned in Karlton’s decision because the judge had entered a temporary stay immediately after the November election.
“We are implementing the will of the people on Marsy’s Law aside from the areas which the court has ordered us not to implement,” Unger said, using the proposition nickname adopted by supporters.
That includes giving more notice to crime victims and delaying parole hearings for inmates serving life sentences. Previously, inmates serving life sentences were entitled to a hearing every one- to five years, but now they are eligible every three- to 15 years.
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Federal judge limits Calif. crime victims measure )