Results matching “Plata”

In May of 2011, about two weeks after Governor Brown signed legislation (AB109 ie. Public Safety Realignment) allowing the early release of thousands of state prison inmates, Associate Justice Alito wrote a dissent in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Plata noting that the "premature release of approximately 46,000 criminals, the equivalent of three Army divisions...is gambling with the safety of the people of California."  When the law took effect in October of that year, CJLF began reporting on the significant number of of violent crimes being committed by criminals released into California counties by the inmate release law.  These reports were dismissed by supporters of Realignment and some think tanks.  Examples include a May 29 OpEd in the Sacramento Bee by former California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg who wrote " A year ago we heard fear-mongering voices warning of dangerous criminals being released."  She boasted that the law has successfully reduced the state prison population and criminals on parole "without a spike in crime."   Later FBI numbers indicated that both violent and property crime in California did spike in 2012,  leveled off in 2013, increased slightly in 2014 and then spiked by 13% over the first six months of last year.  This after nearly two decades of declining crime rates.   

Yesterday, Mike Rushford wrote a post detailing the dismal experiences California has had implementing its version of dumbed-down sentencing and early release called "realignment."  Realignment was signed by Gov. Brown roughly five years ago, in April 2011, in response to years of problems with prison overcrowding.

Congress is currently considering legislation that would provide lower sentences and early release to thousand of federal felons. There are many questions to be asked about this proposal.  One of the most important is whether we'll learn anything from California's experience  --  California having, in the last few years, given early release to more prisoners than all the other states combined.

The Department of Justice is set to undertake the biggest legalized jailbreak in history.  That is not an exaggeration; it's a close paraphrase of today's Washington Post article, which begins:

A number of people have asked me to post the script of my remarks at the Federalist Society's National Convention last week.  I am happy to do so below:

Two facts about crime and sentencing dwarf everything else we have learned over the past 50 years:  When we have more prison we have less crime, and when we have less prison, we have more crime.

Al Kamen and Colby Itkowitz have this story at the WaPo on nominees left hanging "when senators ran for the exits on Friday."  They note a deplorable situation on ambassadorships -- with plenty of blame to go around -- but the pertinent part for this blog is judicial nominations.

Remember Jimmy Carter?  He was only President for one term in what seems like ages ago.  Yet he caused enormous and long-lasting damage through his judicial nominations.  It was on his watch that the Ninth Circuit became the jurisprudential disaster area that it remains to this day.  All three of the judges on the three-judge district court in the Plata prisoner release fiasco were Carter appointees.  Thank God he didn't get any Supreme Court appointments.

Until last November, Republicans were filibustering President Obama's worst nominees, a tactic they deplored when President Bush was making the nominations.  Then Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the "nuclear option," a move he denounced as a travesty when President Bush was making the nominations.

Kamen and Itkowitz note that "the clock is not looking favorable" for the eight district court nominees pending on the Senate floor.  Hopefully, the 114th Congress will have a Republican majority in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee, with Charles Grassley in the chair, and fringe nominees can be blocked with a simple majority vote or not even make it out of committee.

In debating the Heroin Dealers Bonanza Act Smarter Sentencing Act, I hear one question again and again:   Since some states like Texas and Michigan have reduced their prison populations over the last few years and  have seen the decline in crime continue, why can't the federal prison system do the same?

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more."  The California prisoner release litigation is headed back to the US Supreme Court for the third time.

The first time, a three-judge court composed of three of the most pro-criminal, anti-victim judges in the entire federal bench ordered massive reductions in California's prisoner-to-capacity ratio.  The Governator appealed, but the decision came down after Jerry Brown had retaken the office.  The Supreme Court affirmed in Brown v. Plata.  At the end of the opinion, though, the high court noted that the formula in the order was not carved in stone and should be reconsidered as needed.

The three-judge court ignored the latter admonition, ignored the progress California has made, and refused to modify its formula.  The state appealed again to the Supreme Court but got tripped up in the technical distinction between an appeal from an injunction and an appeal from a refusal to modify an injunction.  Jurisdiction for the latter lies in the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction two weeks ago. See this post.

Depending on your point of view, California has already released either the most it can without endangering the public (Brown's view) or more than we safely can, having already endangered the public (my view).  See also this article in the WSJ by Heather MacDonald.  Pushing more prisoners on county jails will not work, as the realignment program has already filled the jails in many counties beyond capacity.  So the options to comply with order are to either expand capacity by using out-of-state placements or unleash dangerous criminals on the public.

In a breathtakingly astonishing act of judicial arrogance, the three-judge panel actually ordered the Governor of California not to enter into any contracts for out-of-state capacity, without citing any legal basis whatsoever for such a prohibition.  This is a new injunction, and should be within the Supreme Court's direct appeal jurisdiction.  The Governor has filed a notice of appeal. Just in case, he has also filed a protective appeal to the Ninth Circuit. I suggest the Governor also make a renewed motion to modify the underlying order and appeal the inevitable denial to the Ninth Circuit.

The case has not appeared on the SCOTUS online docket yet.  I will post a link when it does.

The US Supreme Court has a two-day calendar this week, rather than the usual three-day, due to the Columbus Day holiday.  The orders list from Friday's conference will be issued Tuesday.

The most important case on the list is the California prisoner release case, Brown v. Plata, No. 13-198, challenging the three-judge court's order to reduce California's prisoner population to a level that even the notoriously soft-on-crime Gov. Jerry Brown asserts is dangerous.  This case is a mandatory direct appeal, rather than a discretionary writ of certiorari, but there is an odd jurisdictional question regarding whether the case actually falls within the high court's direct appeal jurisdiction.  Earlier, the Court turned down a stay application by Brown.  An amicus brief by yours truly on behalf of the four living former governors in support of that motion is here.

SCOTUSblog has other petitions to watch here.  The Cert Pool has the full list, with capital cases flagged, here.

The heavy news coverage this week will be on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, argued Tuesday.  It's off topic for the blog, but FWIW here are opposing opinion pieces in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

The two criminal cases are set for argument Wednesday.  Kansas v. Cheever involves a compelled psychological examination of a defendant who makes a mental defense but does not claim he is mentally ill.  CJLF's brief in support of the state is here.  An earlier post written after the state court decision is here.   Update:  Hurst Laviana of the Wichita Eagle has this story.

Also up Wednesday is Kaley v. United States, regarding whether an indicted defendant's allegedly ill-gotten gains can be frozen when he needs them to pay his lawyer.

The three-judge court's latest injunction ... like the court's other recent actions, disregards the law and the role of the judiciary. The three-judge court ignored this Court's [the U.S. Supreme Court's] mandate in Plata, this Court's cases governing modification of injunctive relief, and the public safety implications that the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] requires it to consider.....

The three-judge court's latest injunction underscores that its orders no longer have anything to do with ensuring that inmates in two discrete classes receive health care that satisfies the Eighth Amendment--which is what these cases should be about. Nor are they concerned with meeting the 137.5% of prison design capacity population cap, which purportedly is designed to cure care that violates the Eighth Amendment. Rather, the court's interest appears to be in legislating criminal justice policy by reducing the prison population through outright releases of inmates that it--and Appellees' counsel [footnote citing L.A.Times article quoting Don Specter]--do not believe should be incarcerated. See Appellants' Supp. App. 2-3 (agenda for meet-and-confer includes discussion of releases of certain categories of inmates the State already has shown would present public safety risks). [Emphasis added.]

Whew!  Reads like something Bill Otis might have written.  Who did write it?

When the lawyers for the California prisoners in the Plata case were arguing against a stay of the three-judge court's order in the U.S. Supreme Court, they said, "More fundamentally, Appellants do not have to release any prisoners; they have wide latitude to substitute other methods for reducing overcrowding....  For example, Appellants could 'reassign prisoners to leased jail space,' without any impact on public safety whatsoever."

With the stay denied, Gov. Brown proposed to do exactly that, which necessarily includes out-of-state facilities, as there is only so much capacity within the state.

Today, as noted in the News Scan, the three-judge court extended the deadline by a measly four weeks and ordered the parties to "meet and confer."  Okay, but then there is this provision in the order:  "During the meet-and-confer process and until further order of the Court, defendants shall not enter into any contracts or other arrangements to lease additional capacity in out-of-state facilities or otherwise increase the number of inmates who are housed in out-of-state facilities."

Excuse me, your honors, but exactly by what authority do you order California's executive officials, and thereby effectively order the State of California, not to employ additional out-of-state capacity to house its prisoners?

Yesterday, I noted that Gov. Brown's involvement of Republicans, a victims' advocate, and law enforcement at his press conference on prison policy was in sharp contrast to the way he handled Realignment.  Two years ago, he rammed that ill-convinced fiasco through the Legislature like Vlad the Impaler, with no trace of bipartisanship and no chance for public evaluation and input.

Why the dramatic change?  This time there is a schism on the left side of the aisle, and he actually needs the support of persons of sense.

California Governor Jerry Brown is holding a press conference, along with legislative and law enforcement leaders, announcing plans to comply with the order of the three-judge Plata court without releasing any additional prisoners.

He isn't giving a lot of details, presumably we will get that later, but the plan evidently involves use of vacant capacity within the state as well as increased use of out-of-state, presumably private, prison facilities.

Involving Republican legislative leaders and law enforcement is a sharp contrast with his handling of the Realignment bill in 2011, rammed through the legislature in a single day with no attempt whatever at cooperation.

The Speaker of the Assembly and the Republican (minority) leaders of both houses are on board.  The Senate President Pro Tem is absent.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued this orders list this morning. Four stay applications in civil cases made to individual justices and referred to the Court are denied.  Brown v. Plata is not among them.

And now, for something completely different.

In the Plata case, the prisoners have filed their opposition to California Governor Brown's request to stay the order of the three-judge court directing yet further reductions in California's prison population.  Lyle Denniston has this post at SCOTUSblog and gives us a link to the opposition.

Remarkably, the prisoners contend that no stay is necessary because Brown can comply by sending excess prisoners to privately run (out of state) facilities, thereby not impacting public safety.

Normally, use of such facilities sends prisoner rights advocates into a conniption fit.  Here they are suggesting it.  It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

As for the amicus briefs (including one by yours truly for the four former governors), the prisoners try to brush them off in a footnote, saying the rules don't allow for them.  But, as noted in our motion, the Court has allowed such amicus briefs before.  We will see how that turns out.

FBI Documents Indicate no Racial Bias in Zimmerman Case: Pursuing a civil rights violation charge against George Zimmerman may be difficult for the Justice Department due to a lack of evidence as cited by previously filed documents from the FBI.  Fox News reports that civil rights charges have been issued in the past with cases such as the Rodney King beating, but filing them in the Zimmerman case will be difficult due to the lack of evidence to support that he killed Trayvon Martin based on racial bias.  The FBI has already interviewed dozens of people in the case, and has found no evidence to indicate the killing of Martin was racially motivated.

Death Row Inmate Waives Clemency Hearing: An Oklahoma death row inmate scheduled to be executed in September has waived his right to a clemency hearing with the state's Parole and Pardon Board.  Tim Talley of the Associated Press reports that Anthony Banks was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death 34 years ago, and is also serving a life sentence for an unrelated killing he committed the year prior.  Banks is set to die by lethal injection September 10th, 2013.

Sex Offender Sneaks into Jail and Assaults Inmate: Former New York City inmate, Matthew Mantagrano, has been accused of sneaking back into jail and assaulting an inmate after spending more than a week inside of the facility.  James Daniel of Daily Mail reports that Mantagrano used a fake gold badge and impersonated a Corrections investigator to gain access to both the Manhattan Detention Center and Riker's Island jail.  Mantagrano allegedly assaulted and strip-searched an inmate, handed out cigarettes, and stole $5,000 worth of equipment from security officers.

Former California Governors Seek Inmate Release Delay: Four of California's former governors have joined Governor Brown in asking the U.S. Supreme for a stay in order to delay the release of almost 10,000 inmates.  Sam Stanton of the Sacramento Bee reports that the "friend of the court" brief was filed this morning by CJLF in response to an earlier decision made by a three-panel judge ordering the state to release 9,600 inmates by the end of the year.  The panel has ordered the release of thousands of inmates in order to address the issue of prison overcrowding.

To the surprise of no one, the three-judge panel in the Plata case denied a stay of their order for California to release another 10,000 prisoners.  Sam Stanton and David Siders have this story for the SacBee.  The panel is comprised of three of the most pro-criminal, anti-law-enforcement judges in the entire federal judiciary.

The releases that followed the passage of the "realignment" program, beginning in October 2011, have been followed by substantial increases in crime in California at a time when crime rates nationally are nearly flat.  See this post and this report.

Gov. Brown intends to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.  The request goes to Justice Kennedy, as the designated circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit, which includes California and eight other western states. 

In a case of this magnitude, he might refer the request to the full court for decision.  That is routinely done in capital cases, and this case is a matter of life and death to a great many people.  We don't know the names of the additional people who will be murdered if the order is enforced, but they are real nonetheless.

One of the reasons I was so grateful when Kent invited me to become a contributor on this blog is that CJLF is an organization with which anyone who cares about justice for criminals and safety for ordinary people would be delighted to be affiliated.  Of late, Kent and CJLF's staff have done a super job of publishing story after story of the predictable (and predicted) disastrous results of California's prison "realignment."  "Realignment," readers will recall, is the deliberately opaque word used to denote the legalized jailbreak California's liberal-dominated government gleefully undertook in the aftermath of Plata.

Republican lawmakers proposed a package of bills on Tuesday intended to counter what they see as a growing threat to public safety from sending some inmates to county jails instead of state prisons. The 13 bills seek to counter the effects of prison realignment in 2011 by improving supervision of parolees and increase penalties for sex offenders and those who illegally possess or sell firearms.The measures also would send more convicts back to prison to ease the burden on local jails while protecting counties from lawsuits.

 

The proposals have the backing of Diana Munoz, mother of Brandy Arreola, 21, of Stockton, who was permanently injured last year by her boyfriend, Raoul Leyva, a parole violator who had been released early from jail because of overcrowding.

Leyva, 34, was convicted last month of attempted voluntary manslaughter and injuring a spouse, with enhancements for causing brain injury and paralysis.

"If realignment didn't exist ... my daughter would be living her life normally," Munoz said as her daughter sat in a wheelchair by her side. "The state is responsible for what's happened to her. They should never have let him out." 

Prof. Cecilia Klingele of Wisconsin Law School responded to my critical assessment of her SSRN piece (an assessment I discussed in my earlier entry) with this comment on Sentencing Law and Policy:

A small clarification. The paper does not suggest that community supervision (or any lesser sentence) should replace prison in cases where it is warranted for just punishment or public safety. The paper discusses the proper (and improper) use of community supervision in typical cases involving people whose crimes are minor, whose culpability is low, and/or whose threat to public safety is minimal; and for those who have served their sentences and are transitioning back to their communities. When community supervision is used, of course it should be thoughtful, well-resourced, and carefully executed. My point is that it is often used in ways and for people who would be better punished in differently, be it through jail time, fines, or unconditional discharge. If anything in the paper misleads on that point (or any other), I welcome suggestions for revision and clarification.

The three-judge court that ordered massive prisoner reduction in California has issued an order delaying the deadline for reaching the prisoner population goal by six months and ordering further briefing.  Understanding this order takes a bit of background.