On January 30 we had a hearing in our suit against the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to force him to adopt a usable execution protocol. See my post after the hearing.
Judge Chang has issued a final ruling. It is dated Friday, February 6, although it was not available until late Monday. The final ruling is a reprint of the tentative ruling with a few paragraphs added at the end making the tentative ruling final and addressing the AG's arguments at the hearing.
This is only a preliminary step, rejecting the AG's attempt to have the case thrown out at the threshold. That attempt is called a demurrer in California and other states that follow the old procedure. In federal courts and states that follow the federal model, it would be a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Although preliminary, it does settle two very important points:
1. Victims have standing to bring this case, both as parties with an interest over and above that of the public generally and "public interest" standing to enforce a public duty. The latter wouldn't be allowed in federal court, but we are not in federal court.
2. CDCR has a duty to establish a protocol. They do have discretion on the details, but not on whether they do or don't establish one. The bureaucracy cannot place a de facto moratorium on capital punishment, as they did in Maryland and as they have in California so far, simply by sitting on their hands and not establishing the protocol.
These are the primary questions of law in this case. Actually issuing a writ of mandate will require resolution of further details, but this is a big gain for the cause of justice.
CJLF's press release is here.
Update: Maura Dolan has this story for the LA Times. Jennie Rodriguez-Moore has this story for the Stockton Record.
Judge Chang has issued a final ruling. It is dated Friday, February 6, although it was not available until late Monday. The final ruling is a reprint of the tentative ruling with a few paragraphs added at the end making the tentative ruling final and addressing the AG's arguments at the hearing.
This is only a preliminary step, rejecting the AG's attempt to have the case thrown out at the threshold. That attempt is called a demurrer in California and other states that follow the old procedure. In federal courts and states that follow the federal model, it would be a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Although preliminary, it does settle two very important points:
1. Victims have standing to bring this case, both as parties with an interest over and above that of the public generally and "public interest" standing to enforce a public duty. The latter wouldn't be allowed in federal court, but we are not in federal court.
2. CDCR has a duty to establish a protocol. They do have discretion on the details, but not on whether they do or don't establish one. The bureaucracy cannot place a de facto moratorium on capital punishment, as they did in Maryland and as they have in California so far, simply by sitting on their hands and not establishing the protocol.
These are the primary questions of law in this case. Actually issuing a writ of mandate will require resolution of further details, but this is a big gain for the cause of justice.
CJLF's press release is here.
Update: Maura Dolan has this story for the LA Times. Jennie Rodriguez-Moore has this story for the Stockton Record.
Congratulations and high praise. Now let's see how craven the other side actually is.
Is there a copy of the writ on CJLF website?
No writ yet, just a final ruling overruling the demurrer, linked in the original post.
I meant copy of the petition. Do you anticipate a lot of discovery or is more or less straight to summary judgment?