What Gov. Newsom's Execution Ban Means—And Doesn't
"I can't be party to that. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night," the governor said Wednesday, explaining his decision to impose a moratorium on the death penalty in California.
March 13, 2019 at 06:51 PM
6 minute read
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday placed a moratorium on the death penalty in California, telling lawmakers and reporters that he could not face the prospect of overseeing the executions of dozens of inmates in quick succession.
California has 737 inmates on Death Row, although just 25 have exhausted all their appeals. With years-long litigation over the state's lethal injection process potentially ending during his administration, Newsom said he wanted a more “enlightened” alternative to lining up “human beings every single day for execution for two-plus years” and risking that some of the condemned are innocent.
“I don't know about you, but I can't sign my name to that,” Newsom said in Sacramento at a press conference, where he was flanked by supportive Democratic legislators. “I can't be party to that. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.”
Executive Order N-09-19 grants a reprieve to all inmates sentenced to death. It repeals the state's challenged lethal injection protocol, and it immediately shuttered the death chambers at San Quentin State Prison.
But interviews with attorneys on both sides of the issue suggest the order actually changes little about capital punishment in California—except the frame of debate.
The death penalty is still on the books, approved by voters in 1978. The order only formalizes a de facto, 13-year moratorium that's been in place since lawsuits over the lethal injection method, and the administrative process for its approval, have slogged on in courts.
Some county district attorneys have continued to pursue death penalty charges, adding to the backlog of condemned inmates. Voters, too, have rejected two initiatives in six years to repeal the death penalty and approved another one in 2016 aimed at speeding up the process. In fact, the Judicial Council on Friday will consider seven proposed rules for handling habeas corpus petitions to comply with Proposition 66.
“My capital cases are still capital cases. They're still pending in the Supreme Court,” said Clifford Gardner, a Berkeley attorney and veteran of approximately 20 capital appeals and habeas petitions in multiple states.
Gardner called Newsom's order “an extraordinary step,” and one that he hopes leads to another repeal measure on the 2020 ballot. But he doesn't see an end to death penalty cases any time soon.
“As for prosecutors, I don't think this will change anything that a Riverside County prosecutor will do or a Kern County prosecutor will do,” Gardner said.
The order does not commute any prisoners' sentences. Newsom instead relies on Article 5, Section 8 of the state constitution, which grants governors the authority to issue reprieves “on conditions the governor deems proper.”
The order does not include additional funding, either, to increase the pool of lawyers who can assist death penalty defendants. Finding an adequate number of willing and qualified capital attorneys has been a challenge.
The Habeas Corpus Resource Center, which represents inmates in their habeas proceedings, issued a statement Wednesday hailing the governor's actions but calling for a review of the state's “dysfunctional” death penalty process.
“We look forward to working with the governor on determining whether it is possible to resolve all the deficiencies in California's capital punishment system,” the statement said.
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the pro-capital punishment Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said Wednesday he had expected previous Gov. Jerry Brown to issue reprieves before leaving office. Scheidegger said he wasn't shocked when Newsom, an open critic of the death penalty, announced Tuesday that he would.
Scheidegger said there may be a legal challenge under Proposition 66 to Newsom's rescission of the lethal injection protocol and to his dismantling of the death chamber. But the moratorium, he said, is on solid legal footing.
12:45pm: The death chamber at San Quentin. Closed. pic.twitter.com/0zK4UUItBG
— Office of the Governor of California (@CAgovernor) March 13, 2019
“It's gratuitous cruelty to the families of victims,” Scheidegger said. “We're fighting this very long legal battle and we had a light at the end of the tunnel … It was pulled out from underneath us.”
Newsom also has the power to commute sentences. But he can only do so unilaterally for inmates convicted of just one felony.
The California Supreme Court must approve of commutations involving inmates with two or more separate felonies. After complaints that the court's guidelines for approval were opaque, the justices last year issued a nine-page minute order laying out their role in considering commutation and pardon recommendations.
Still, in the final days of Brown's tenure, the court rejected 10 of his clemency requests without explanation.
“We need to understand that more fully before we move forward with next steps, potentially around commutation,” Newsom said Wednesday.
Democratic lawmakers Wednesday also introduced legislation that would put the death penalty issue before voters again in November 2020. Michael Ramos, the former district attorney of San Bernardino County and a leader of the Proposition 66 campaign, said death penalty proponents were discussing a possible ballot measure “as we speak.”
Ramos, like Gardner, said he expects county prosecutors to continue charging death penalty cases despite the executive order.
“I think that's going to be another issue they'll have to deal with,” Ramos said. “But in the appropriate cases, that's the only path to justice.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFresh lawsuit hits Oregon city at the heart of Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250