Author: Kym Stapleton

Chipping away at cash bail in California

In re Humphrey (S247278) has been fully briefed and pending before the California Supreme Court for almost two years.  As a general rule, a published Court of Appeal opinion has “no binding or precedential effect” while review is pending (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(1)).  The California Supreme Court, however, may so order otherwise (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(3)).  As reported by Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle, last week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asked the court to utilize its authority to reclassify the Court of Appeal’s opinion as “binding and precedential” while the case is pending review.  Becerra claims that the issue of keeping people incarcerated due to “their inability to afford bail has become critically important because of ‘the unexpected change in circumstances caused by the unprecedented impacts of the novel coronavirus pandemic.'”

Kenneth Humphrey, a repeat offender, was charged with robbery and burglary.  Bail was initially set at $600,000, then later reduced to $350,000.  Humphrey’s request for pretrial release on his own recognizance without financial conditions was denied by the trial court.  The Court of Appeal decision granted Humphrey a new bail hearing in which inquiry must be made on his ability to pay money bail.  If unable to pay money bail, non-monetary alternatives must be addressed. CJLF filed an amicus brief in the case that can be found here.

Continue reading . . .

How Does One Evaluate An Honest and Upright Life?

Can a person live an “honest and upright life” and conform to and obey the “laws of the land” while confined?

In 2011, Misael Vences Maya, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., pleaded guilty to driving under the influence with 6 prior DUI convictions and possession of methamphetamine.  He had also served two prior prison terms.  He was advised of the immigration consequences of his plea, which included possible deportation.  Maya was sentenced to 4 years 8 months prison without probation.  In late 2012, he completed his prison term and was immediately transferred to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security.  Because of his felony methamphetamine conviction, DHS commenced removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i).  While still in immigration custody, California voters approved Proposition 47.  Maya then successfully applied to have his felony methamphetamine conviction reduced to a misdemeanor.  Because it was reduced to a misdemeanor, he then sought to have the conviction expunged pursuant to California Penal Code  §1203.4a.

Continue reading . . .

Cross-Border Shooting Case Decided Today

Today the U.S. Supreme Court held in Hernandez v. Mesa that the parents (citizens of Mexico) of a teenager (also a citizen of Mexico) who was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border are prohibited from suing the agent for damages under the U.S. Constitution.

CJLF originally joined the case in 2017 to encourage a decision denying the lawsuit.  We argued that in a case involving relations between the U.S. and a foreign country, the judicial branch should not step in but should leave the matter to Congress.  CJLF’s amicus curiae brief in that case (Hernandez I) is available here.

Continue reading . . .

Police lives don’t matter in San Francisco

Two San Francisco police officers responded to a report of a man who broke into an apartment, then fled and was witnessed trying to break into several parked cars.  When the officers tried to make contact with the subject, he ran towards one of the officers and began beating him in the face and head with a 200ml glass vodka bottle.  When the other officer ran over to assist, the suspect rushed towards him with the bottle, then ran down the sidewalk.  Both officers chased the suspect and demanded several times that he drop the bottle and get on the ground.  They were repeatedly ignored.  The suspect ran in and out of parked cars, and back and forth across the street. When the suspect again rushed towards one of the officers with the bottle in hand, the officer fired his weapon and hit the suspect.  He momentarily fell to the ground, then stood back up.  The officer fired another shot which immobilized the suspect.  Both officers immediately rendered aid.

Sandy Malone and Christopher Berg reported for Blue Lives Matter that when medical personnel arrived, body cam video of the officer who fired at the suspect showed that he was visibly upset:  “The video showed that Officer Flores, clutching an ice pack to his bleeding face, stood with Officer Hayes and kept a hand on his arm as his partner wept.  ‘I didn’t want to do it. I didn’t want to do it,’ Officer Hayes told a female sergeant who arrived on the scene. “I tried to pepper spray him – I got myself.”

The suspect was initially charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and vandalism.  On Friday, however, all charges were dropped:

“Newly-elected District Attorney Chesa Boudin has dropped charges. . . against a man who was shot while beating a police officer with a vodka bottle.  The move comes after community outrage over the shooting and claims that the shooting was unjustified, despite the video evidence showing otherwise.  Boudin says that he dropped the charges. .. because his office is investigating the officers for shooting Hampton.”

Let’s break this down – a man breaks into an apartment, then tries to break into several parked cars.  He attacks and violently beats a police officer, refuses to drop his weapon, and refuses to stop running from the police.  He is being criminally charged with…nothing.  Instead, the police officers are being investigated due to “community outrage over the shooting.”

Crime rates in SF continue to rise, the new DA abolished cash bail, he fired several senior prosecutors within days of taking office, and now he won’t prosecute crimes committed against police officers.