9th Circuit overturns judge who deemed California's death-penalty system 'dysfunctional'
A federal appeals court has overturned a federal judge’s finding that “systemic delay and dysfunction” in California’s process of reviewing capital sentences had made the death penalty unconstitutionally arbitrary.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against inmate Ernest DeWayne Jones because he sought to apply a new rule of constitutional law in a habeas petition in violation of Teague v. Lane. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Recorder (sub. req.) have stories on the Nov. 12 decision (PDF).
U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney had ruled for Jones, saying California’s system of review is “dysfunctional” and unconstitutional. Carney said nearly 900 convicted murderers had received death sentences since 1978, but only 13 had been executed.
The 9th Circuit panel opinion by Judge Susan Graber acknowledged the argument. “Many agree with petitioner that California’s capital punishment system is dysfunctional and that the delay between sentencing and execution in California is extraordinary,” Graber wrote.
“But ‘the purpose of federal habeas corpus is to ensure that state convictions comply with the federal law in existence at the time the conviction became final, and not to provide a mechanism for the continuing re-examination of final judgments based upon later emerging legal doctrine,’ ” Graber said. “Because petitioner asks us to apply a novel constitutional rule, we may not assess the substantive validity of the claim.”
A concurring judge would have reversed on a different ground.
Lawyers involved in the case told the Los Angeles Times the ruling leaves undecided the question of whether lengthy delays violate the Eighth Amendment. “The elephant is still in the room,” said San Francisco lawyer John Philipsborn, who represented criminal defense lawyers filing an amicus brief.
