California Supreme Court voids two death row convictions!

California Supreme Court voids two death row convictions
Justices rule that Judge Charles Horan acted improperly in removing a juror who questioned a witness' reliability in gang members' murder trial.

Cleamon "Big Evil" Johnson was charged with ordering the killings of two rival gang members. (Associated Press / December 5, 2011)

December 5, 2011, 10:38 p.m.

After upholding nearly 50 death sentences in a row, the California Supreme Court on Monday broke its pattern by overturning the convictions of a reputed gang leader in Los Angeles and his alleged accomplice in two killings that sent both men to death row for 15 years.

The state high court unanimously ruled that Cleamon Johnson and Michael Allen, convicted of killing rival gang members Peyton Beroit and Donald Loggins in 1991, were denied a fair trial when a judge removed a juror who appeared to be critical of the prosecution's case.

In a ruling written by Justice Carol A. Corrigan, the court cited a lack of evidence to support then-Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charles Horan's decision to remove the juror for prejudging the case and relying on evidence outside the 1997 trial.

Johnson, known as "Big Evil," headed a gang called the 89 Family Bloods during the 1980s and early '90s that authorities contend was responsible for about 60 killings in South Los Angeles.

Johnson was convicted of ordering Allen to kill the two rival gang members with an Uzi. Johnson also was charged with a third killing and two attempted killings but another jury deadlocked on those charges in 1999.

In reversing the convictions that sent Johnson and Allen to death row, the state high court said the juror who was removed was deliberating properly and relying on experience, not bias, to evaluate a prosecution eyewitness.

"It may be argued that Juror No. 11's conclusion was based upon a weak premise or rested upon an over-broad inference," Corrigan wrote. "Jurors, however, are the judges of credibility, and conscientious jurors may come to different conclusions.

"It is not the province of trial or reviewing courts to substitute their logic for that of jurors to whom credibility decisions are entrusted."

Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, said a decision on whether to retry Johnson and Allen would be made after the office reviews the ruling and assesses the case.

Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, said her office is considering a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "We're disappointed but reviewing our options," Gledhill said.

Supervising State Deputy Public Defender Andrew Love, who represented Johnson, said he was thrilled by the ruling but also "angry and frustrated" that it took so many years for the state high court to decide the case.

"This case involved truly outrageous conduct by the trial judge, who kicked a juror off the case in the middle of deliberations because it was reported by another juror that he was not persuaded by the prosecution's case," Love said. "Reversal was a foregone conclusion."

He said Johnson was on death row for five years before getting a lawyer to handle his appeal, and the California Supreme Court waited many more years to decide the case after it had been fully briefed.

"One of the primary reasons these cases take so long is the shortage of competent lawyers willing to handle capital appeals in the California Supreme Court — and a key reason why is the perception that the court does not undertake a careful, meaningful review of these cases," Love said.

Prosecutors said Johnson was a "shot caller" in the street gang and presented a witness who testified that he heard Johnson order Allen to kill the victims.

The juror who was dismissed had expressed doubts about the witness' credibility. After two other jurors complained about him, Horan interviewed the entire panel before discharging the juror.

maura.dolan@latimes.com 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gang-overturn-20111206,0,2865203.story

Click Here to read the Opinion

Extension of Time Granted

PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)

Case: S132449, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD):                      2011-12-07

Event Description:                           Extension of time granted

Notes: 

On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including January 30, 2012. 

Greta's Blog

Greta Van Susteren has a recent blog article on the Scott Peterson case.  You can read it and post a response at http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/12/05/10-years-of-on-the-record-at-10pm-scott-and-laci-peterson/

I have already posted my response.

A Moral Imperative

For many people, the case of The People vs. Scott Peterson is closed, and rightly so.  They are satisfied that he is guilty and justice has been served.  They have no moral imperative to do anything more.

But others of us do have a moral imperative.  Through our analysis of the evidence and through our own investigations, we have discovered that it's not possible that Scott Peterson committed these murders.

So many want to put criminals behind bars and throw away the key.  They want no more than the barest of existence for them.  But that is not the attitude Jesus Christ had.  He did not want crime to go unpunished, but he did want charity towards prisoners.  In the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 25, we read:

31 ¶When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Christ then went on to say in this parable that those who did not do likewise unto the least of these were cast into everlasting fire.

That's a sobering thought, that we are supposed to care not only for the needy and the sick, but also for the imprisoned.  If the Gospel of Jesus Christ has the moral imperative to visit the imprisoned, how much greater is the moral imperative to fight to correct the injustice of a wrongful conviction?

Letting the System run its course is an option for someone who believes Scott is guilty, but not for those who know he is innocent.  Christian principles demand that whatever can be done must be done until the injustice is corrected.

Another 'extension of time' request

I don't know if the docket will indicate when the perfected, complete record is finally received by the California Supreme Court, but I assume it has not yet been, or there has not been sufficient time since it has been for Scott's attorneys to have prepared the first brief.  I will post when the Court indicates whether this extension has been approved, and what the new deadline date will be, which should be within a few days.

11/28/2011

Request for extension of time filed

to file appellant's opening brief. (6th request)

Lee and Jackie celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary

The Peterson family blog has a short note about the Peterson's 40th wedding anniversary and a photo taken at their 25th.  I had occasion to meet and visit with the Petersons a few times when I attended the trial.  I think the best description is one I found in an anniversary card -- They not only are a great couple, they are a couple of great people.

More information about the Habeas Appeal

I found this source for information on the habeas appeals in California.  It gives the process for non-death penalty habeas appeals, whereas the death penalty habeas appeals are filed in the CA Supreme Court.  The substance and structure of the habeas is the same for both death penalty and non-death penalty cases.

"Elements of a Habeas Petition" by Jonathan Grossman

The web page for State Senator Tom Harman, California's 35th District, provides information on SB1025 Habeas Corpus Reform, SCA27 Direct Appeal in Capital Cases, and SB1018 Single Drug Lethal Injection Procedure.

SB1025 proposes that habeas appeals in capital cases begin in the Superior Courts, as they do in non-capital cases.

Because habeas appeals involve extensive fact-finding and investigative duties that appellate courts are ill-equipped to handle, this proposal would both streamline the appellate process and ensure that habeas claims are efficiently and accurately resolved.

SCA27 allows the guaranteed direct appeals for capital cases to be heard by the Courts of Appeal, with review of the appellate opinion by the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Ron George argues that the death penalty jeopardizes the Court's capacity to resolve other statewide legal issues and settle appellate conflicts, which is its primary obligation. 

California needs to do something to expedite this appeal process - not just for the victims, but for the wrongfully convicted.  Scott has been on death row now for over 6.5 years, and his Court record still has not been perfected.  It will probably be well into 2012 before his direct appeal brief is filed.  And then another couple of years before it is even considered by the CA Supreme Court.