The Interocitor

California Death Penalty -- A Sick Joke

The California death penalty is a joke. Drastic action needs to be taken, either by initiative or by the legislature to reform the system. As it stands the death penalty process is a waste of time, money and emotion -- of the 45 condemned who have died since 1978, only 10 have died at the hands of the State.

Some statistics: Since the death penalty was reauthorized in California in 1978, 717 people have been sentenced to death. Of these, 60 have had their sentence reduced or their conviction overturned. Two have been sent to another state. Forty-five inmates under sentence of death have died -- 22 naturally, 13 by suicide, and 10 by execution.

As of April 2003, there were 610 people under death sentence in California [PDF]. Of these 181 had had their sentences affirmed by the CA Supreme Court, 8 were awaiting retrial and 4 were serving time in another state. Sixty-two people have been on death row for more than 20 years.

Among these people are Richard Ramirez (the "Night Stalker") whose sentence has not yet been affirmed by the CA Supreme Court. He is currently appealing again on the basis that his lawyers were ineffective in not pleading insanity.

Another is Ricardo Rene Sanders, who gunned down over a dozen people during a robbery of a Big Boy restaurant in 1980. Although he was convicted in 1983, the CA Supremes did not get around to ruling on the case until 1995. Why so long? From the opinion (People v. Sanders, 11 Cal. 4th 475):

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in this automatic appeal in October 1983. After repeated failures to perform the duties of a court-appointed attorney, he was relieved as counsel in November 1987. The State Public Defender was appointed as appellate counsel for defendant in December 1987. Briefing on the merits was completed in mid-1995.

Apparently there are no effective time limits on appeals -- counsel dithered in this case for over a decade -- making dithering an effective defense. The case has now moved on to the morass of the federal system and the 9th Circuit, which should be good for another decade or two of delay.

A quite perfect example of this dithering and delay can be found in the case of Richard Dean Turner, a parolee who shot an elederly couple to death in their home (supported by confession of accomplice and by physical evidence). The sentence was overturned by the Bird Court in 1984 and the casae has been dragging on since then. While the sentence was reimposed in 1988, Turner's attorneys had been requesting (and getting) extensions on their appeal. As of 2002, they still had not done so, but the Court was finally taking action, fining the lead counsel $1000 for contempt (In re Sanger, 27 Cal. 4th 762), and ordering him to file the appeal real soon now:

On October 19, 1988, in San Bernardino County Superior Court, defendant Richard Dean Turner was sentenced to death. On September 12, 1991, Attorney Thomas L. Riordan was appointed as lead counsel to represent defendant Turner in his automatic appeal and any related habeas corpus proceedings; on June 26, 1992, Attorney Robert M. Sanger was appointed as associate counsel to represent defendant Turner in the same capacity. The record on appeal was certified on July 6, 1999, and includes a reporter's transcript of 4,675 pages and a clerk's transcript of 3,303 pages, including approximately 1,755 pages of juror questionnaires. By letter on that same date, the court informed Riordan and Sanger that the appellant's opening brief was due on August 16, 1999. The court thereafter granted requests for extensions of time to file appellant's opening brief on August 20, 1999, October 21, 1999, December 23, 1999, February 28, 2000, April 18, 2000, and July 3, 2000.

On August 25, 2000, we granted Riordan and Sanger's seventh request for an extension of time to file the opening brief "to and including October 13, 2000," but stated in our order: "No further extensions of time are contemplated."

On October 24, 2000, we granted an eighth request for extension of time to file the opening brief "to and including December 12, 2000," but stated in our order: "No further extensions of time will be granted." On December 12, 2000, Riordan and Sanger filed a ninth request for extension of time to file the opening brief, which the court denied on December 20....

The court finds Robert M. Sanger guilty of contempt of this court. Having been adjudged in contempt of the California Supreme Court, Robert M. Sanger is ordered to pay a fine of $ 1,000.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6086.7, the clerk is directed to notify the State Bar of this action by forwarding to the State Bar a copy of this judgment of contempt.

Robert M. Sanger is ordered to complete a full draft of appellant's opening brief in this case and submit it to the California Appellate Project on or before April 5, 2002. He is further ordered to complete appellant's opening brief in this case and lodge it with the court on or before May 6, 2002, along with a request for relief from default and for permission to file the brief. If the completed brief is not lodged with the court on or before May 6, 2002, the court will consider issuing an order directing Robert M. Sanger to show cause before this court, when the matter is ordered on calendar, why he should not be held in contempt of court a second time and sanction imposed, including the possibility of incarceration, for his continuing delay of the appellate process. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, subd. (a).)

Co-counsel was subsequently also cited for contempt in a similar order. As of yet, the CA Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Mr. Turner's appeal. It is not clear whether the appeal has been filed. Turner has been on death row for 24 years.

Clearly this system is broken. To spend time and money and torture the families of victims year after year in pursuit of a chimera is cruel indeed. It is time to start disbarring lawyers who game the system, sanction judges who sit on appeals, and force the timely operation of the death penalty. If this cannot be done, then abolish it. Of course, the voters might be upset if that's the best that can be done. And rightly so.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at November 21, 2004 11:45 AM | TrackBack