judge's decision striking down portions of ca prop. 9 and prop. 89

8/21/2019 Judge's Decision Striking Down Portions of CA Prop. 9 and Prop. 89

1/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

EASTERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

RI CHARD M. GI LMAN, et al . ,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, J R. , et al . ,

Def endant s.

No. CI V. S- 05- 830 LKK/ CKD

ORDER

Pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s cer t i f i ed cl ass act i on ar e i nmat es i n

Cal i f or ni a st at e pr i sons who ar e ser vi ng t er ms of l i f e

i mpr i sonment wi t h t he possi bi l i t y of par ol e. Pl ai nt i f f s asser t

t hat Pr oposi t i ons 9 and 89 have ret r ospect i vel y i ncr eased t hei r

puni shment s, i n vi ol at i on of t he Ex Post Fact o Cl ause of t he U. S.

Const i t ut i on.

Proposi t i on 9 amended Cal i f orni a l aw t o, among other t hi ngs,

i ncr ease t he t i me bet ween par ol e hear i ngs. 2008 Cal . Legi s.

Ser v. Pr op. 9 ( West ) , amendi ng i n per t i nent par t , Cal . Penal Code

3041. 5( b) ( 3) ( ext endi ng def er r al per i ods) and ( b) ( 4) and

( d) ( advance hear i ngs) . The cl ass chal l engi ng t hi s Pr oposi t i on

consi st s of al l Cal i f or ni a st at e pr i soner s who have been

Case 2:05-cv-00830-LKK-CKD Document 532 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 58


2/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

sent enced t o a l i f e t er m wi t h t he possi bi l i t y of par ol e f or an

of f ense that occur r ed bef ore November 4, 2008. ECF No. 340

1.

Pr oposi t i on 89 amended t he Cal i f or ni a Const i t ut i on t o gr ant

t he Gover nor t he aut hor i t y t o r evi ew par ol e deci si ons of

Cal i f or ni a s Boar d of Par ol e Hear i ngs ( t he Boar d) , r egar di ng

par ol e deci si ons of pr i soner s convi ct ed of mur der . 1988 Cal .

Legi s. Ser v. Pr op. 89 ( West ) , amendi ng Cal . Const . Ar t . V, 8.

The cl ass chal l engi ng t hi s Pr oposi t i on consi st s of al l

Cal i f or ni a st at e pr i soner s who have been sent enced t o a l i f e t er m

wi t h possi bi l i t y of par ol e f or an of f ense t hat occur r ed bef or e

November 8, 1988. ECF No. 340 2.

The mat t er came on f or t r i al bef or e t he under si gned f r om

J une 27, 2013 t hrough J ul y 2, 2013. For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow,

t he cour t f i nds t hat bot h Pr oposi t i ons, as i mpl ement ed, have

vi ol at ed t he ex post f act o r i ght s of t he cl ass member s.

I. THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE

The Const i t ut i on pr ohi bi t s bot h f eder al and st at e

gover nment s f r om enact i ng any ex post f act o Law. Peugh v.

U. S. , 569 U. S. ___, 133 S. Ct . 2072, 2081 ( 2013) . 1 For pur poses

of t hi s case, an ex post f act o l aw i s one t hat changes t he

puni shment , and i nf l i ct s a gr eat er puni shment , t han t he l aw

annexed t o t he cr i me, when commi t t ed. I d. , 133 S. Ct . at 2078

( quot i ng Cal der v. Bul l , 3 Dal l . 386, 390, 1 L. Ed. 648 ( 1798) ) .

The key ex post f act o i nqui r y i s t he act ual st at e of t he l aw at

1 U. S. Const i t ut i on, Ar t . I , Sec. 10, cl . 1 ( No St at e shal l pass any ex post f acto Law) ; U. S. Const i t ut i on, Ar t . I ,Sec. 9, cl . 3 ( No ex post f act o Law shal l be passed) .



3/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

t he t i me t he def endant per pet r at ed t he of f ense. Wat son v.

Est el l e, 886 F. 2d 1093, 1096 ( 9t h Ci r . 1989) . Accor di ngl y, as

r el evant t o t hi s case, t he Ex Post Fact o Cl ause i s vi ol at ed i f

ei t her Proposi t i on, as i mpl ement ed by t he deci si on- maker t he

Boar d i n t he case of Pr oposi t i on 9, or t he Gover nor i n t he case

of Pr oposi t i on 89 creat es a si gni f i cant r i sk t hat i t s

r et r oact i ve appl i cat i on t o t he cl ass woul d r esul t i n a l onger

per i od of i ncar cer at i on f or t hem t han t hey woul d have r ecei ved

under t he l aw i n ef f ect when t hei r cr i mes were commi t t ed. See

Gar ner v. J ones, 529 U. S. 244, 255 ( 2000) ; see al so, Peugh, 133

S. Ct . at 2084 ( a r et r ospect i ve i ncr ease i n t he [ Sent enci ng]

Gui del i nes r ange appl i cabl e t o a def endant cr eat es a suf f i ci ent

r i sk of a hi gher sent ence t o const i t ut e an ex post f act o

vi ol at i on) .

II. PROPOSITION 9: INCREASED TIME BETWEEN PAROLE HEARINGS

The f ocus of t hi s cour t s i nqui r y i s f ai r l y nar r ow, t hanks

t o a subst ant i al body of l aw on t he ef f ect of t he Ex Post Fact o

Cl ause on r et r ospect i ve changes i n t he avai l abi l i t y of par ol e

hear i ngs.

I n Cal i f or ni a Dept . of Cor r ect i ons v. Mor al es, 514 U. S. 499

( 1995) , t he Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed an ex post f act o chal l enge to

a 1981 amendment t o Cal . Penal Code 3041. 5. The amendment

abol i shed mandat or y annual par ol e hear i ngs f or pr i soner s

convi ct ed of more t han one homi ci de, even when annual hear i ngs

were mandat or y when t he cr i mes wer e commi t t ed. I nst ead, t he

enactment aut hor i zed t he parol e boar d t o def er subsequent

sui t abi l i t y hear i ngs f or up t o t hr ee year s i f t he Boar d f ound

t hat i t was not r easonabl e t o expect t hat par ol e woul d be



4/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

gr ant ed at a hear i ng dur i ng t he f ol l owi ng year s. Mor al es, 514

U. S. at 503.

Mor al es t eaches t hat t he mer e f act t hat par ol e hear i ngs are

l ess f r equent t han t hey were when a pr i soner s cr i me was

commi t t ed, i s not , by i t sel f , suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh an ex post

f acto vi ol at i on. Rat her ,

t he cont r ol l i ng i nqui r y was whet herr et r oact i ve appl i cat i on of t he change i nCal i f or ni a l aw creat ed "a suf f i ci ent r i sk ofi ncr easi ng the measure of puni shment at t achedt o t he cover ed cr i mes.

Gar ner , 529 U. S. at 250 ( quot i ng Mor al es, 514 U. S. at 509) ;

Gi l man v. Schwarzenegger , 638 F. 3d 1101, 1106 (9t h Ci r . 2011)

( [ a] r et r oact i ve pr ocedur al change vi ol at es t he Ex Post Fact o

Cl ause when i t creat es a si gni f i cant r i sk of pr ol ongi ng [ an

i nmat e' s] i ncar cer at i on ) .

Si mi l ar l y, i n Gar ner , t he Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed an ex post

f act o chal l enge t o t he Geor gi a parol e boar d s deci si on t o do away

wi t h mandat or y par ol e hear i ngs ever y t hr ee ( 3) year s. That boar d

amended i t s r ul es so that i t coul d def er par ol e hear i ngs f or up

t o ei ght ( 8) year s. [ T] he Boar d' s st at ed pol i cy i s to pr ovi de

f or r econsi der at i on at 8- year i nt er val s when, i n t he Boar d' s

det er mi nat i on, i t i s not r easonabl e to expect t hat par ol e woul d

be gr ant ed dur i ng t he i nt er veni ng year s. Gar ner , 529 U. S. at

254. However , t he Boar d coul d have shor t ened t he i nt erval had

i t wi shed t o do so. I d. at 248.

Gar ner t eaches t hat no ex post f act o vi ol at i on wi l l be f ound

wher e par ol e hear i ngs can be at l onger i nt er val s t han was t he

case when t he pr i soner s cr i me was commi t t ed, but t he parol e

boar d has t he di scr et i on t o conduct hear i ngs at t he same i nt er val



5/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

i t coul d when the pr i soner s cr i me was commi t t ed.

Pl ai nt i f f s cor r ect l y poi nt out t hat Mor al es and Gar ner ar e

not di r ect l y on poi nt , because the chal l enged l aw changes

i nvol ved i n t hose cases onl y aut hor i zed a l onger def er r al per i od,

and onl y when t he Boar d determi ned t hat parol e was not l i kel y t o

be gr ant ed i n t he i nt er veni ng year s. Pr oposi t i on 9, on t he ot her

hand, does away wi t h the pr evi ousl y aut hor i zed annual par ol e

hear i ngs i n al l cases, even i f t he pr i soner concl usi vel y showed

t hat he woul d be sui t abl e f or par ol e i n a year . See Gi l man, 638

F. 3d at 1108 ( Pr oposi t i on 9 el i mi nat ed t he Boar d' s di scr et i on t o

set a oneyear def er r al per i od, even i f t he Boar d wer e t o f i nd by

cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence that a pr i soner woul d be sui t abl e

f or par ol e i n one year ) .

I n Gi l man, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t made cl ear t hat

Pl ai nt i f f s cannot succeed on t he mer i t s oft hei r ex post f acto cl ai m unl ess( 1) Pr oposi t i on 9, on i t s f ace, creat ed asi gni f i cant r i sk of i ncr easi ng t he puni shment

of Cal i f orni a l i f e- t erm i nmat es , or ( 2)Pl ai nt i f f s can demonst r at e, by evi dencedr awn f rom [ Propos i t i on 9' s ] pract i cali mpl ement at i on . . . , t hat i t s r et r oacti veappl i cat i on wi l l r esul t i n a l onger per i od ofi ncar cer at i on t han under t he [ pr i or l aw] .

Gi l man, 638 F. 3d at 1106 ( quot i ng Gar ner , 529 U. S. at 255) .

The Ni nth Ci r cui t r eversed t hi s cour t s grant of a prel i mi nar y

i nj unct i on f or pl ai nt i f f s , f i ndi ng t hat even i f pl ai nt i f f s coul d

show t hat t her e was a si gni f i cant r i sk of l onger i ncar cer at i on

under Pr oposi t i on 9, pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat t he

advance hear i ng procedur e di d not avoi d t hat pr obl em.

I n a recent case addr essi ng the Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, t he

Supr eme Cour t made cl ear t hat i t meant what i t sai d i n Garner ,



6/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

t hat i s, a l aw t hat creat es a suf f i ci ent r i sk of r et r ospecti vel y

i ncreasi ng a pr i soner s sent ence i s a vi ol at i on of t he Ex Post

Fact o Cl ause. Peugh, 133 S. Ct . at 2084.

A. Increased Deferral Periods: Findings.

1. On November 4, 2008, Cal i f orni a voters appr oved

Pr oposi t i on 9, al so known as t he Vi ct i ms' Bi l l of Ri ght s Act

of 2008: Mar sy' s Law. See I n r e Vi cks, 56 Cal . 4t h 274, 278

( 2013) .

2. The l aw became ef f ect i ve i mmedi atel y, 2 and was

made expr essl y appl i cabl e t o al l pr oceedi ngs hel d af t er i t s

ef f ect i ve dat e. 2008 Cal . Legi s. Ser v. Pr op. 9, 10 ( West ) . The

boar d, however , di d not i nst ant aneousl y i mpl ement t he new l aw.

Rat her , t he Boar d i mpl ement ed t he l aw t hat i s, st ar t ed usi ng

Proposi t i on 9 t o det er mi ne the def er r al per i ods on December 15,

2008. Exh. 1 ( ECF No. 259- 1) at 7 ( Exhi bi t A t o Exh. 1) .

3. As r el evant her e, Proposi t i on 9 amended

sect i on 3041. 5 [ of t he Cal i f or ni a Penal Code] t o i ncr ease t he

t i me bet ween par ol e hear i ngs. Vi cks, 56 Cal . 4t h at 283.

4. Bef or e Pr oposi t i on 9, l i f e pr i soner s r ecei ved annual

par ol e sui t abi l i t y hear i ngs, as r equi r ed by the pr i or ver si ons of

Cal . Penal Code 3041. 5, unl ess t he Boar d f ound t hat i t was not

r easonabl e t o expect t hat par ol e woul d be gr ant ed dur i ng the

f ol l owi ng year . I n t hose cases, t he Boar d def er r ed t he next

2 Accor di ng to Vi cks, t he l aw became ef f ect i ve i mmedi at el y. Vi cks, 56 Cal . 4t h at 278. The Cal i f or ni a Const i t ut i on pr ovi dest hat amendment s ef f ect ed by i ni t i at i ve become ef f ect i ve t he dayaf t er t he el ect i on unl ess t he measur e pr ovi des ot her wi se. Cal .Const . Ar t . XVI I I , 4; Cal i f or ni ans For An Open Pr i mar y v.McPherson, 38 Cal . 4t h 735, 743 ( 2006) ( same) .



7/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

par ol e hear i ng f or up t o t wo year s, and f or up t o f i ve year s f or

pr i soner s convi ct ed of mur der , as aut hor i zed by t he ol d l aw. See

1994 Cal . Legi s. Ser v. Ch. 560, 1 ( S. B. 826) ( West ) , amendi ng

Cal . Penal Code 2041. 5( b) ( 2) ( A) .

5. Al l t he cr i mes f or whi ch Pr oposi t i on 9 cl ass member s

wer e convi ct ed occur r ed bef or e Proposi t i on 9. 3 ECF No. 340 1.

3 The cour t not es t hat cr i mes t hat coul d r esul t i n l i f e t er mst hat wer e commi t t ed at di f f er ent t i mes wer e cover ed by di f f er entver si ons of t he par ol e hear i ngs l aw. No par t y has suggest ed, ordi r ect ed t he cour t t o evi dence suggest i ng, t hat any cl assmember s cr i me was commi t t ed at a t i me when t her e was no r i ght t o

per i odi c r evi ew of par ol e hear i ngs, or when t he def er r al per i odswer e l onger t han t hose pr ovi ded f or i n Pr oposi t i on 9.

Bef or e 1972, Cal i f or ni a pr i soner s had a r i ght , est abl i shed bycase l aw, t o per i odi c r evi ew of par ol e deci si ons, al t hought here does not appear t o have been any part i cul ar t i me per i odwi t hi n whi ch t he r evi ew had t o occur . See I n r e J ackson, 39Cal . 3d 464, 469- 70 ( 1985) .

Bet ween 1972 and J ul y 1, 1977, Cal i f or ni a pr i soner s wer eent i t l ed, by pol i cy of t he par ol e boar d, t o annual par ol er econsi der at i on, except i n cer t ai n ext r eme cases wher er econsi der at i on of par ol e may be post poned f or t wo or t hr eeyear s. See J ackson, 39 Cal . 3d at 470.

On J ul y 1, 1977, t he Cal i f or ni a Det er mi nat e Sent enci ng Law( DSL) went i nt o ef f ect . Wat son, 886 F. 2d at 1094 ( ci t i ngJ ackson, 39 Cal . 3d at 467) . Under t hi s enact ment , al l i nmat esi ncar cer at ed on or af t er t hat dat e wer e st at ut or i l y ent i t l ed t oannual par ol e hear i ngs, wi t hout except i on. I d.

I n 1981, Cal i f or ni a enact ed an except i on t o the annual par ol er evi ew r equi r ement , per mi t t i ng t he Boar d t o def er t he next par ol e

hear i ng f or t hr ee year s i f t he pr i soner had been convi ct ed ofmor e than one of f ense whi ch i nvol ves t he taki ng of a l i f e, andt he Boar d f ound, st at i ng i t s bases i n wr i t i ng, t hat i t was notr easonabl e t o expect t hat parol e woul d be gr ant ed at a hear i ngdur i ng t he f ol l owi ng year s. Wat son, 886 F. 2d 1093.

I n 1990, Cal i f orni a amended Sect i on 3041. 5 t o per mi t t he Boar dt o schedul e t he next hear i ng no l at er t han 5 year s af t er anyhear i ng at whi ch par ol e i s deni ed i f t he pr i soner has been



8/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

The cl ass member s wer e al l convi ct ed and sent enced t o l i f e i n

pr i son wi t h t he possi bi l i t y of par ol e, bef or e Pr oposi t i on 9.

Af t er Pr oposi t i on 9, al l Pr oposi t i on 9 cl ass member s r emai ned

sent enced t o l i f e i n pr i son wi t h t he possi bi l i t y of par ol e. See

Undi sput ed Fact s ( UF) , Fi nal Pr et r i al Or der ( ECF No. 473)

I I I ( 2) ( her ei naf t er UF 2) .

6. I n t he t wo- year per i od bef or e Pr oposi t i on 9 was

i mpl ement ed, J anuar y 2007 t hrough December 2008, t he Boar d hel d

appr oxi mat el y 6, 550 par ol e sui t abi l i t y hear i ngs f or l i f e

pr i soner s. Par ol e was gr ant ed i n appr oxi mat el y 6. 4% of t he

hear i ngs. Of t he cases i n whi ch par ol e was deni ed, t wo- t hi r ds

r esul t ed i n one- or t wo- year def er r al s; appr oxi mat el y 34. 7

per cent r esul t ed i n oneyear def er r al s and appr oxi mat el y 31. 5

per cent r esul t ed i n t wo- year def er r al s. UF 5.

7. The def er r al s f or t hose year s wer e gover ned by t he

1994 amendment s t o Cal . Penal Code 3041. 5. 1994 Cal . Legi s.

Serv. 560 ( SB 826) ( West ) . Under t hat l aw, t he Boar d was

r equi r ed t o hol d annual par ol e hear i ngs unl ess t he Boar d f i nds

t hat i t i s not r easonabl e t o expect t hat par ol e woul d be gr ant ed

at a hear i ng dur i ng t he f ol l owi ng year . I d. 4 Ther ef or e, i t i s

convi ct ed of more t han 2 mur ders. 1990 Cal . Legi s. Serv. 1053( SB 560) ( West ) .

I n 1994, Cal i f or ni a amended Sect i on 3041. 5 t o r equi r e t hat t he

hear i ng be hel d no l at er t han up t o 5 year s af t er t he hear i ngdenyi ng par ol e i f t he pr i soner has been convi ct ed of mur der . 1994 Cal . Legi s. Ser v. 560 ( SB 826) ( West ) .

4 The cour t i s awar e of t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat i ngt hat some pr i soner s agr ee t hat t hey ar e not cur r ent l y sui t abl ef or par ol e, and st i pul at e t o a def er r al per i od of , say, oneyear . Nei t her si de has di r ect ed t he cour t s at t ent i on t o anyevi dence that i n such cases t he Boar d agr ees t o such a



9/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

a r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he par ol e boar d f ound t hat f or t he

l i f e pr i soner s whose par ol e hear i ngs came bef or e t hem dur i ng t hat

t i me, i t was r easonabl e to expect t hat par ol e woul d be gr ant ed

f or 35% of t hem af t er one year .

8. Under t he same l aw, wher e the Boar d f ound t hat an

annual r evi ew was not warr ant ed, i t was r equi r ed t o i mpose a

def er r al of t wo year s, unl ess t he Boar d f i nds t hat i t i s not

r easonabl e t o expect t hat parol e woul d be gr ant ed at a hear i ng

dur i ng t he f ol l owi ng year s [ up t o f i ve year s f or pr i soner s

convi ct ed of mur der ] . I d. Ther ef or e, i t i s a r easonabl e

i nf er ence t hat t he Boar d f ound t hat f or t he 32% of l i f e pr i soner s

whose par ol e hear i ngs r esul t ed i n t wo year def er r al s dur i ng t hat

t i me, i t was r easonabl e to expect t hat par ol e woul d be gr ant ed

f or t hem af t er t wo year s. Ot her wi se, t he def er r al per i ods woul d

have been 3, 4 or 5 year s pur suant t o the st at ut e.

9. I t i s, f ur t her , a r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat of al l

t he i nmates who had parol e hear i ngs dur i ng t he t wo years pr i or t o

i mpl ement at i on of Pr oposi t i on 9, about t wo- t hi r ds of t hem wer e

determi ned by t he Boar d t o be ready f or parol e wi t hi n one or t wo

year s.

10. I n t he two- year per i od af t er Pr oposi t i on 9 was

i mpl ement ed, J anuar y 2009 t hrough December 2010, t he Boar d hel d

appr oxi mat el y 6, 100 hear i ngs. At t hose hear i ngs, par ol e was

st i pul at i on even when i t i s not r easonabl e t o expect t hat par ol ewoul d be gr ant ed dur i ng t hat year . Nor has ei t her si de di r ect edt he cour t s at t ent i on t o evi dence showi ng what per cent age oft hese 6, 550 def er r al s wer e st i pul at ed. Accor di ngl y, t he cour tdoes not , f or t hese pur poses, di st i ngui sh bet ween st i pul at eddef err al s and t hose i mposed by t he Boar d.



10/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

gr ant ed i n appr oxi mat el y 17 per cent of t he cases. 5 Of t he cases

i n whi ch par ol e was deni ed, appr oxi mat el y 48. 4 per cent r esul t ed

i n t he l owest def er r al possi bl e under Pr oposi t i on 9, t hr ee year s.

UF 6. 6

11. For t he per i od 2007 t o 2008, bef ore t he passage of

Pr oposi t i on 9, t he aver age def er r al per i od f or al l l i f e pr i soner s

who wer e deni ed par ol e at t hei r hear i ng, was 2. 3 year s. See

Pl ai nt i f f s Exh. 51. 7 Appr oxi mat el y 35% of t hose def er r al s wer e

f or t he mi ni mum per i od al l owed by l aw, one year . An addi t i onal

32% of t he def er r al s wer e f or t wo year s. UF 5.

12. Fol l owi ng t he passage of Pr oposi t i on 9, t he aver age

def er r al per i ods f or al l l i f e pr i soner s deci ded under t he new l aw

wer e as f ol l ows: 4. 84 year s i n 2009; 5. 11 year s i n 2010; 5. 08

years i n 2011; 4. 42 years i n 2012. See Def endant s Exh. U. 8

5 Nei t her si de of f er s an expl anat i on f or why t he par ol e rat eal most t r ebl ed. Wi t h no evi dence on i t , t her e i s no way f or t hecour t t o consi der t hi s f act except t o specul at e. For exampl e,

t he Boar d may have been r el uct ant t o i mpose a 3- year def er r al onsomeone i t bel i eved woul d be r eady f or par ol e wi t hi n t he year ,and t her ef or e gr ant ed par ol e i mmedi at el y. Or , t her e coul d si mpl yhave been a backl og of i nmat es r eady f or par ol e. However , t hi si s ent i r el y specul at i on, and pl ays no par t i n t he cour t sdeci si on.

6 The par t i es i ncl uded a r ecount i ng of sever al cases, i n whi cht he pr i soners request ed advanced hear i ngs. To t he degr ee t hecases seem r el evant t o an i ssue i n t he case, t hey ar e di scussedor f oot not ed bel ow.

7 Thi s number i s t he wei ght ed aver age of t he def er r al per i odsdi scl osed i n Pl ai nt i f f s Exhi bi t 51. The aver age i s a l i t t l ef uzzy, because Exhi bi t 51 does not speci f y what dat es i n 2007 t o2008 ar e i ncl uded.

8 These numbers ar e the wei ght ed averages of t he def err al per i odsdi scl osed i n Def endant s Exhi bi t U.



11/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

Al most 56% of t hose def er r al s wer e f or t he mi ni mum per i od t hen

al l owed by l aw, t hr ee year s. See Def endant s Exh. U.

B. Increased Deferral Periods: Conclusions.

The evi dence shows t hat t he average def er r al t i mes f or

Proposi t i on 9 cl ass member s has i ncr eased si nce t he

i mpl ement at i on of t hat l aw. The Ni nt h Ci r cui t caut i oned however ,

t hat i t was not cor r ect si mpl y t o assume that mor e f r equent

par ol e hear i ngs pr oduce mor e f r equent gr ant s of par ol e r at her

t han mor e f r equent deni al s of par ol e. Gi l man, 638 F. 3d at 1108

n. 6 ( emphasi s i n t ext ) .

The evi dence adduced at t r i al shows however , t hat t he

i ncr eased def er r al per i ods di d not happen r andoml y, or onl y t o

t hose pr i soner s l east l i kel y t o be gr ant ed par ol e. Rat her , t he

evi dence shows t hat i n t he t wo year s pr i or t o Pr oposi t i on 9, t he

Boar d i mposed def er r al per i ods of one or t wo year s on t wo- t hi r ds

of al l t he pr i soner s who wer e deni ed par ol e. These are t he

pr i soner s who ar e the most l i kel y t o be par ol ed wi t hi n a year or

t wo. That i s because t he st at ut e i n ef f ect at t he t i me

cont empl ated t hat t he Boar d woul d gr ant def err al s of one or t wo

years onl y when t here was a r easonabl e expectat i on t hat t he

pr i soner woul d be r eady f or par ol e wi t hi n t hat t i me. See 1994

Cal . Legi s. Ser v. 560 ( West ) .

Of cour se, t hose pr i soners were under no guarant ee of

r el ease on parol e. However , i f t he st at ut e had any meani ng, and

t he Boar d appl i ed t he st at ut e as wr i t t en, t hen i t i s a r easonabl e

i nf er ence t hat t her e exi st ed a r easonabl e expect at i on t hat t hose

pr i soner s woul d be par ol ed wi t hi n t he f ol l owi ng year or t wo, i f

t hey coul d get t o a par ol e hear i ng dur i ng t hat t i me. Yet , under



12/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

Proposi t i on 9, t hese same pr i soners cannot get t o a hear i ng

bef or e at l east t hr ee year s, t he new mi ni mum def er r al per i od.

Cal . Penal Code 3041. 5( b) ( 3) ( C) . I t f ol l ows that si nce t her e

was a r easonabl e expectat i on t hat t hese pr i soners woul d be

par ol ed wi t hi n one or t wo year s, but Pr oposi t i on 9 pr event s t hem

f r om get t i ng t o a hear i ng bef or e t hr ee year s, t her e i s a

si gni f i cant r i sk t hat t hei r i ncar cer at i ons ar e bei ng l engt hened

by Pr oposi t i on 9.

Even as t o those pr i soner s who recei ved def er r al per i ods of

t hr ee, f our or f i ve year s under t he ol d l aw, Pr oposi t i on 9 has

creat ed a si gni f i cant r i sk of l onger i ncar cer at i on. Under t he

ol d l aw, def er r al s of t hr ee or f our year s woul d be i mposed i f t he

Boar d determi ned t hat t here was a r easonabl e expectat i on t hat t he

pr i soner woul d be par ol ed dur i ng t hat t i me. I n ot her wor ds, at

t he t i me t hei r cr i mes wer e commi t t ed, t hese pr i soner s

i ncar cer at i ons ( beyond a mi ni mum t er m) , wer e to cont i nue onl y as

l ong as t he Boar d f ound t hat t he pr i soner was not sui t abl e f or

par ol e.

Under Pr oposi t i on 9 however , t he pr i soner s i ncar cer at i on

woul d cont i nue i ndef i ni t el y, unl ess t he Boar d f ound cl ear and

convi nci ng evi dence t hat he was sui t abl e f or par ol e i n 3, 5, 7

or 10 years. 9 Cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence, the Pr oposi t i on 9

st andar d, r ef er s t o a quant um and qual i t y of evi dence t hat coul d

pl ace i n t he ul t i mat e f act f i nder an abi di ng convi ct i on t hat t he

t r ut h of i t s f actual cont ent i ons ar e hi ghl y pr obabl e.

9 No par t i cul ar showi ng i s r equi r ed, under Pr oposi t i on 9, t o geta hear i ng af t er a 15- year def er r al .



13/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

Col orado v. New Mexi co, 467 U. S. 310, 316 ( 1984) ( emphases

added) .

Si nce the ol d l aw and Proposi t i on 9 are t hus gover ned by

t hese t wo compl et el y di f f er ent st andar ds, i t i s qui t e possi bl e

t hat a pr i soner coul d sat i sf y t he ol d- l aw st andar d, but never

sat i sf y t he Pr oposi t i on 9 st andar d.

I ndeed, t hi s l ogi cal l y seems t o be at gr eat est r i sk when

deal i ng wi t h t hose subj ect ed t o t he l ongest def er r al per i ods,

t hose def er r ed f or 3, 4 or 5 year s under t he ol d l aw. Such

pr i soner s, i ndependent l y of how of t en t hey coul d get t o a par ol e

hear i ng, woul d have l i t t l e chance of ever gi vi ng t he Boar d an

abi di ng convi ct i on t hat i t was hi ghl y pr obabl e t hat t hey wer e

sui t abl e f or par ol e.

The cour t t her ef or e concl udes t hat Pr oposi t i on 9 has cr eated

a si gni f i cant r i sk of i mposi ng a l onger i ncar cer at i on on t he

cl ass t han was t he case when t hei r cr i mes were commi t t ed. Thi s

concl usi on i s dr awn f r om t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al , and t he

r easonabl e i nf er ences ar i si ng f r om i t . However , t he pl ai nt i f f s

f ur t her at t empt ed t o but t r ess t hei r case by pr esent i ng act ual

account s of pr i soner s whose i ncar cer at i ons, t hey asser t , wer e

l engt hened by Pr oposi t i on 9. I t i s t o t hat showi ng t hat cour t

now t ur ns, keepi ng i n mi nd t hat at t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on

st age, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t f ound t hat pl ai nt i f f s had, t o t hat dat e,

produced no evi dence to support a f i ndi ng t hat more f r equent

par ol e hear i ngs r esul t i n mor e f r equent gr ant s of par ol e.

Gi l man, 638 F. 3d at 1108 n. 6.

/ / / /

/ / / /



14/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

C. The Rutherford Litigation: Findings.

A somewhat det ai l ed descr i pt i on of t he Rut her f or d l i t i gat i on

i s usef ul because pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat a subset of t he cl ass

cer t i f i ed i n I n r e Rut her f or d ( Cal . Super . Ct . , Mar i n Count y, No.

SC135399A) , i s r epr esent at i ve of t he Pr oposi t i on 9 cl ass

cer t i f i ed i n t hi s case, whi l e def endant s ar gue t hat t her e i s

i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o concl ude t hat t he Rut her f or d subset i s

r epr esent at i ve. Descr i bi ng how t he Rut her f or d cl ass and subset

came i nt o bei ng i s hel pf ul i n det er mi ni ng whet her t he Rut her f or d

subset i s r epr esent at i ve of t he Pr oposi t i on 9 cl ass i n t hi s case.

13. On Febr uar y 25, 2003, Cal i f or ni a l i f e pr i soner

J er r y Ruther f or d was deni ed par ol e, and gi ven a oneyear def er r al

unt i l hi s next hear i ng, pur suant t o Cal . Penal Code 3041. 5, as

i t t hen exi st ed. See I n r e Lugo, 164 Cal . App. 4t h 1522, 1529

( 1st Di st . 2008) . 10 However , t he Boar d f ai l ed t o pr ovi de

Rut her f or d a par ol e hear i ng dur i ng t he next year , al t hough

r equi r ed t o do so by t he l aw i n ef f ect at t he t i me. Exh. 53( admi t t ed, over obj ect i on, at RT 30) ( ECF No. 343- 9) ( St i pul at ed

Test i mony of Thomas Mast er ) 2. 11

14. On May 26, 2004, Rut her f or d f i l ed a pet i t i on f or

habeas cor pus i n Cal i f or ni a st at e cour t , I n r e Rut her f or d ( Cal .

10 Pet i t i oner Lugo was subst i t ut ed i n as cl ass r epr esent at i ve

af t er Rut her f or d s deat h. I d. , at 1532.

11 The par t i es st i pul at ed t hat , i f cal l ed t o t est i f y, ThomasMast er woul d t est i f y as descr i bed i n Exhi bi t 53. ECF No. 343- 9.At t r i al , wi t h Mast er on t he st and, def endant s obj ect ed t o t heSt i pul ated Test i mony on hear say gr ounds. RT 30. The obj ect i onwas over r ul ed because Mast er was on t he st and and was avai l abl et o be cr oss- exami ned on t he St i pul at ed Test i mony. I d.



15/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

Super . Ct . , Mar i n Count y, No. SC135399A) , chal l engi ng t he del ay

i n hi s par ol e hear i ng. Lugo, 164 Cal . App. at 1529.

15. On November 29, 2004, t he Cal i f orni a Super i or Cour t

hear i ng Rut her f or d cer t i f i ed a cl ass of al l pr i soner s ser vi ng

i ndet er mi nat e t er ms of l i f e wi t h t he possi bi l i t y of par ol e who

have appr oached or exceeded thei r mi ni mum el i gi bl e parol e dat es

wi t hout r ecei vi ng t hei r par ol e hear i ngs wi t hi n t he t i me r equi r ed

by sect i ons 3041 and 3041. 5. Lugo, 164 Cal . App. at 1530.

16. Af t er t he Rut her f or d cl ass was cer t i f i ed, t he

Boar d st i pul at ed t hat i t was not pr ovi di ng t i mel y par ol e

consi der at i on hear i ngs as r equi r ed by t he Penal Code. Lugo, 164

Cal . App. at 1530.

17. On March 22, 2006, t he part i es agr eed to a r emedi al

pl an i nt ended t o r educe t he backl og of par ol e hear i ngs. Lugo,

164 Cal . App. at 1532.

18. When Pr oposi t i on 9 was i mpl ement ed, on December 15,

2008, l i f e pr i soner s wer e st i l l havi ng t hei r par ol e hear i ngs

del ayed beyond t he dates when t hey shoul d, by l aw, have occur r ed.

Because of t hi s gener al t i mel i ness pr obl em t he Boar d was havi ng,

t her e ar ose a subset of t he Rut her f or d cl ass ( t he Rut her f or d

subset ) , who shoul d have had t hei r parol e hear i ngs conduct ed

under t he ol d l aw, bef or e Proposi t i on 9 s i mpl ement at i on, but who

i n f act di d not ( or woul d not ) r ecei ve t hei r hear i ngs unt i l af t er

i mpl ement at i on. See Exh. 1, Exhi bi t A ( Rut her f or d St i pul at i on)

( ECF No. 259- 1) at 7 ( admi t t ed over obj ect i on at RT 26) . Thei r

hear i ngs were ( or were schedul ed t o be) conduct ed under

Pr oposi t i on 9. 19. To avoi d havi ng t hei r hear i ngs deci ded under



16/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

Pr oposi t i on 9, t he Rut her f or d subset sought a pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on enj oi ni ng t he Boar d f r om i mpl ement i ng Pr oposi t i on 9 as

t o t hem. See i d. , Exhi bi t A at 7.

20. The pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on pr oceedi ng was set t l ed

wi t h a st i pul at i on. Pr i soner s who qual i f i ed f or t he st i pul at i on

wer e t hose pr i soner s i n the Rut herf or d subset whose pr e-

Pr oposi t i on 9 hear i ngs wer e del ayed unt i l af t er Pr oposi t i on 9,

because of r easons at t r i but abl e t o t he St at e, or because of

exi gent ci r cumst ances, 12 and t hose whose hear i ngs commenced

bef or e Pr oposi t i on 9, but whi ch wer e cont i nued t o a dat e af t er

Pr oposi t i on 9. Exh. 1, Exhi bi t A at pp. 9- 10 4( a) - ( d) ; Exh. 53

at 6. Excl uded f r om t hi s st i pul at i on wer e t hose Rut her f or d

subset member s who were gr ant ed par ol e or who el ect ed t o wai ve or

post pone thei r hear i ngs t hr ough no f aul t of t he Boar d or exi gent

ci r cumst ances. Exh. 53 6.

21. Under t he st i pul at i on, al l qual i f yi ng Rut her f or d

subset members who shoul d have had t hei r parol e hear i ngs

conduct ed bef ore December 15, 2008 under t he ol d l aw, were

gr ant ed hear i ngs gover ned by t he ol d l aw, even i f t hose hear i ngs

occur r ed af t er t he i mpl ement at i on of Pr oposi t i on 9. Mast er Decl .

( Exh. 1) 5. Fur t her , i n t he event t he l i f e pr i soner s del ayed

12 Exi gent ci r cumst ances ar e ( a) nat ur al di sast er , ( b) i nst i t ut i on

secur i t y or medi cal l ockdown/ quar ant i ne, ( c) i l l ness or emer gencyof an essent i al par t y, ( d) power out age or equi pment f ai l ur e,( e) pr i soner medi cal l y or psychi at r i cal l y unavai l abl e,( f ) at t or ney not pr epar ed t o pr oceed or became unavai l abl e af t erhear i ng was schedul ed. Exhi bi t A at p. 9 4( c) & p. 14. Thi sgr oup i ncl udes pr i soner s who post poned t hei r hear i ngs t o a dat ebef or e Pr oposi t i on 9, but t he hear i ng was not pr ovi ded bef or ePr oposi t i on 9.



17/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

hear i ng had al r eady been conduct ed under Proposi t i on 9, and

par ol e had been deni ed, t he Boar d agr eed t o re- cal cul at e the

def er r al per i od usi ng t he ol d l aw. I d. 13 I n ot her wor ds, t he 3- ,

5- , 7- , 10- and 15- year def er r al s under Pr oposi t i on 9 woul d be

r ecal cul at ed t o 1- , 2- , 3- , 4- or 5- year def er r al s under t he ol d

l aw.

22. The par t i es i n Rut her f or d st i pul at ed t hat 442 such

pr i soner s, i dent i f i ed at Exh. 20 ( admi t t ed per PTO) , wer e cover ed

by t he st i pul at i on. UF 14; ( RT 26- 29, Mast er t est i mony) .

23. Of t he 442 pr i soners who r ecei ved t he

modi f i cat i ons, 305 had, as of Mar ch 2011, r ecei ved t hei r

subsequent hear i ngs af t er t he modi f i cat i ons; of t hose 305

pr i soner s, 51 ( 16. 7%) wer e gr ant ed par ol e at t hei r hear i ngs. UF

15.

24. I n addi t i on t o the 442 pr i soner s who recei ved

modi f i cat i ons of t hei r Pr oposi t i on 9 def er r al s t o ol d- l aw

def er r al s due t o t he Rut her f or d l i t i gat i on, t her e wer e 408 ot her

pr i soner s who had been ent i t l ed t o t hei r hear i ngs bef or e

Pr oposi t i on 9 but had not yet had t hei r hear i ngs at t he t i me

Pr oposi t i on 9 was i mpl ement ed; pur suant t o a st i pul at i on i n t he

13 Some cover ed pr i soner s chose t o st i pul at e t o a def er r al per i od,r at her t han go f or war d wi t h t hei r del ayed, Pr oposi t i on 9 par ol ehear i ng. I n t hose cases, al l t he new, ol d- l aw def er r al per i ods

were set by agr eement . Mast er Decl . 10. For t hose convi ct edof mur der : al l 3- year st i pul at i ons wer e conver t ed t o 1- year , 5-year st i pul at i ons t o 2- year s, 7- year s t o 3- year s, 10- year s t o 4-year s, and 15- year s t o 5- year s. Mast er Decl . 10. For t hosenot convi ct ed of mur der : al l 3- year st i pul at i ons wer e conver t edt o 1- year ( i dent i cal l y wi t h t hose convi ct ed of mur der ) , and al lot her st i pul at ed def er r al s ( 5- , 7- , 10- and 15- year def er r al s) ,wer e conver t ed t o 2- year def er r al s. I d.



18/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

Rut her f or d case, t hose pr i soner s' f i r st post - Pr oposi t i on 9

hear i ngs wer e t o be gover ned by t he ol d l aw. As of Apr i l 6,

2011, of t hose 408 pr i soners, 247 were deni ed parol e and gi ven

ol d- l aw ( one- t o f i ve- year ) def er r al s. As of Apr i l 6, 2011, 88

of t he 247 had r eached t hei r next hear i ng (because t hey had

r ecei ved onl y one- or t wo- year def er r al s at t hei r f i r st post -

Proposi t i on 9 hear i ngs) , and 25 ( 28 per cent ) wer e gr ant ed par ol e

at t hei r hear i ngs. UF 16.

25. Of t he 240 pr i soners i n t he Rut her f or d subset who

r ecei ved or st i pul at ed t o t he mi ni mum 3- year def er r al under

Pr oposi t i on 9, ( a) 102 had t hei r def er r al dat es r educed t o t he

mi ni mum 1- year def er r al i n a hear i ng under t he ol d l aw, 14 ( b) 60

had t hei r def er r al dat es r educed t o a 2- year def er r al ( t he

second- shor t est def er r al ) i n new hear i ngs under t he ol d l aw, and

( c) none had t hei r def er r al dat es st ay t he same or get i ncr eased

usi ng t he ol d l aw. Exh. 20 ( admi t t ed per PTO) . 15 Par ol e was

gr ant ed i n 43 of t hose cases. Exh. 54 ( admi t t ed at RT 32) .16

As

14 An addi t i onal 78 st i pul at ed t o par ol e unsui t abi l i t y f or 3 year sat t hei r Proposi t i on 9 hear i ngs. Exh. 20 at 43- 49 ( ent r i es wi t hS i n t he deci si on col umn ar e t hese st i pul at i ons) . I n t hatcase, t he ol d- l aw def er r al per i od was r educed t o one year byagr eement , apparent l y wi t hout t he need f or a new hear i ngconduct ed under t he ol d l aw. Exh. 1 at 10 10.

15 Exhi bi t 20 i s a char t of t he pr i soner s cover ed by t he

Rut her f or d st i pul at i on. I t i ncl udes a col umn t hat shows theor i gi nal def er r al dat e cal cul at ed under Pr oposi t i on 9 ( Or i gi nalHear i ng I nf o / Resul t Lengt h) , and a col umn t hat shows t he newdef er r al dat e, cal cul at ed under t he ol d l aw ( Modi f i ed Hear i ngI nf o / Lengt h) . See RT 27- 28.

16 Exhi bi t 54 i s a summar y char t showi ng par ol e gr ant s af t er t heRut her f or d modi f i cat i ons.



19/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

not ed above, t he Boar d s deci si on t o def er a par ol e hear i ng f or

onl y one or t wo year s i s made when t here i s a r easonabl e

expect at i on t hat t he pr i soner wi l l be gr ant ed par ol e dur i ng t he

next year or t wo. The concl usi on appear s t o be i nescapabl e,

t hen, t hat f or most of t hose 240 pr i soner s ( t hat i s, 162 of t hem,

whi ch excl udes t hose subj ect t o t he agr eed- t o def er r al s) , t her e

was a r easonabl e expectat i on t hat t hey woul d be gr ant ed parol e i n

one or t wo year s. Yet , i f t hei r Proposi t i on 9 def er r al s had

st ood, t hey woul d have been unabl e to even get t o a par ol e

hear i ng f or t hr ee year s.

26. Of t he 104 pr i soner s i n t he Rut her f or d subset who

r ecei ved or st i pul at ed t o a f i ve ( 5) year def er r al under

Pr oposi t i on 9, sevent y- f our of t hem had t hei r def er r al per i ods

r e- cal cul at ed under t he ol d l aw. 17 As a r esul t , ( a) one had t he

def er r al r educed t o t he 1- year mi ni mum, ( b) f or t y- ei ght had t hei r

def er r al s r educed t o t wo year s, t he next - shor t est avai l abl e,

( c) sevent een had t hei r def er r al s r educed t o 3 year s, and

( d) ei ght had t hei r def er r al s r educed t o 4 year s i n new hear i ngs

conduct ed under t he ol d l aw. None had t hei r def er r al s st ay t he

same, and i t was not possi bl e t o get a gr eat er def er r al under t he

ol d l aw. Exhs. 20 & 54. Ther ef or e, f or most of t hese pr i soner s

( 74, whi ch excl udes t hose subj ect t o agr eed- t o def er r al s) , t her e

was a r easonabl e expectat i on t hat t hey woul d be gr ant ed parol e i n

one t o f our year s. Yet , i f t hei r Pr oposi t i on 9 def er r al s had

17 An addi t i onal t hi r t y of t hese pr i soner s st i pul at ed t o 5- yeardef er r al s under Pr oposi t i on 9, and so t hei r def er r al s wer er educed t o 2- year ol d- l aw def er r al s by agr eement . See Exhi bi t A, 10.



20/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

st ood, t hey woul d have been unabl e to even get t o a par ol e

hear i ng f or f i ve year s.


r ecei ved or st i pul at ed t o a seven ( 7) year def er r al under

Pr oposi t i on 9, t hi r t y- ni ne had t hei r def er r al per i ods r e-

cal cul at ed under t he ol d l aw. 18 As a r esul t , ( a) none r ecei ved

ei t her t he 1- year mi ni mum or t he 5- year maxi mum def er r al , ( b) si x

had t he def er r al r educed t o 2 year s, t he next shor t est def er r al

under t he ol d l aw, ( c) sevent een had t hei r def er r al s r educed t o

t hr ee ( 3) year s, and ( d) 16 had t hei r def er r al s r educed t o 4

year s. Exhs. 20 & 54. I t was not possi bl e t o get an equal or

l onger def er r al under t he ol d l aw. Ther ef or e, f or most of t hese

pr i soner s, t her e was a r easonabl e expect at i on t hat t hey woul d be

gr ant ed par ol e i n one t o f our year s. Yet , i f t hei r Proposi t i on 9

def err al s had st ood, t hey woul d have been unabl e t o even get t o a

par ol e hear i ng f or seven ( 7) year s.

28. The 31 pr i soner s i n the Rut her f or d subset who

r ecei ved a t en ( 10) year def er r al ( t he next - t o- l ongest def er r al

possi bl e) under Pr oposi t i on 9, al l had t hei r def er r al s r e-

cal cul at ed under t he ol d- l aw. 19 As a r esul t , ( a) none r ecei ved

t he 1- year mi ni mum def er r al , ( b) somewhat sur pr i si ngl y, si x ( 6)

had t he def er r al r educed t o 2 year s, t he next shor t est def er r al

18 An addi t i onal f our t een of t hese pr i soner s st i pul at ed t o 7- yeardef er r al s under Pr oposi t i on 9, and so t hei r def er r al s wer er educed, by agr eement , t o 2- year ol d- l aw def er r al s, or 3- yearol d- l aw def er r al s i f t hei r convi ct i ons wer e f or mur der . SeeExhi bi t A, 10.

19 Accor di ng t o Exh. 20, none of t hese pr i soner s st i pul at ed t odef er r al s under Pr oposi t i on 9.



21/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

under t he ol d l aw, 20 ( c) 20 had t hei r def er r al s r educed t o f our

( 4) year s and ( d) 5 had t hei r def er r al s r educed t o 5 year s, t he

maxi mum def er r al under t he ol d l aw. Exhs. 20 & 54. I t was not

possi bl e t o get an equal or l onger def er r al under t he ol d l aw.

29. Ther ef or e, f or t he maj or i t y of t hese pr i soner s ( 26

out of 31) , t her e was a r easonabl e expect at i on t hat t hey woul d be

gr ant ed par ol e i n one t o f our year s. Yet , i f t hei r Proposi t i on 9

def err al s had st ood, t hey woul d have been unabl e t o even get t o a

par ol e hear i ng f or t en ( 10) year s.


r ecei ved t he maxi mum, 15- year def er r al under Proposi t i on 9,

( a) none recei ved t he 1- year mi ni mum def er r al , ( b) somewhat

r emar kabl y, f i ve ( 5) had t he def er r al r educed t o 2 year s, t he

next shor t est def er r al under t he ol d l aw, ( c) none had t hei r

def er r al s r educed t o 3 year s, ( d) one had t he def er r al r educed t o

f our ( 4) year s and ( d) ei ght ( 8) had t hei r def er r al s r educed t o 5

year s, t he maxi mum def er r al under t he ol d l aw. Exhs. 20 & 54.

I t was not possi bl e t o get an equal or l onger def er r al under t he

ol d l aw.

31. Thus, most of t hose who r ecei ved t he maxi mum, 15-

year , def er r al under Proposi t i on 9, al so recei ved t he maxi mum, 5-

year , def er r al under t he ol d l aw. The l aw t hus i mposed an

i r r ebut abl e pr esumpt i on on t hese pr i soner s t hat t hey woul d not be

20 Thi s i s t he ol d- l aw def er r al t hese si x woul d have r ecei ved byagr eement , i f t hey had st i pul at ed t o def er r al s underProposi t i on 9, and i f t hei r commi t ment of f enses wer e ot her t hanmur der . Wi t hout t hi s agr eement , i t seems sur pr i si ng t hat t hei rnext - t o- l ongest def er r al s woul d be re- cal cul at ed t o t he next - t o-shor t est l evel .



22/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

sui t abl e f or par ol e f or 15- year s, r emovi ng t he ol d- l aw

possi bi l i t y t hat at l east ever y f i ve year s, t he pr i soner coul d

demonst r at e sui t abi l i t y.

32. As f or t he f i ve pr i soner s whose def er r al s dr opped

f r om 15 year s under Pr oposi t i on 9 t o 2 year s under t he ol d l aw,

t he r educt i on seems r emarkabl e because havi ng r ecei ved t he

maxi mum, 15- year def er r al under Proposi t i on 9, t hese f i ve

pr i soner s r ecei ved t he next shor t est def er r al avai l abl e under t he

ol d l aw. I t i s a r easonabl e i nf er ence f r om t hi s t hat i n December

2008 and J anuar y 2009, t he Boar d di d not have cl ear and

convi nci ng evi dence t hat t hose pr i soner s woul d be r eady f or

r el ease f or t he next 15 year s. Yet , maki ng t he cal cul at i on under

t he ol d l aw about t hr ee mont hs l ater ( i n Mar ch and Apr i l 2009) ,

t he Boar d concl uded t hat t hese same pr i soners woul d be ready f or

r el ease wi t hi n 2 year s. Exh. 20.

33. These f i ve pr i soners may t hus have pl ayed out t he

di st ur bi ng scenar i o ment i oned ear l i er , namel y that pr i soner s who

woul d be parol ed under t he ol d l aw coul d never show wi t h t he

cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence r equi r ed by Pr oposi t i on 9, t hat

t hey wer e ready f or par ol e. 21

34. There exi st s a separate gr oup of 408 pr i soners who

al so had post - Pr oposi t i on 9 def er r al s deci ded under t he ol d l aw.

Exh. 56 ( ECF No. 343- 12) ( admi t t ed at RT 117) . Of t he 247

pr i soner s i n that gr oup who wer e deni ed par ol e, 91 r ecei ved t he

21 These f i ve ( Amber s, Pi nel l , St or ey, Case and Mar t i n) ar e notr ecor ded as havi ng st i pul at ed t o a def er r al . See Exhi bi t 20.Had t hey st i pul at ed, and i f t hei r cr i mes wer e ot her t han mur der ,t hen the def err al woul d have dr opped f r om 15 year s t o 2 year sunder t he Rut herf ord agr eement .



23/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

mi ni mum oneyear def er r al s, and 22 of t hem wer e gr ant ed par ol e.

I d. Of t he gr oup, 87 r ecei ved 2 year def er r al s ( t he next

shor t est under t he ol d l aw) , and 2 of t hem wer e gr ant ed par ol e.

I d.

35. The act ual ef f ect of Pr oposi t i on 9 on a sampl e

gr oup of l i f e pr i soner s af f ected by t he Rut her f or d l i t i gat i on i s

set f or t h bel ow. See Exh. 20 & 55 ( bi nder ) ( al l col umns except

t he l ast t wo admi t t ed at RT 222- 23) . 22

a. Li f e pr i soner A. Tayl or ( Exh. 20 300)

r ecei ved a Pr oposi t i on 9 par ol e hear i ng i n J anuar y 2009. Tayl or

was deni ed parol e, and gi ven t he mi ni mum def err al permi t t ed under

Proposi t i on 9, t hr ee year s, on J anuar y 2012. However , because

t he pr i soner was cover ed by t he Rut her f or d l i t i gat i on, t he Boar d

r e- cal cul at ed t he def er r al , usi ng t he ol d l aw. Usi ng t he ol d

l aw, t he Boar d def er r ed Tayl or s hear i ng t wo ( 2) year s, or unt i l

J anuar y 2011. Thi s meant t hat t he Board bel i eved t hat t her e was

a reasonabl e chance t hat t he pr i soner woul d be gr ant ed par ol e i n

t wo year s ( ot her wi se, i t was r equi r ed by the ol d l aw t o def er t he

hear i ng 3, 4 or 5 year s) . I n f act , t he Boar d gr ant ed Tayl or

par ol e at t he J anuar y 2011 hear i ng, and t he pr i soner was r el eased

on par ol e i n J une 2011. Thus, Tayl or was r el eased under t he ol d

l aw bef ore a parol e hear i ng coul d even have occurr ed under

22 The cour t det er mi ned t hat t he l ast t wo col umns, al t hough notadmi t t ed as evi dence, r epr esent ed what t he wi t ness, Moni ca Knox,woul d have t est i f i ed t o, i f t he cour t wer e i ncl i ned t o dr ag outt he t r i al . RT 222- 23. Def endant was gr ant ed t he oppor t uni t y t ocr oss- exami ne t he wi t ness on t hose col umns as i f she had sot est i f i ed i n court .



24/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

Pr oposi t i on 9. 23

b. Li f e pr i soner H. Tuey (Exh. 20 152) r ecei ved

a Proposi t i on 9 parol e hear i ng i n December 2008. Tuey was deni ed

par ol e, and gi ven t he mi ni mum 3- year def er r al per mi t t ed under

Proposi t i on 9, t o December 2011. However , because t he pr i soner

was cover ed by the Rut her f or d l i t i gat i on, t he Boar d r e- cal cul at ed

t he def er r al under t he ol d l aw. Usi ng t he ol d l aw, t he Boar d

gave Tuey t he mi ni mum 1- year def er r al , t o December 2009. Thi s

meant t hat t he Boar d bel i eved t hat t here was a r easonabl e chance

t hat Tuey woul d be gr ant ed par ol e t he f ol l owi ng year ( ot her wi se,

i t was r equi r ed by the ol d l aw t o def er t he hear i ng 2, 3, 4 or 5

year s) . I n f act , t he Boar d gr ant ed Tuey par ol e at t he

December 2009 hear i ng, and t he pr i soner was r el eased on parol e i n

May 2010. Thus, Tuey was r el eased under t he ol d l aw one and one-

hal f year s bef or e the next par ol e hear i ng coul d even have

occur r ed under Pr oposi t i on 9. 24

c. Li f e pr i soner A. Fl or es ( Exh. 20 302)

r ecei ved a Proposi t i on 9 par ol e hear i ng i n December 2008, but

was deni ed par ol e, and gi ven a seven ( 7) year def er r al , t o

23 Si mi l ar r esul t s obt ai n f or seven ( 7) ot her l i f e pr i soner si dent i f i ed by pl ai nt i f f s, namel y, P. Guer r er o, J . Mor al es,R. Wi l l i s, R. Mor t on, R. DeCi d, N. Powel l and G. Bal aoi ng.

24 Si mi l ar r esul t s obt ai n f or 42 ot her l i f e pr i soner s i dent i f i edby pl ai nt i f f s, namel y, I . Kegl er , R. Ander son, Cur r y, M. Ar t hur ,

S. Law, P. Syzemor e, D. J ames, R. Hami l t on, C. Hender son,G. Zaval a, R. Per ez, R. St ewar t , O. Boone, C. Sal gado, G. Rounds,G. Count s, A. Saucedo, A. Mar i n, E. Reams, B. Bar nar d,T. Pacheco, B. J ackaway, J . Ander son, J . Mor eno, J . Acost a,B. Weat her l y, T. Davi s, J . Masoner , D. Cor dar , A. Har r el l ,C. Racca, M. Gaona, D. Schl appi , H. Or opeza, A. Gar ci a, E.Russel l , Kwi t kowski , J . Boni l l a, R. Espi nol a, J . Cr espo, F. Hi l land A. Hanna.



25/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

December 2015. Under Proposi t i on 9, t hi s def er r al i s gi ven when

t he Boar d f i nds by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t hat t he

pr i soner need not be i ncar cer at ed f or mor e t han seven addi t i onal

year s. Under t hi s ci r cumst ance, t he Boar d had t he choi ce of

def er r i ng f or 3, 5 or 7 year s. Because t he pr i soner was cover ed

by t he Rut her f or d l i t i gat i on, t he Boar d r e- cal cul at ed t he

def er r al under t he ol d l aw. Usi ng t he ol d l aw, t he Boar d gave

Fl or es a 3- year def er r al , t o December 2011. Thi s meant t hat t he

Boar d bel i eved t hat t her e was a r easonabl e chance that Fl or es

woul d be gr ant ed par ol e i n t hr ee year s, ( ot her wi se, i t was

r equi r ed by t he ol d l aw t o def er t he hear i ng 4 or 5 year s) . I n

f act , t he Boar d gr ant ed Fl ores parol e at t he November 2011

hear i ng, and t he pr i soner was r el eased on parol e i n May 2012.

Thus, Fl or es was r el eased under t he ol d l aw t hree years bef or e

t he next parol e hear i ng that had been gr ant ed under

Pr oposi t i on 9.

d. Li f e pr i soner C. Or duna ( Exh. 55 19)

r ecei ved a Proposi t i on 9 par ol e hear i ng i n Mar ch 2009. Or duna

was deni ed par ol e, and gi ven a f i ve ( 5) year def er r al , t o Mar ch

2014. Under Pr oposi t i on 9, t hi s def er r al i s gi ven when t he Boar d

f i nds by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t hat t he pr i soner need

not be i ncar cer at ed f or mor e t han f i ve ( 5) addi t i onal year s.

Under t hi s ci r cumst ance, t he Boar d had t he choi ce of def er r i ng

f or 3, 5 or 7 year s. Because the pr i soner was cover ed by t he

Rut her f or d l i t i gat i on, t he Boar d r e- cal cul at ed t he def er r al under

t he ol d l aw. Usi ng t he ol d l aw, t he Boar d gave Or duna a 2- year

def er r al , t o 2011. Thi s meant t hat t he Boar d bel i eved t hat t her e

was a r easonabl e chance t hat Or duna woul d be gr ant ed parol e i n



26/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

t wo year s, ( ot her wi se, i t was r equi r ed by t he ol d l aw t o def er

t he hear i ng 3, 4 or 5 year s) . I n f act , t he Boar d gr ant ed Or duna

par ol e at t he Apr i l 2010 hear i ng, and t he pr i soner was r el eased

on parol e i n Oct ober 2010.

Thus, Or duna was r el eased under t he ol d l aw bef or e t he

ear l i est dat e t he next par ol e hear i ng coul d even have occur r ed

under Pr oposi t i on 9. 25

36. An addi t i onal gr oup of 24 l i f e pr i soner s had t hei r

3- year Pr oposi t i on 9 def er r al s ( t he mi ni mum per mi t t ed under

Pr oposi t i on 9) , r educed t hr ough i ndi vi dual cour t or der s. 26 See

Exh. 58 ( bi nder ) ( al l col umns except t he l ast t wo admi t t ed at RT

25 Si mi l ar r esul t s obt ai n f or 4 ot her l i f e pr i soner s i dent i f i ed bypl ai nt i f f s, namel y, C. Luong, J . Bar r i gan, M. Luna and M. Bunney.

The cour t r ej ect s, however , Knox s t est i mony of what i s t heear l i est r el ease dat e under Pr oposi t i on 9 f or sever alpr i soner s. See Exh. 55. Accor di ng t o Knox s t est i mony, t hi s wast he ear l i est r el ease dat e i f t he pr i soner had got t en t heshor t est Pr op 9 def er r al possi bl e. RT 219. The shor t estdef er r al possi bl e under Pr oposi t i on 9 was t hr ee ( 3) year s. SeeCal . Penal . Code 3041. 5( b) ( 3) ( C) ( def er f or 3, 5, or 7 year s i fpr i soner does not r equi r e i ncar cer at i on f or mor e than sevenaddi t i onal year s) . However , i t appear s t hat Knox used t he act ualdef er r al gi ven under Pr oposi t i on 9 r at her t han t he shor t est def er r al possi bl e, i n her cal cul at i on.

Thi s appar ent er r or was avoi ded i n t he cal cul at i on f or J .Al var ez, but r epeat ed f or J . Col eman, B. J i menez, C. Luong, B.Mar t i nez, J . Bar r i gan, C. Escobar , M. Luna, P. Vel azquez, M.Bunney and G. Tuzon. However , even cor r ect i ng t hese err ors,Or duna, Luong, Bar r i gan, Luna and Bunney were r el eased under t he

ol d l aw sooner t hat t hey coul d even have got t en a parol e hear i ngunder Pr oposi t i on 9.

26 L. Gar ci a, A. Mar cel o, A. Cr i sci one, A. Bi cs, S. Mur phy, R.Young, J . Powel l , M. Fai r f ax, E. J uar ez, R. Hudson, J . Al exander ,D. Kur t zman, R. DeLaBar cena, M. Ber ger , I . Sepul veda, M. Bar aj as,O. Wi l l i s, H. Rosal es, A. Agui l ar , S. Cont r er as, E. Est r ada, J .Por t i l l o, H. J i menez and L. Li f t ee. Exh. 58.



27/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

222- 23) . 27 Each of t hese l i f e pr i soner s r ecei ved par ol e hear i ngs

ear l i er t han woul d have been per mi t t ed under Proposi t i on 9, and

each was r el eased on parol e bef ore t hey even coul d have had a

par ol e hear i ng under Pr oposi t i on 9. I d.

37. Dr . Bar r y Kr i sber g was qual i f i ed t o t est i f y as an

exper t on cr i mi nol ogy, soci ol ogy and st at i st i cs. ( RT 73- 74. )

Dr . Kr i sber g opi ned t hat t her e was no syst emat i c bi as i n t he

Rut her f or d subset t hat woul d make i t di f f er ent f r om t he cl ass i n

t hi s case. ( RT 76. )

38. Accor di ng to Dr . Kr i sber g, compar i ng the out comes

of t he Rut her f or d Gr oup t o t he cl ass as a whol e i s a val i d

r esear ch desi gn t o det er mi ne t he ef f ect of t he new l aw.

( RT 85. )

39. Dr . St ephen Kl ei n was qual i f i ed t o t est i f y as an

exper t i n st at i st i cs. ( RT 100. ) Dr . Kl ei n opi ned t hat i t s t oo

soon t o know what t he ef f ect s of Pr oposi t i on 9 ar e. ( RT 101. )

Dr . Kl ei n di sagr eed wi t h Dr . Kr i sber g t hat t he Rut her f or d subset

was unbi ased, or was r epr esent at i ve of t he pl ai nt i f f cl ass as a

whol e. Dr . Kl ei n bel i eved t hat Dr . Kr i sber g er r ed by not

cont r ol l i ng t he Rut her f or d subset f or case char act er i st i cs.

40. Dr . Kl ei n i dent i f i ed t wo f actor s t hat , he opi ned,

def eat ed Dr . Kr i sber g s asser t i on t hat t he Rut her f or d subset was

an unbi ased nat ur al exper i ment , and was t heref ore

r epr esent at i ve of t he cl ass as a whol e. The f i r st i s Dr . Kl ei n s

27 Once agai n, t he cour t f ound t hat t he l ast t wo col umnsr epr esent ed what t he wi t ness, Moni ca Knox, woul d have t est i f i edt o, i f t he cour t wer e i ncl i ned t o dr ag out t he t r i al . Def endantwas gr ant ed t he opport uni t y to cr oss- exami ne t he wi t ness on t hosecol umns as i f she had so t est i f i ed i n cour t .



28/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

asser t i on t hat t he hear i ng mandat ed by t he Rut her f or d l i t i gat i on

coul d be t wo year s af t er t he i ni t i al post - Pr oposi t i on 9

hear i ng. RT 106. Nei t her Dr . Kl ei n nor def endant s counsel ever

i dent i f i ed any document or ot her evi dence f r om whi ch he dr ew t hi s

t wo year s f i gur e.

41. The ot her f actor Dr . Kl ei n i dent i f i ed i s t hat t he

peopl e doi ng t he second hear i ng may or may not have known t he

out come of t he f i r st hear i ng, and t hat coul d be af f ect i ng

t hi ngs. ( RT 106. ) Dr . Kl ei n does not i dent i f y any l aw,

document or other evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat t he deci si on- maker s i n

t he second hear i ng knew t he out come of t he f i r st hear i ng. 28 Nor

does he i dent i f y any document or evi dence showi ng t hat knowi ng

t he pr i or out come woul d make any di f f erence t o the second

deci si on- maker s.

42. Dr . Kl ei n opi ned t hat i n or der f or Dr . Kr i sber g s

nat ur al exper i ment t o be val i d, [ w] hat you d want t o do i s you

want t o get t he char act er i st i cs of t he Rut her f or d Gr oup and t he

char act er i st i cs of t he non- Rut her f or d gr oup i n t he l ar ger

popul at i on t o see whet her t hose char act er i st i cs are the same.

( RT 108- 09. ) Dr . Kl ei n concl uded t hat because Dr . Kr i sber g di d

not do t hi s, hi s nat ur al exper i ment was not val i d. Dr . Kl ei n

di d not i dent i f y any case char act er i st i cs bet ween t he two gr oups

t hat wer e di f f er ent , or t hat coul d af f ect t he out come.

28 Under Pr oposi t i on 9, t he Boar d i s expr essl y di r ect ed t oconsi der t he f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons r eached i n a pr i or par ol ehear i ng, al t hough i t i s not bi ndi ng. Even assumi ng a si mi l ardi r ect i on appl i ed under t he ol d l aw or r egul at i ons, i t i s notcl ear t hat t he vacat ed hear i ngs i n Rut her f or d woul d qual i f y as apr i or par ol e hear i ng.



29/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

D. The Rutherford Litigation: Conclusions.

The cour t f i nds t hat Dr . Kl ei n s t est i mony does not r eal l y

bear on the quest i on bef or e t he cour t , namel y, whet her

Pr oposi t i on 9 creat ed a si gni f i cant r i sk of l onger

i ncar cer at i on. Thi s i s not t he same as wai t i ng t o see what t he

di f f er ent l engt hs of i ncar cer at i on ar e, year s f r om now, and

l ooki ng back t o see whet her t hey wer e l onger af t er Proposi t i on 9

passed. The quest i on i s whet her , l ooki ng f or war d, t her e i s a

si gni f i cant r i sk of i ncreased i ncar cer at i on. I f t he cour t wer e

t o r el y upon Dr . Kl ei n s t est i mony, t hi s cour t coul d not r each

any concl usi on about t he const i t ut i onal i t y of Pr oposi t i on 9 unt i l

some t i me i n t he i ndef i ni t e f ut ur e when al l t he cl ass members had

ei t her been r el eased or di ed.

Even i f Dr . Kl ei n s t est i mony wer e per t i nent , t he cour t

r ej ect s i t . Dr . Kl ei n opi nes that t her e i s no way f or Dr .

Kr i sber g t o know t hat t he Rut her f or d subset i s r epr esent at i ve of

t he cl ass as a whol e. The basi s f or t hi s opi ni on i s t hatDr . Kr i sber g di d not cont r ol f or case char act er i st i cs. Because

of t hi s, Dr . Kl ei n opi nes, t her e i s no way to know whet her

somet hi ng ot her t han t he acci dent of cal endar i ng - - such as

i ndi vi dual case char act er i st i cs, or some bi asi ng f act or t hat

caused t he acci dent of cal endar i ng di st i ngui shes t he

Rut her f or d subset f r om t he cl ass her e.

Ther e ar e several probl ems wi t h t hi s asser t i on. Fi r st ,

nei t her t he def endant s nor Dr . Kl ei n of f er any evi dence of any

case char act er i st i cs t hat woul d di st i ngui sh t he Rut her f or d subset

f r om t he cl ass. Def endant s have access t o al l t he pr i soner s

cent r al f i l es, and yet t hey have not i dent i f i ed any of t he



30/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

di f f er ences t hat Dr . Kl ei n specul at es mi ght possi bl y exi st . The

cour t i nf er s f r om t hi s f ai l ur e t o pr oduce any such evi dence, t hat

t her e i s none.

Second, t he evi dence bef or e t he cour t pl ai nl y shows t hat

t her e i s no over al l di f f er ence t hat woul d make a di f f er ence

bet ween t he Rut her f or d subset and t he cl ass. Dr . Kl ei n

i dent i f i es t wo possi bl e di f f er ences i n case char acter i st i cs. He

asser t s t hat t he t i me between t he two hear i ngs coul d be two

year s, t hi ngs coul d happen t hat woul d be af f ect i ng whet her

somebody got a par ol e gr ant dur i ng t hat t wo- year per i od.

RT 106.

Thi s basi s i s f l at l y cont r adi ct ed by t he evi dence.

Exhi bi t 20 i s t he def endant s own compi l at i on of every member of

t he Rut her f or d subset . I t shows t hat i n al most ever y si ngl e

case, t he t i me bet ween t he two hear i ngs f or t he Rut herf or d

pr i soner s i s j ust under one mont h ( e. g. , Ti l f or d) , t o j ust under

f i ve ( 5) mont hs ( e. g. , Hi l l ) , wi t h t he over whel mi ng maj or i t y

bei ng about 3 or 4 mont hs apar t . Exhi bi t 20. I n onl y t wo cases

t hat t he cour t was abl e to i dent i f y, namel y, Har r el l ( 11 mont hs)

and Moor e ( 10 mont hs) , was t he t i me di f f erence gr eat er t han 5

mont hs.

I f Dr . Kl ei n s asser t i on had been based upon act ual evi dence

i n t he case, t he cour t woul d consi der i t , si nce t he t i me bet ween

hear i ngs, and possi bi l i t y of changes i n case char act er i st i cs t hat

coul d occur dur i ng t hat t i me, most not abl y i nst i t ut i onal

behavi or , i s per t i nent t o whet her par ol e woul d be gr ant ed. See

Cal . Admi n. Code, t i t . 15, 2281( d) ( 9) ( f i ndi ng of sui t abi l i t y

f or r el ease i s bet t er when [ i ] nst i t ut i onal acti vi t i es i ndi cat e



31/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31

an enhanced abi l i t y t o f unct i on wi t hi n t he l aw upon r el ease) .

Si nce Dr . Kl ei n s assert i on was based upon an apparent l y made- up

number of year s bet ween t he i ni t i al Proposi t i on 9 hear i ng and

t he ol d- l aw hear i ng gai ned t hr ough t he Rut her f or d l i t i gat i on, t he

cour t must di scar d Dr . Kl ei n s opi ni on, as t o t hi s f actor .

Fi nal l y, t he evi dence bef or e t he cour t t ends t o show t hat

t he r el evant case char act er i st i cs wer e not di f f er ent bet ween t he

t wo gr oups. Thi s concl usi on can be i nf er r ed f r om t he f act t hat

t he case char act er i st i cs t hat mat t er ar e set f or t h i n t he

r egul at i ons gover ni ng t he det er mi nat i on of par ol e sui t abi l i t y,

i d. 2281( b) - ( d) , and t he f act t hat bot h gr oups wound up wi t h

t he f ul l r ange of out comes. I n ot her wor ds, t he case

char acter i st i cs ar e i nf er abl e f r om t he out come. I f t he

Rut her f or d subset was, f or exampl e, cr owded wi t h mul t i pl e

murderer s who showed no r emor se, t here woul d be f ew among t hem

r ecei vi ng the mi ni mum def err al , and many r ecei vi ng the maxi mum.

But def endant s have i dent i f i ed no such skewi ng i n t he

di st r i but i on of out comes i n t he r ecor d.

The cour t f i nds t hat t he Rut her f or d subset i s r epresent at i ve

of t he Proposi t i on 9 cl ass as a whol e. The evi dence submi t t ed on

t hi s mat t er shows t hat t he Rut her f or d subset i s di st i ngui shed

f r om t he Pr oposi t i on 9 cl ass onl y by the acci dent of when t hei r

par ol e hear i ngs wer e schedul ed on t he cal endar . Ther e i s no

evi dence t hat t he case char act er i st i cs ar e di f f er ent bet ween t he

t wo gr oups. There i s no evi dence t hat somethi ng about t he

acci dent of cal endar i ng was anythi ng ot her t han an acci dent of

t he cal endar .

For exampl e, t her e i s no evi dence that onl y t hose most or



32/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32

l east l i kel y t o be par ol ed moved i nt o t he Rut her f or d subset .

Rat her , t he evi dence i s cl ear t hat t he Rut her f or d subset came

i nt o exi st ence because t he Boar d had a backl og t hat appl i ed t o

al l l i f e pr i soner s, not any par t i cul ar subset of t hem based upon

any case char act er i st i cs. Dr . Kl ei n s specul at i on on possi bl e

di f f er ences i n case char acter i st i cs i s t her ef or e a r ed her r i ng,

especi al l y si nce Dr . Kl ei n, who pr esumabl y had access t o t he

cent r al f i l es of t he cl ass as wel l as t he Rut her f or d gr oup, di d

not i dent i f y a si ngl e case char act er i st i c t hat di st i ngui shed t he

t wo gr oups.

The cour t t her ef or e f i nds t hat pl ai nt i f f s have proper l y

but t r essed t hei r showi ng t hat Pr oposi t i on 9 act ual l y di d cr eat e a

si gni f i cant r i sk t hat t hei r i ncar cer at i ons woul d be l engt hened.

I n addi t i on t o t he i nf er ences t o be dr awn f r om how t he Boar d

i mposes def er r al per i ods, t he Rut her f or d subset shows t hat i n

f act , some member s of t he cl ass had t hei r i ncar cer at i ons

l engt hened by Pr oposi t i on 9, but wer e r escued f r om t hat r esul t by

t he Rut her f or d st i pul at i on.

The exper i ence of t he Ruther f or d subset t hus shows t hat

whi l e i t i s t r ue t hat mor e f r equent par ol e hear i ngs r esul t i n

mor e f r equent deni al s f or some, i t i s al so t r ue t hat t hey resul t

i n mor e f r equent gr ant s of par ol e f or ot her s.

III. PROPOSITION 9: THE ADVANCED HEARING PROCESS

A. Findings.

43. A l i f e pr i soner who has been deni ed parol e may

r equest t hat t he Boar d exer ci se i t s di scr et i on t o advance a

hear i ng t o an ear l i er dat e. See UF 4.

44. From t he passage of Pr oposi t i on 9 t hr ough Apr i l 6,



33/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33

2011, when a f ul l r evi ew of a pet i t i on t o advance was or der ed,

t he r evi ew was conduct ed by a Board empl oyee at t he pr i son wher e

t he pr i soner was housed so t hat t he pr i soner ' s ent i r e f i l e coul d

be r evi ewed. The pr i soners were not present or r epr esent ed by

counsel when t hei r f i l es wer e r evi ewed. UF 13.

45. Dur i ng t he per i od f r om J anuar y 1, 2009 t hr ough

December 31, 2010, t here were 119 pet i t i ons t o advance f i l ed by

pr i soners. Of t hose, 114 ( appr oxi matel y 96%) were deni ed; 106

( appr oxi matel y 93%) were summar i l y deni ed and ei ght

( appr oxi mat el y 7%) wer e deni ed f ol l owi ng a f ul l r evi ew. UF 7.

46. Fr om2009 t o J une 2012, t he Boar d has not exerci sed

i t s di scret i on t o advance a hear i ng absent a pr i soner f i l i ng a

pet i t i on t o advance. UF 26.

47. Al t hough the pr ocedur e f or maki ng thi s r equest does

not appear t o be r ef l ected i n t he Boar d s of f i ci al r egul at i ons,

t he Boar d s Execut i ve Of f i cer , J enni f er Shaf f er , t est i f i ed about

t he Boar d s pr ocess f or det er mi ni ng whet her an expedi t ed hear i ng

i s war r ant ed f or a par t i cul ar i nmat e. ( RT 263- 95. )

48. The pr i soner st ar t s t hi s pr ocess by compl et i ng For m

1045, Exhi bi t 35 ( ECF No. 341- 3) , ent i t l ed St at e of Cal i f or ni a /

Boar d of Par ol e Hear i ngs / Pet i t i on To Advance Hear i ng Dat e.

( RT 265. ) The f or m i nst r uct s t he pr i soner t o l i st t he changed

ci r cumst ances or new i nf ormat i on t hat show a reasonabl e

l i kel i hood t hat consi der at i on of t he publ i c and vi ct i m s saf et y

does not r equi r e t he addi t i onal per i od of i ncar cer at i on t hat was

set at t he l ast par ol e sui t abi l i t y hear i ng. Exh. 35 at BPH- 44.

The pr i soner i s al so i nst r uct ed t o submi t wi t h t he pet i t i on al l



34/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34

support i ng document s. I d. 29

49. Pr i or t o Mar ch 1, 2014, t he submi t t ed pet i t i on was

f i r st gi ven a pr el i mi nar y r evi ew. See Exh. 35 at BPH- 45. At

t hi s st age, accor di ng t o Exhi bi t 35, t he pet i t i on coul d be

Summari l y Deni ed i f ( 1) t he pr i soner was seeki ng t o advance t he

wr ong t ype of hear i ng, ( 2) t he pet i t i on was not t i mel y or ( 3) t he

pet i t i on cont ai ned [ n] o evi dence of new i nf or mat i on or a change

i n ci r cumst ances war r ant i ng f ur t her r evi ew. I d. The f i r st t wo

r easons wer e pl ai nl y j ur i sdi ct i onal , i n t hat such pet i t i ons wer e

not wi t hi n t he st at ut e. See Exh. 38 at BPH- 12 ( BPH t r ai ni ng

mat er i al ) ( admi t t ed at RT 210) .

50. As f or t he t hi r d i ssue, t he t r ai ni ng pr ovi ded t o

t he deci si on- maker s st at es t hat t he pr i soner f i r st had t o asser t

t hat t here was new i nf ormat i on or a change i n ci r cumst ances

wi t hout r egar d t o any showi ng or asser t i on of sui t abi l i t y. See

Exh. 38 at BPH- 14. I n ot her wor ds, a mer e showi ng of sui t abi l i t y

was not suf f i ci ent t o war r ant an advance hear i ng; t here had t o

be, i n addi t i on, some new i nf or mat i on or change i n

ci r cumst ances. See al so Exh. 40 ( admi t t ed at RT 211) ( ECF

No. 341- 8) at BPH- 36 ( def endant s expl anat i on of pr el i mi nar y

r evi ew st at es t hat [ m] i ni mal l y, t he pr i soner must make a val i d

asser t i on of a change i n ci r cumst ances or new i nf or mat i on i n

or der t o avoi d t he BPH summar i l y denyi ng t he pet i t i on) .

51. I n addi t i on t o t hat asser t i on ( of changed

ci r cumst ances or new evi dence) , t he pr i soner t hen had t o

29 The f orm was amended on March 1, 2014, al t hough i t appear s t hatpr i soner s st i l l f i l l out Exhi bi t 35. However , t he deci si on-makers now use Exhi bi t 2B i nst ead. ( RT 265- 66. )



35/58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35

est abl i sh, st i l l i n t he pr el i mi nar y r evi ew stage, t hat t her e

was a r easonabl e l i kel i hood t hat t he pr i soner no l onger

r equi r ed addi t i onal i ncar cer at i on. See Exh. 38 at BPH- 15. The

pet i t i on woul d be Summari l y Deni ed i f ot her evi dence shows

t hat t he pr i soner was unsui t abl e f or par ol e despi t e the change

i n ci r cumst ances or new i nf or mat i on. I d.

52. The f ul l r evi ew r equi r ed t he pr i soner t o agai n

est abl i sh a r easonabl e l i kel i hood, consi der i ng t he saf et y of

t he publ i c and vi ct i m, t hat t he pr i soner no l onger r equi r ed

i ncar cer at i on. See Exh. 38 at BPH- 17.

53. Af t er Mar ch 1, 2014, t he deci si on- maki ng pr ocess

was changed. I nst ead of a prel i mi nar y r evi ew f ol l owed by a

f ul l r evi ew, t her e i s now a j ur i sdi ct i onal r evi ew, f ol l owed

by a f ul l r evi ew. ( RT 272) ( Shaf f er Test i mony) .

54. The j ur i sdi ct i onal r evi ew i s conduct ed by l egal

anal yst s, and det er mi nes onl y whet her t o screen out pet i t i ons

where ( 1) t he pr i soner was seeki ng to advance t he wr ong type of

hear i ng, 30 or ( 2) t he pet i t i on was not t i mel y. ( RT 272- 73. )

55. The j ur i sdi ct i onal r evi ew does not i nvol ve any

det er mi nat i on on t he mer i t s. ( RT 276. ) Thi s i s i n cont r ast t o

t he pr e- Mar ch 1, 2014 pr ocedur e, i n whi ch t he prel i mi nar y

r evi ew i ncl uded a mer i t s det er mi nat i on on whet her t he pr i soner

had shown a change of ci r cumst ances warr ant i ng f ur t her r evi ew.

See, e. g. , Exh. 38 of BPH- 145.

56. I f t he pet i t i on sur vi ves t he j ur i sdi cti onal r evi ew,

30 For exampl e, t her e ar e medi cal par ol e sui t abi l i t y hear i ngs,document at i on hear i ngs and pr ogr ess hear i ngs, none of whi ch ar ei ncl uded i n t he advance hear i ng pr ocess. ( RT 275. )



36/58

1

judge's decision striking down portions of ca prop. 9 and prop. 89

Documents