Kern County DA Lisa Green announced that her office will not retry Vicente Benavides Figueroa, whose conviction and death sentence were overturned by the California Supreme Court on March 12 in state habeas corpus proceedings.
The DA's decision illustrates that a decision not to retry a case is not the same as a finding that the defendant is actually innocent. She concludes that "upon an objective review of the facts, there is insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
So this is one of those cases where the other side will crow "exonerated," much of the public will misunderstand that to mean actually, demonstrably innocent, and the truth will never be known for sure.
An additional factor in the DA's decision is that even if they did get a second-degree murder conviction, between Benavides's age and the time he has already spent in prison there is a strong chance he would be paroled promptly.
How would a case like this be handled if it arose today under Proposition 66? In this case, the habeas corpus petition was filed directly in the California Supreme Court, an overloaded court that is institutionally unsuited to deciding fact-heavy questions. It took 16 years from filing to decision.
Under Proposition 66, the case would have been filed in the Kern County Superior Court, and that court's decision would have been reviewed by the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District. It is likely that the same result would have been obtained, and considerably faster. Even though it would have had to go through two courts, and probably a review petition to the Supreme Court, those courts are quite capable of completing even complex cases in less than 16 years combined.
The DA's decision illustrates that a decision not to retry a case is not the same as a finding that the defendant is actually innocent. She concludes that "upon an objective review of the facts, there is insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
So this is one of those cases where the other side will crow "exonerated," much of the public will misunderstand that to mean actually, demonstrably innocent, and the truth will never be known for sure.
An additional factor in the DA's decision is that even if they did get a second-degree murder conviction, between Benavides's age and the time he has already spent in prison there is a strong chance he would be paroled promptly.
How would a case like this be handled if it arose today under Proposition 66? In this case, the habeas corpus petition was filed directly in the California Supreme Court, an overloaded court that is institutionally unsuited to deciding fact-heavy questions. It took 16 years from filing to decision.
Under Proposition 66, the case would have been filed in the Kern County Superior Court, and that court's decision would have been reviewed by the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District. It is likely that the same result would have been obtained, and considerably faster. Even though it would have had to go through two courts, and probably a review petition to the Supreme Court, those courts are quite capable of completing even complex cases in less than 16 years combined.
One contributing factor to delay in this case (though by no means the primary reason) is that the Habeas Corpus
Resource Center had a fanatical investigator with a propensity to forge
affidavits. That organization needs a major culture change. We will
see if the change in its governance made by Proposition 66 makes a
difference.
First, there is absolutely no evidence that a murder even occurred much less that Mr. Benavides committed one. To suggest that this is anything other than an innocent man who spend 25 years on death row is grotesque. He is presumed to be innocent and so "the other side" should "crow" exonerated.
Second, it is interesting that you are concerned with the culture of an office that, upon discovering misconduct by an investigator, immediately reported it and withdrew the false information. By contrast the CA AG continued to try to sustain a second degree murder conviction even after the testimony upon which the original conviction was based was entirely fraudulent. That is an organization that needs a culture change, as is the Kern county DA which presented the false evidence. The HCRC investigator went to jail. What consequence will there be for those who presented the false evidence against Mr. Benavides?
Third, whatever court this case ended up in there would still not be enough qualified habeas lawyers willing to take on these very difficult cases for the amount that California currently pays.
Fourth, it took an enormous amount of work and investigation to uncover the false evidence in this case, and ultimately get the trial experts to admit that their testimony was completely wrong. Whether it could have been done in the year allowed under Prop 66 is highly questionable. Note that neither the prosecutor or trial defense counsel apparently realized the falsity of the evidence. This is actually a perfect recipe for executing an innocent man.
Proposition 66 makes special provision for innocence claims in both the time for superior court determination and the successive petition rule. On the latter, Prop. 66 substantially increases the ability of capital inmates with actual innocence claims to file successive petitions, relative to pre-66 law.