Monthly Archive: January 2020

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.

“Ban the Box” Backfire

Ryan Sherrard of UC Santa Barbara has a draft study on SSRN titled “Ban the Box” Policies and Criminal Recidivism. Here is the abstract:

Employment has long been seen as a mechanism for reducing criminal recidivism. As such, many states and municipalities have tried to increase the employment prospects of ex-offenders through “Ban the Box” (BTB) policies, making it illegal to ask about an individual’s criminal history on a job application. There are, however, questions as to how effective these policies are at helping ex-offenders successfully stay out of prison. In addition, recent research has shown that BTB policies may lead employers to racially discriminate in hiring. Using administrative prison data, this paper examines the direct effect of BTB policies on rates of criminal recidivism. I find that while BTB policies don’t appear to reduce criminal recidivism overall, these policies may be exacerbating racial disparities. In particular, I show that being released into a labor market with a BTB policy is associated with higher rates of recidivism for black ex-offenders, with little to no eff ect for white ex-offenders. This result is robust to a number of specifications and sub-samples.

Continue reading . . .

News Scan

ICE Subpoenas NY for Info on Criminal Aliens:  Following the arrest of an illegal alien for the rape and murder of  92-year-old Maria Fuertes earlier this month, Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has subpoenaed New York for information about the suspect and other criminal aliens which have been released into the city under its sanctuary city policy.   Adam Shaw of Fox News reports that when Reeaz Khan, an illegal alien from Guyana, was released from jail pending trial on assault and weapons charges New York’s sanctuary city policy prevented local law enforcement from notifying ICE so that they could hold him for deportation.

Continue reading . . .

Florida Supreme Court Corrects Major Error in Capital Sentencing Law

In 2016, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court made a major error in the law of jury trial and capital sentencing, running roughshod over decades of precedent. That case was Hurst v. State, 202 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2016), on remand from Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016). Today, in State v. Poole, No. SC18-245, the state high court backs off from its Hurst opinion to the extent that it goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court required.

The framework for capital sentencing established by the Supreme Court in its 1976 and later decisions requires two additional steps before a convicted murderer can be sentenced to death. First, a fact-based “eligibility” finding must be made that at least one fact has been proved from a statutory list of factors beyond the basic elements of murder. Second, in the “selection” step, there must be a discretionary judgment that this is a case suitable for the death penalty, after considering mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Hurst and the 2002 case of Ring v. Arizona require a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the eligibility step and only for the eligibility step. Continue reading . . .

News Scan

SF DA Abolishes Cash Bail:  Not to be outdone by New York City, which abolished cash bail on January 1, the new ultra-progressive District Attorney of San Francisco announced yesterday that his office would no longer ask for bail.  Charles Fain Lehman of the Washington Free Beacon reports that, instead of requesting bail, DA Chesa Boudin will submit a risk assessment to the judge on the likelihood that the accused will show up for trial and whether he would present a risk to the public if released.

Continue reading . . .

VA Considers Early Release For Murderers

A bill that cleared a key Virginia Senate committee last week, would allow the early release of serious criminals including rapists and murderers at age 50.  Hans Bader of Liberty Unyielding reports that SB 624 creates a new category called “geriatric release” to allow prison inmates who are 50 years old to seek release if they have been incarcerated for 20 years.  Inmates who are 55 could be released after serving 15 years.  Only inmates convicted of Class 1 felonies, such as killing a police officer or a child, can be excluded.

Continue reading . . .

News Scan

DC Circuit Hears Federal Death Penalty Challenge:  A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held oral argument last Wednesday on a lawsuit by condemned federal murderers seeking to block their executions.  John Kruzel of The Hill reports that last fall, after U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr announced his intention to resume federal executions and scheduled four murderers to receive lethal injections, the four won a district court ruling temporarily suspending their executions.

Continue reading . . .

Will the Supreme Court Shed New Light on “Standing”?

The U.S. Supreme Court took up three sets of cases after its Friday conference. None of them are criminal or related cases. Amy Howe has a report on them. One of them may shed new light on the recurring and difficult problem of “standing,” i.e., who can appear in court to challenge or defend a law. This is a long-standing (no pun intended) problem in victims’ rights. When can victims of crime step up when government officials should but do not?

Continue reading . . .

Wiping Out Convictions Via Litigation Collusion

What does it take to wipe out a conviction? Normally, it takes reversal on appeal, a pardon from the governor (in most states) or president (for federal offenses), or a successful collateral attack on the conviction. In the latter, another court finds that the judgment was illegal.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summarily reversed a decision of the federal district court and directed it to nullify a conviction upheld by the California Supreme Court. This action was not because the conviction is unjust, not because it is illegal under current law, not because the case has been made for creating a new rule, but purely because the California Attorney General, as lawyer for the prison warden, switched sides and stopped defending the conviction, over the vehement objection of the San Bernardino District Attorney, who represented the People in the criminal case. What is going on here?

Continue reading . . .

News Scan

Court Limits Felon Voter Law:  In an advisory opinion released Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court confirmed that Amendment 4, passed by voters in 2018, limits which felons will be allowed to vote in state and federal elections.  News4 and the Associated Press report that the initiative grants some 1.4 million ex-felons in Florida who have completed “all terms of sentence” with voting rights.  The court held that the “all terms” requirement includes fees and court-ordered restitution, which must be paid before the ex-felon is authorized to vote.  The ACLU and the Marshall Project opposed the requirement because it discriminates against poor ex-felons who do not have the money to comply.   This requirement could significantly reduce the number ex-felon voters in the next election.