Fair and Just Prosecution’s Post

On April 9, 2024, the California Office of the State Public Defender, along with several civil rights groups, filed an extraordinary writ petition at the California Supreme Court arguing that the state’s capital punishment system violates the state’s Constitution because of its racially biased implementation. In 2021, the California Committee on Revision of the Penal Code confirmed that racial bias is entrenched in the state’s death penalty system. “The California Constitution does not permit a two-tiered system of justice where the most severe sentence the state has on its books imposed overwhelmingly on Black and Brown people,” said Lisa Romo, a Senior Deputy State Public Defender. “We urge the Court to address this long-standing injustice and ensure that Black and Brown people are no longer sentenced disproportionately to death.” In the filings, attorneys for the plaintiffs noted that both Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom have “agree[d] that persistent and pervasive racial disparities infect California’s death penalty system.” AG Bonta opposes capital punishment and has previously acknowledged there is “a disparate impact on defendants of color, especially when the victim is white.” Gov. Newsom has also publicly disclosed his opposition to the death penalty, stating in an amicus brief previously filed with the court that the “overwhelming majority of studies that have analyzed America’s death penalty have found that racial disparities are pervasive, and that the race of the defendant and the race of the victim impact whether the death penalty will be imposed.” In March 2019, just two months after taking office, Gov. Newsom signed an executive order placing a moratorium on the death penalty in California, explaining that “death sentences are unevenly and unfairly applied to people of color.” Despite the acknowledgement from both AG Bonta and Gov. Newsom regarding these serious racial disparities, the lawsuit alleges that California prosecutors have continued to seek the death penalty and obtain sentences against a disproportionate number of people of color. Click to read more. . . . #deathpenalty #California

The California Supreme Court is considering a historic petition by civil rights groups arguing that racial discrimination in the death penalty violates state constitutional rights. The petition seeks to halt death sentences in CA, prohibiting the attorney general and DAs from pursuing them. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eGhQbFu4 #justicereform #criminaljustice #criminaljusticereform #deathpenalty

Why is it so hard or difficult for these federal and state judges to do their job? You have to question it. Seems to me they avoid the idea of sentencing an insurrectionist to a lengthy prison term. Is it because they don’t want to be the one that sends him to prison? Well that’s just too dam bad. It is a crime, you not doing your job, isn’t it… Stop giving this person a pedestal to stand on. It’s your fault he’s gotten as far as he has. If that’s all they’re worried about, if he’s re-elected that cushie job you have sitting on the bench doing nothing will be over sooner than you think. It’s time for self preservation, if not for yourself, do it for your country. Last time I checked you did take an oath to defend the constitution or was it just words being said just to get the job? His crackpot lawyers are making a mockery of the judicial system, filing frivolous motion after motion, and the judges, they tolerate it. And we should hold these judges to high esteem? Really… These judges, their credibility and integrity isn’t worth crap . He dares them to do anything to him and they immediately back down. …and the other nine, that’s a story not to be told. what they’ve done to the women in America, ruined so many women’s lives and (TOOK) away their right to choose. Where’s the democracy in that? This isn’t the America I grew up with. All this (BS) to save a criminal. The entire world knows he did it with his 18 co-defendants. And the world is watching and waiting to see if he’s held accountable for his crimes. Postponing his March 4th trial, any reason is good enough. It’s unbelievable. What else can be said about the United States of America? Nothing worth bragging about, just keep paying your taxes like a good citizen. The second Civil War has already started, your God given right to choose will have to be fought for. Not about the North and South, it’s Pro choice against Pro life and no one wins this ugly war. It will go on and on, probably until the end of time or the world stops revolving. Democracy it’s been gone. It ended on January 6th and it is a disgrace and a shame. Maybe it’s a bad dream to try and wake up from, because it can’t be reality. He knows as long as there’s fear in anyone’s heart he can get away with anything. TURNER MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT

How many feel of Florida state for whoever is only defending ,and voting for Donald Trump say I want for Judge Juan Merchan to be held accountable for his huge mistake for doing really bad crime to want Donald Trump to be legally be put in jail for next hearing to be decided by Judge male libero New York state court house name Juan Merchan wants to strike over Donald Trump's lawyers to lose the case we all republicans need to legally defend Donald Trump ,and his family members . DA district male libero who hates also of Donald Trump does anyone of the world know they all have hate crimes against also on people of special needs why in Lord God almighty is people causing whomever hate crimes towards anyone of all whites ,and blacks ,and to people of handicaps does anyone feel like crooked evil libero Judges deserve to be held accountable for wanting former president Donald Trump by July 2024 to be really be put in jail really male Libero Judge Juan Merchan ,and all lawyers of all kinds / libero Judges are dumb yearly anyone whoever hates whoever worldwide countries / of all beliefs / people of all handicaps shouldn't also be threatened ,and reacted or discriminated by USA companies of 50 USA states . people whoever has hate crimes should be held accountable for wanted badly to threatened a former president name Donald Trump . Americans leave Donald Trump alone anyone of 50 USA states he hasn't broken laws anyone please leave Donald Trump alone taxpayers ? USA cops to view this of Florida time zone protect Donald Trump anyone ? Screw Joe Biden ,& China too anyone . show kindness to Donald Trump anyone ? Congress to view this too urgently to defend us all of Florida state / USA Military troopers / Florida cops too / Cape coral cops too love yo all cops defend Donald Trump yo all of Florida state republicans ? We all love you Donald Trump of Florida time zone weekly / yearly . Just became yo all a lee county poll worker for election day November 5th 2024 of Florida state / Cape coral areas .

On this day - April 22, 1987 U.S. Supreme Court Rules Racial Bias "Inevitable" in Criminal Justice System On April 22, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Black man's death penalty appeal grounded in claims of racial inequality and instead accepted proven racial sentencing disparities as "an inevitable part of our criminal justice system." In October 1978, a Black man named Warren McCleskey was convicted of killing a white police officer during a robbery and was sentenced to death. On appeal, Mr. McCleskey's lawyers argued that Georgia's capital punishment system was racially biased in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In support of his argument, the lawyers presented statistical evidence that race significantly impacted the likelihood of a death sentence. University of Iowa professor David Baldus had conducted a rigorous statistical analysis of more than 2,000 Georgia murder cases and found that prosecutors were more likely to seek the death penalty and juries were more likely to impose it in cases involving Black defendants and white victims. Even after controlling for crime-specific variables, the Baldus study concluded Black defendants accused of killing white victims faced the highest likelihood of receiving the death penalty. In its 5-4 decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, the Court accepted the Baldus study's findings as valid but held that the evidence was not enough to reverse the conviction and sentence because there was no proof that any individual had intentionally discriminated against Mr. McCleskey based on race. In other words, without clear evidence that the discrimination was impactful and purposeful, the Court would not act. In dissent, Justice William Brennan wrote that the majority was motivated to deny relief by a "fear of too much justice."r The Court's ruling upheld the constitutionality of racially biased capital punishment in America and remains the law today. The U.S. has executed more than 1,200 people since 1987, including Warren McCleskey, who died in the electric chair on September 26, 1991.

Reflecting on the Inherent Dangers of the Death Penalty This past weekend, I had the honor of speaking at the Orange County Paralegal Association’s 38th annual educational conference about the death penalty in California. Today, as Missouri executed Marcellus Williams, a man who has spent the last 24 years on death row for a crime that DNA evidence proves he didn’t commit, I am reminded of the grave injustices that can occur within our legal system. The death penalty is fraught with inherent dangers, not least of which is the irreversible nature of the punishment. Once carried out, there is no rectifying a wrongful execution. This risk is compounded by systemic biases that disproportionately affect Black individuals. As a nation, we must confront these injustices head-on. Here are a few steps we can take to ensure that such tragedies never happen again: 1️⃣ Abolish the Death Penalty: We must join the growing number of states that have already abolished capital punishment, not soley instituting a moratorium on it. It is a flawed system that cannot guarantee justice. 2️⃣ Address Racial Bias: Implement comprehensive training programs for law enforcement and legal professionals to recognize and mitigate racial biases. 3️⃣ Ensure Fair Representation: Provide adequate legal representation for all individuals, regardless of their financial status, to ensure fair trials. 4️⃣ Promote Transparency: Increase transparency in the legal process to hold all parties accountable and ensure that justice is served impartially. We must strive for a justice system that truly upholds the principles of fairness and equality. The death penalty, as it stands, is a stark reminder of how far we still have to go. Thank you Kai Williamson, M. Ed. for the opportunity to shed a bit more light on this subject. #JusticeReform #EndTheDeathPenalty #EqualityForAll #LegalReform

On this day, Apr 22, 1987 U.S. Supreme Court Rules Racial Bias "Inevitable" in Criminal Justice System On April 22, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Black man's death penalty appeal grounded in claims of racial inequality and instead accepted proven racial sentencing disparities as "an inevitable part of our criminal justice system." In October 1978, a Black man named Warren McCleskey was convicted of killing a white police officer during a robbery and was sentenced to death. On appeal, Mr. McCleskey's lawyers argued that Georgia's capital punishment system was racially biased in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In support of his argument, the lawyers presented statistical evidence that race significantly impacted the likelihood of a death sentence. University of Iowa professor David Baldus had conducted a rigorous statistical analysis of more than 2,000 Georgia murder cases and found that prosecutors were more likely to seek the death penalty and juries were more likely to impose it in cases involving Black defendants and white victims. Even after controlling for crime-specific variables, the Baldus study concluded Black defendants accused of killing white victims faced the highest likelihood of receiving the death penalty. In its 5-4 decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, the Court accepted the Baldus study's findings as valid but held that the evidence was not enough to reverse the conviction and sentence because there was no proof that any individual had intentionally discriminated against Mr. McCleskey on the basis of race. In other words, without clear evidence that the discrimination was impactful and purposeful, the Court would not act. In dissent, Justice William Brennan wrote that the majority was motivated to deny relief by a "fear of too much justice." The Court's ruling upheld the constitutionality of racially biased capital punishment in America and remains the law today. The U.S. has executed more than 1,200 people since 1987, including Warren McCleskey, who died in the electric chair on September 26, 1991. For more info click here: https://lnkd.in/gDyavTcM

~ from an ACLU article “Trump on the Criminal Legal System” pages 7-8. Buried deep in the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership” is a single paragraph that forewarns the future of capital punishment under a new Trump regime: He will seek to expand the categories of crimes punish­able by death, sentence more people to die, and then kill every person on federal death row. Guided by the long-debunked myth64 that capital punish­ment deters crime,65 and with no regard for decades of Supreme Court precedent,66 Trump seeks to expand the range of crimes that are punishable by death. He hasreportedly called for the death penalty as punishment for treason for those who leak information against him in the press67 or undermine him politically.68 He will attempt to expand the death penalty to non-homicide crimes, such as drug sale,69 human trafficking,70 and child rape,71 a move the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008). As the ACLU argued in our amicus brief in Kennedy, our country almost exclusively reserved its executions for non-homicide crimes for people of color, most frequently for cases with white victims.72 Trump’s insistence on actively pursuing death in non-ho­micide crimes threatens to drive extreme sentencing across the board, making every sentence less than death (falsely) seem comparatively lenient. As for manner of execution, Trump has “privately mused” on bringing back firing squads,73 the guillotine, and hangings by noose74 — a symbol and tool of our country’s sordid legacy of lynching and racial terror. Trump’s embrace of capital punishment is longstanding. In the 1980s, as a private citizen, he paid $85,000 from his own funds to publish a page-wide advertisement calling for the execution of five Black and Latine boys wrongfully accused as the “Central Park Five.”75 Even before his first presidential run, he repeatedly called for death in high profile cases via his private Twitter account.76 As Trump has shown, again and again, when given the chance to use the death penalty, he will.

💥 For years, Oregon has allowed a constitutional crisis of its own making: the state has repeatedly failed to provide attorneys to thousands of Oregonians charged with a crime who cannot afford an attorney but have a constitutional right to one. In 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane ordered the release of Oregonians arrested for crimes if they weren’t provided an attorney by the state within seven days of appearing in court, subject to reasonable court-imposed conditions for release. Last Friday, Judge John Owens, writing for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals majority, affirmed Judge McShane’s order and provided pointed observations about the State of Oregon’s failures: Judge McShane: “It’s an embarrassment to the state… It’s a complete tragedy and nobody seems to have an answer. Literally we suspended the Constitution when it comes to this group.” Judge Owens: “The state arrests a citizen and incarcerates him pending trial. Days, weeks, and months pass without any legal representation. He seeks relief from the authorities… In response, he gets a shoulder shrug, a promise that they are ‘working on it,’ and nothing more.” Elected leaders at all levels of government have responsibilities related to the criminal system, and they all bear responsibility for the continuing constitutional crisis of unrepresented Oregonians. They are part of the problem, but they can also be part of the solution. First, lawmakers and district attorneys must prioritize criminal system resources for serious crimes that directly impact safety, instead of low-level offenses such as drug addiction and unsheltered homelessness that clog and overburden the system. Second, the state must continue investing in resources and incentives to increase the availability of public defense lawyers and staff in Oregon, including student loan forgiveness programs, pay parity with jobs in district attorneys’ offices, and workforce training programs. Third, Oregon must address workplace toxicity, discrimination, and harassment in its criminal legal system. Public defenders, especially women and POC, have been mistreated and retaliated against. This has resulted in high levels of burnout and public defenders quitting. 👉 It is time for the State to address this with the urgency that has long been necessary. Grave constitutional violations require extraordinary court interventions. Learn more about the public defender shortage and constitutional crisis in Oregon at https://bit.ly/4c6xtRE.

5. How can you help ban qualified immunity? The Campaign to End Qualified Immunity in New York seeks to make New York the third state, after Colorado and New Mexico, to hold government officials accountable for violating people’s civil rights. Prompted in part by the police killing of Daniel Prude who was experiencing a mental health emergency, the campaign has intensified calls for legal and systemic reforms around police accountability and the treatment of individuals like Mr. Prude with mental health issues in the state of New York. Mr. Prude, whose family called police for help as he was experiencing a mental health crisis, died after officers put a hood over his head and pressed his face into the pavement. Medical examiners ruled his death a homicide caused by “complications of asphyxia in the setting of physical restraint.” Police involved in Mr. Prude’s case were suspended with pay and never faced charges. Unless qualified immunity is repealed, holding government officials accountable, like those in Mr. Prude’s case, is nearly impossible. The bill S182/A710, would repeal qualified immunity in New York with the following benefits: Removing the barrier that allows public officials in power to avoid accountability. Creating a pathway to justice, allowing people, including those wrongfully convicted, to successfully sue for violations of their constitutional rights. Guaranteeing system-wide accountability by allowing government officials to be held liable for civil rights violations and holding the governing agency that employs them financially responsible. Supporting systemic change by including a provision in the bill that would help cover legal fees for New Yorkers if the presiding judge on the lawsuit agrees that the case could lead to policy changes, enabling attorneys to take on larger, more complex cases. Ban qualified immunity in New York Call your lawmaker today! © 2024 Innocence Project. All Rights Reserved.