L.A. Times: Death Sentence Reversed by Mystery Judges
A man who threatened to rape his therapist, and then murdered her husband when she dropped him as a client, had his death sentence reversed yesterday, according to this Los Angeles Times story.
The story doesn’t bother to tell readers who appointed the judges who decided this case. That’s why you come to Patterico, right?
I’m sure it will come as a great shock that the decision was rendered by three Democrat-appointed judges.
The decision can be accessed here. It was written by Clinton appointee William A. Fletcher. Fletcher was joined by Carter appointee Dorothy Wright Nelson and Clinton appointee Raymond C. Fisher.
My point is not that the decision was necessarily wrong. I haven’t read it, and I don’t criticize judicial opinions that I haven’t read. My contention is simple: regardless of the validity of the decision, when judges overturn a death sentence, newspapers should tell their readers who those judges are. It makes me wonder why this tidbit didn’t make it into today’s story.
Dorothy Nelson is the former Dean of USC Law School.
Go Bruins.
Frncie (907526) — 3/18/2006 @ 2:26 pmDidn’t you know, Patterico? If the LA Times had published their names, the judges might have been actually criticized.
And criticism of the judiciary by Republicans is responsible for any threat judges receive.
So says Her Holiness Ruth Ginsberg, Peace be Upon Her and let’s genuflect her in general direction.
The Times certainly does.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/18/2006 @ 3:33 pmI read the decision and it seems somewhat defensible to me (as a layman) due to some strange California Supreme Court decisions regarding what arson as a special circumstance means. Apparently setting a fire in order to kill somebody does not qualify. The main decision was People vrs Green (1980) so perhaps this can ultimately be blamed on Rose Bird and her pals.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/18/2006 @ 5:15 pmI read the decision. Then I read the California Penal Code. So what did Carter and Clinton have against these judges?
nk (5e5670) — 3/18/2006 @ 7:27 pmBecause judges are partisan animals when it comes to death penalties.
actus (6234ee) — 3/18/2006 @ 8:59 pmWhy? You answered your own question. The L.A. Times is all anyone needs to know.
scrapiron (a90377) — 3/18/2006 @ 9:42 pmFrom a non-lawyer point of view, I’m wondering why we ever need to know who appointed a particular judge. Isn’t Justice supposed to be blind?
Of course, if we’re going to mention that particular judges are “conservative” then …
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 3/19/2006 @ 9:05 amThere was a time when most judges were non-partisan once they went on the bench. Today, we hope that judges are non-partisan but it is clear that some are partisan. Thus, I agree with Patterico that this information should be reported, especially in high profile cases.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 3/19/2006 @ 9:47 amSo, when the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to use capital punishment on murderers who are either mentally retarded or were under eighteen when they committed their crimes, were not the majority of the majorities in those cases justices appointed by Republican presidents?
Bill Clinton made a very public trip back to Arkansas during the 1992 presidential campaign to sign a death warrant for a retarded murderer (before it was unconstitutional to execute such people); that makes it somewhat difficult to pin capital case reversals on him.
Dana (dd8e7e) — 3/19/2006 @ 10:14 amIs it just me, or does the L.A. Times more often identify, and clearly state the party or appointing-president, when Republican judges issue potentially controversial rulings. Sheesh – – similarly, the Times is more likely to frame a judicial rulling as final when it’s favorable to liberal ideology, but they’re careful to discolse opportunity for, or intentions to, appeal when the ruling is adverse to liberal ideology.
Trained Auditor (3f3e32) — 3/19/2006 @ 10:34 amDana, it is unclear that Atkins vrs Virginia (the Supreme Court decision barring imposing capital punishment on retarded criminals) would apply to Rector (who Clinton allowed to be executed) because Rector was not retarded in the usual sense, instead he had suffered brain damage when he shot himself in the head after killing a cop.
In any case I am confident that statistically Clinton’s judges are more likely to overturn death sentences than Republican appointed judges.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/19/2006 @ 2:30 pmFollowing up on Dana’s post #9:
In Roper v Simmons, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute minors. The Justices in the majority were Kennedy, J., who delivered the opinion of the Court, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The Court in Atkins v Virginia banned the execution of mentally retarded defendants. The majority in Atkins consisted of Stevens, J., who delivered the opinion of the Court, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. I don’t want to address the merits of these opinions but I think it is fair to say that the reasoning of each was based on a liberal ideology – specifically the Court’s undue reliance on foreign laws, its focus on a perceived “evolving standard” against imposition of the death penalty, and its failure to seriously consider the deterrent and retributive aspects of capital punishment.
It is true that most of these Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents (Stevens by Ford, Kennedy and O’Connor by Reagan, and Souter by Bush I, while Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton), but these Republican appointees are neither consistently liberal nor conservative in their rulings on social issues. In part that is due to the nature of how conservatives historically view the function of the judiciary – after all, Scalia and Thomas aren’t always predictable either – and in larger part due to the fact that Justices like Kennedy, O’Connor and Souter were not diligently screened by Republicans regarding their ideologies. I think it’s fair to say that recent and current Republican nominees have been more diligently screened.
No matter what Clinton may have done while he was running for office, his appointees have always been consistently liberal on social issues.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 3/19/2006 @ 2:34 pmI have to belive that if a 3-Republican appellate panel (not likely to be found in the 9th circuit) ruled some environmental law invalid, the Times would have their Republicanism in the headline.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 3/19/2006 @ 4:55 pm“Republican” or “Democrat”, I cannot see that any lower court has any choice but to rule the way this court did in the face of a death penalty statute as badly written as California’s. It seems to have been written by the plaintiffs in Raich v. Gonzalez. (Which the California legislature seems also to have since recognized and tried to correct. See Section 190.2(a)(17)(M)).
The death penalty is a special instance in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 1973 it has been given the same strict scrutiny as First Amendment cases to insure that it is not imposed capriciously and arbitrarily, i.e., that of two criminals that commit the same crime one gets the death penalty and one does not. The most recent case analogous to this is Smith v. Texas (2005), a per curiam opinion with only Thomas and Scalia dissenting. O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter and (?)Rehnquist voted with the majority.
From my point of view, if the LA Times had reported that these judges were either Democrat or Republicans appointees it could have been seen to be editorializing from an extreme pro death penalty stance. It was the better choice not to say anything.
nk (54c569) — 3/19/2006 @ 5:10 pmNK:
I don’t fully understand your post. Similar fact patterns often give rise to and should produce different results. If you believe the Supreme Court should equalize jury decisions in capital punishment ccases – that is, that the Supreme Court should act as a sort of super jury to make sure nationwide jury decisions are consistent – then I despair for the criminal justice system.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 3/19/2006 @ 8:13 pmnk, the problem is not with the statute and the federal court decision said as much, the problem is a 1980 California Supreme Court decision by Rose Bird and crew narrowing the statute for what appears to be no good reason.
James B. Shearer (cc86cb) — 3/19/2006 @ 11:39 pmDRJ,
That’s the reality in death penalty cases — the Supreme Court has imposed very tough rules. Marshall used the analogy of “lighting striking” in the way the death penalty used to be imposed and ruled that this violated the Eighth Amendment. That’s why now there are “aggravating factors”, three-phase trials and very specific jury instructions.
James B.
I may have mixed up the dates but I believe People v. Green was in 1980; this guy committed his crimes in 1982; the “good” statute I linked above was not enacted until 1995. The “bad” statute discussed in section 3 of the federal opinion I thought was very incoherent. The legislature let it sit, along with the construction given to it by Green for 15 years. If legislatures won’t legislate …?
nk (2e1372) — 3/20/2006 @ 5:03 am