Latest news with #resentencing
The Independent
03-08-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Ministers must summon the courage to right an ‘obvious injustice'
The very judges who handed out 'unfair' indefinite prison sentences have joined The Independent 's campaign to resentence thousands of offenders who are still trapped by a law that was abolished in 2012. Sir John Saunders, a former High Court judge, tells us that he would apologise to offenders he sentenced to imprisonment for public protection (IPP) terms. 'I should say I'm really sorry this has happened; it's extremely unfair,' he said. 'I didn't want to be party to unfairness. I would feel very bad about it, I would apologise to them.' The sentences, described as an 'obvious injustice' by one former senior judge, were introduced by David Blunkett as home secretary in 2005 in an attempt to deal with a small number of offenders who might continue to be a danger to the public. Such prisoners were given no release date, were subject to stringent assessment before being let out, and were then liable indefinitely for recall to prison if they broke the conditions of their release. However, the sentences were used more often than Lord Blunkett intended, and the psychological effects of indefinite detention caused more problems than it solved. Lord Blunkett now describes the policy as his 'biggest regret'. The law was repealed by the coalition government in 2012, but it continued to apply to the thousands of prisoners still serving IPP sentences. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been taken up by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served 19 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. The Independent supports a plan put forward by an expert panel convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, which calls for IPP prisoners to be given a release date within a two-year window at their next parole hearing. They should, in effect, be resentenced and treated henceforth on the same basis as all other offenders. James Timpson, the prisons minister, says: 'We have significantly improved support for these offenders, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support. There is more work to do as we reduce the number of IPP offenders in custody, but we will only do so in a way that protects the public.' We understand why ministers in successive governments have been reluctant to go further. They are fearful of the consequences if someone released from an IPP sentence goes on to commit a serious offence. And they are right to make the protection of the public the highest priority. But that will not be achieved by the continued indefinite detention of 2,500 prisoners who were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong time. Especially when a greater risk to the public is probably posed by the early release of prisoners to free up space in our overcrowded prisons. Simon Tonking, the former recorder of Stafford, told The Independent that the Labour government should use its majority to end the injustice by taking up the Howard League's proposals: 'Virtually everybody who has had any professional dealings with IPP knows that it is unjust and now is the time to act.' It is no use for former ministers such as Lord Blunkett and Alex Chalk, the former justice secretary, calling for justice to be done after they have left office. It is up to Lord Timpson, his boss Shabana Mahmood and ultimately Sir Keir Starmer to do the right thing while they can.
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missouri judge rejects inmate claims that sentencing decision was illegal
Deandra Buchanan, an inmate at the Jefferson City Correctional Center serving a first degree murder sentence for killing his girlfriend and two others in 2000 (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent). A Missouri man serving life without parole on Monday lost a bid to reopen his criminal case for an in-person resentencing he claims he was unconstitutionally denied. Deandra Buchanan, convicted in Boone County of three counts of first-degree in 2002, was originally sentenced to death. The Missouri Supreme Court reduced the sentence to life without parole in 2003. The statute allowing the court to directly resentence people sentenced to death violates another law, and federal court precedent, requiring defendants to be present when their sentence is pronounced, Buchanan argued through public defender Tyler Coyle. When the Supreme Court found the death sentence to be unconstitutional in Buchanan's case, the trial court should have brought him in for in-person resentencing. But Boone County Circuit Judge Jeff Harris disagreed, deciding that the high court was within its authority when it changed Buchanan's sentence. Harris didn't address the constitutional questions raised by Buchanan. 'Because the Supreme Court exercised its authority to resentence defendant, there was no need and basis for the circuit court to take any further action or hold a resentencing hearing,' Harris wrote. The ruling isn't a setback, Coyle said, because he and Buchanan had expected a definitive ruling would come from an appeals court. 'The state argued at our in-person hearing that if we have a problem with what the Supreme Court did, we should be asking the Supreme Court,' Coyle said. 'That's what the prosecutor argued to Judge Harris. It kind of sounds like by not addressing that part of it, that's what is left for us to do now.' In his final brief in the case, Coyle wrote that the question is analogous to the issue decided by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2022 when defendants challenged the outcome of hearings held online with witnesses or defendants not physically present. The hearing formats were intended to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19. In those cases, the court ruled unanimously that there are no 'sick days' for constitutional rights. 'There's a fundamental right to be present for all critical stages,' Coyle said. 'The U.S. Supreme Court has said this, and the U.S. Supreme Court has also said that sentencing is a critical stage.' Assistant Boone County prosecutor Yao Li, who argued that Buchanan should be pursuing his claims at the Missouri Supreme Court, also argued that the time for the challenge had long passed. 'The law of the case and lapse of jurisdiction prohibits him from raising the claim here,' Li wrote in his final brief to Harris. Along with arguing that the 2003 resentencing was legal under state statute and rule, Buchanan contends he was never legally sentenced and that has prevented him from seeking post-conviction relief. Buchanan doesn't deny his guilt. He spoke at length about his case in an episode of the Netflix series 'I am a Killer.' 'We can never change the fact that my family members lost their lives, my girl, my friend, was shot,' Buchanan said in an April interview at Jefferson City Correctional Center. 'You can't put time on that.' But he claims he has no memory of the crime. He said he believes marijuana he smoked that night was laced with PCP and tests of sweat residue in the shirt he wore shows that. He cannot pursue those arguments without a final sentence, Buchanan said Wednesday in a telephone interview. That is why he needs an in-person sentencing. 'Any court in Missouri is obligated to honor my federal rights, because I'm dealing with a constitutional right,' Buchanan said. 'I have a constitutional right to be present.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Associated Press
30-05-2025
- General
- Associated Press
New district attorney in California county withdraws from historic death penalty resentencing
Alameda County's new district attorney is rejecting her predecessor's recommendations to resentence people on death row — recommendations triggered by a historic review of systemic prosecutorial misconduct. Records obtained by CalMatters show at least four cases in which District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson has moved to withdraw resentencing motions filed under Pamela Price, who was recalled from office in November. Price launched the review roughly one year ago, after U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria mandated that her office investigate 35 death penalty cases for prosecutorial misconduct dating back to the 1980s. His order cited 'strong evidence that, in prior decades, prosecutors from the office were engaged in a pattern of serious misconduct, automatically excluding Jewish and African American jurors in death penalty cases.' Price ultimately recommended resentencing 30 people, the majority people of color, after finding that their constitutional rights had been violated. Of those, 20 people have had their day in court and were resentenced to terms less than death under Alameda County Superior Court Judge Thomas Stevens. But that effort came to a halt when Price was ousted. Her resentencing team was disbanded, according to court records and interviews with former staffers. And the 10 resentencing recommendations awaiting a ruling were reassigned to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Armando Pastran, a former prosecutor. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors appointed Jones Dickson, a former judge, to her post in February. Her office began filing motions to withdraw recommendations less than two months later, contending that Price and her team made flawed legal arguments and failed to sufficiently contact victims and their family members. The 'motion is based on a substantive reevaluation of the facts of the case, legal analysis…consideration of petitioner's prior crimes, and new information about the victims' wishes,' wrote deputy district attorney Emily Tienken in one of the filings. The decision to reverse course signals one of the first major policy changes the office has adopted since Price's departure. 'It's absolutely disgraceful,' said Michael Collins, senior director at Color of Change, a racial justice organization that called on the Attorney General's Office to support Price's review and launch its own investigation. 'It's scandalous that this has happened and now they're trying to bury the cases. The people whose lives were destroyed — the people who were given unconstitutional trials are not getting any indemnification.' In an interview with CalMatters, Price said her office was looking to achieve justice and it was not driven by politics. 'It was very disturbing,' said Price. 'If this is the practice and you're doing it in these types of cases, what's to say you're not doing it in other types of cases as well? So our concern was that we had a huge task ahead of us.' The Alameda County District Attorney's Office did not respond to requests for an interview for this story. At a press conference marking her first 100 days in office, Jones Dickson on Thursday did not directly answer a question about her stance on the death penalty cases. 'I don't have a plan to specifically review any death penalty cases that are pending,' she said. 'We are already in the midst of doing that. It looks like the prior administration started that process and so there are cases that are still pending that we're reviewing and evaluating and filing motions on and doing the things that lawyers do. But I don't have a policy at this point regarding choosing cases to pull for resentencing.' Jonathan Raven, an executive at the California District Attorneys Association, said not every district attorney is going to agree on a specific case. 'Any district attorney is always going to review policies and practices, and review the decisions of the prior district attorney, which I think is what the voters would want – or certainly, the board of supervisors,' he said. Disparities in death penalty sentences Decades of research has documented racial bias in the application of the death penalty. In a brief submitted to the California Supreme Court challenging the administration of the state's death penalty scheme, legal advocacy organizations wrote that Black and Latino defendants are roughly six to nine times more likely to be sentenced to death than all other defendants. Gov. Gavin Newsom cited that legacy when he suspended the death penalty in California six years ago. But voters have consistently upheld the death penalty as a policy, and almost 600 people incarcerated in state prisons have been sentenced to death. Allegations of racially discriminatory jury selection practices in Alameda County were first raised in 2005 by a former prosecutor in a sworn declaration. Roughly 20 years later, Price announced that her office had uncovered evidence of those violations. Jury selection notes disclosed by Price's office revealed that past Alameda County prosecutors had been illegally tracking and striking potential jurors on the basis of race and religion for decades. In one instance, prosecutors described a prospective Black female juror as a 'Short, Fat, Troll.' Prosecutors wrote of another prospective juror, 'I liked him better than any other Jew but no way.' Those findings served as the basis for Judge Chhabria's order and quickly became priority for Price's team, which had already been resentencing many other types of cases. According to Price and former staffers, the office assembled a team of victim witness advocates who contacted all of the survivors they were able to identify. Appeal reached California Supreme Court The team spent months reviewing cases, including the conviction of Grayland Winbush. Winbush, a Black man, was sentenced to death in 2003 following the murder of Erika Beeson during a robbery. He was 19 at the time of the crime. In court filings, attorneys for Winbush argued that his constitutional rights were violated when prosecutors removed all Black prospective jurors and relied on racial stereotypes to characterize him as a superpredator. In January, Price's office recommended that he be resentenced to 30 years to life, acknowledging that his case had 'become a reference point in discussions of jury selection misconduct.' In return, Winbush agreed that he would no longer continue appealing his sentence. But roughly three months later, Jones Dickson withdrew the original recommendation 'based on carefully considered victim impact and up-to-date legal analysis.' Attorneys for Winbush held that the office has no factual or legal ground to revoke its recommendation, maintaining that 'withdrawing a recommendation on a whim or based on 'a change in the political winds'' is not valid. The motion 'perpetuates, rather than confronts and remedies, the widespread race-based misconduct that led a federal judge to direct the office to review its death penalty cases,' wrote appellate defense attorney Rebecca Jones. 'The original resentencing petition filed by the (Alameda County District Attorney's Office) is a piece of its attempt to redress systemic bias reflected by the jury selection in Mr. Winbush's case.' Alameda County Superior Court Judge Pastran will decide whether to grant Jones Dickson's revocation of Winbush's resentencing recommendation in the months ahead. In another case, Jones Dickson is pulling the resentencing recommendation for Giles Albert Nadey, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 2000 for murdering a young woman. The case came up for argument in the California Supreme Court last year, around the same time that Price's office had surfaced evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, but did not consider that evidence and ultimately upheld the death sentence. In a divided opinion, the court looked at a prosecutor's decision to dismiss five of six Black women from Nadey's jury pool and determined the deputy district attorney had valid reasons to strike them, such as his perceptions of their political leanings. 'We conclude in each instance the prosecutor's reasons were inherently plausible and supported,' the court ruled in a 5-2 decision, citing evidence from jury questionnaires and the prosecutor's questioning of the stricken jurors. In a dissent, Justice Goodwin Liu referred to the federal court ruling that directed Price to review death penalty cases. The 'decision is particularly jarring given what has come to light in federal court regarding capital jury selection in Alameda County around the time that Nadey was tried,' Liu wrote. ___ This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Yahoo
The Menendez brothers got a major win in their fight for freedom. But it's not over yet.
A judge's ruling to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez last week gave the siblings something they've not had in more than three decades: a chance that they could leave the Southern California prison where they're incarcerated. The brothers, who had been serving life sentences without the possibility of parole after a pair of sensational trials ended with convictions for their parents' 1989 murder, can seek their release from California's parole board after Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic found they do not pose an 'unreasonable risk' if released from prison. Jesic resentenced the siblings to 50 years to life, endorsing the recommendation of former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon and denying the position of his successor, Nathan Hochman, who opposed their resentencing. Here's what could happen next in the case, which highlighted a debate over a key issue in the criminal justice system — rehabilitation — and gained renewed attention after a Netflix miniseries and documentary about their lives. Jesic's ruling allows Erik, 54, and Lyle, 57, to make their case for freedom at a hearing aimed at determining whether they're suitable for parole. Those proceedings are scheduled for June 13 — a date previously set aside for hearings in a separate effort seeking clemency from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to a spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which oversees the parole system. 'Since the ruling makes them immediately eligible for parole consideration as youth offenders, it is the Board's intent to convert the June 13, 2025, clemency hearings to initial parole suitability hearings,' Scott Wyckoff, executive officer of Board of Parole Hearings, stated in a letter obtained by the Los Angeles Times. In an email, the corrections department spokesperson said the board is allowing people to raise objections to the change. Although the hearings are no longer for clemency, the brothers' application with the governor remains active. If the parole hearing takes place, parole commissioners will be tasked with determining whether the brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger. Prosecutors, victims' relatives and others can weigh in on the question. Hochman told reporters Wednesday that someone from the district attorney's office will attend. That representative's level of participation will likely be dictated by the parole board, he said. Even if the commissioners find the brothers suitable for parole, that 'proposed' decision is subject to Newsom's approval. Asked Wednesday what he would do if the board recommends parole, Newsom declined to answer but said he often refers recommendations to the full parole board for review. He can also reverse a recommendation, he told reporters. 'Obviously, I have great respect for their judgment and the very relatively small percentage of parole applications they actually approve,' he said. Newsom said the process of determining whether someone is eligible for clemency or parole is similar. As part of the siblings' clemency application, the governor asked the board to determine whether the brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger if released. Part of that evaluation has already been made public. During resentencing proceedings, Hochman said forensic psychologists found that the brothers posed a 'moderate' risk of committing violence outside prison. Those findings were based in part on psychological evaluations and recent prison violations, Hochman said. A lawyer for the brothers, Mark Geragos, has downplayed the violations — which include using smuggled cellphones after the resentencing proceedings were initiated — and said they do not constitute a 'superstrike,' or the kind of serious crime that could suggest they pose an unreasonable risk. Hochman opposed the brothers' release in part because of the evaluation. He also said they had not taken full responsibility for their crimes and cited 16 'unacknowledged lies' that he said the brothers told about the murders for decades. He reiterated that position during a news conference Wednesday. 'If they can deal with the issues that cause their risk level to be increased and then finally come clean with all their lies, fraud and deceit, then they should be appropriate candidates for parole,' he said. Speaking after their resentencing, the brothers said they had taken full responsibility and offered no justification for killing their mother, Kitty, or their father, Jose, on Aug. 20, 1989. At trial and in media interviews afterward, including in a 2017 interview with 'Dateline,' the brothers said they killed their parents in self-defense after Lyle confronted his father about sexually abusing his younger brother and Jose appeared to threaten him. Prosecutors have long disputed this account. They described the killings as calculated and horrific — Lyle Menendez reloaded his shotgun before shooting his mother in the face — and motivated by financial gain. Speaking Tuesday, Lyle Menendez told the court that he was 'deeply ashamed' of who he was 35 years ago. The brothers have also sought their freedom through a third path — a petition that seeks to overturn their convictions based on what the brothers' defense attorneys have described as new evidence in the case. The petition, which includes a photocopied letter that Erik said he wrote to a cousin and which Geragos has said confirms Jose's abuse of the younger sibling months before, was filed after the release of Peacock's 'Menudo + Menendez: Boys Betrayed,' which included a former member of the Puerto Rican boy band accusing Jose Menendez of raping him. (Peacock is owned by NBCUniversal, the parent company of NBC News.) At the time, Jose Menendez was an executive with RCA Records, which had a multialbum contract with the band. Hochman has said the evidence does not meet the standard required for a judge to order a new trial and that he opposes the petition. This article was originally published on
Fox News
14-05-2025
- Fox News
Menendez brothers resentenced as experts blast 'indefensible' bid for killers freedom
LOS ANGELES – In a bombshell decision, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic slashed the Menendez brothers' original life-without-parole terms to 50 years-to-life, making Erik and Lyle eligible for parole. Judge Michael Jesic ruled Tuesday that both brothers received a reduced sentence of 50 years to life with the opportunity for parole for the 1989 shotgun murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. "I'm not suggesting they should be released [on parole]. That's not for me to decide," he said. Their fate now lies in the hands of the parole board and Calif. Gov. Newsom. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Neama Rahmani told Fox News Digital that Erik and Kyle Menendez "will likely be freed in a matter of months," adding that he does not expect "the parole board or Governor Newsom" to block their release. Rahmani noted that the resentencing decision rests on whether the brothers pose "an unreasonable risk of committing another violent crime," and he believes the evidence weighs heavily in their favor. Pointing to Judge Jesic's ruling, Rahmani explained that because former LA County District Attorney George Gascon initiated the resentencing request, new LA DA Nathan Hochman "couldn't pull it back," and the court could only deny resentencing if the risk threshold wasn't met. "That wasn't the case," he said, saying that "prison guards and other inmates testified that they were model prisoners." Rahmani also highlighted the unprecedented support from the Menendez family, observing that "every living family member of Jose and Kitty Menendez also supported their release, which is something that never happens. Victims do not support resentencing." Judge Jesic made this point while handing down the reduced sentences, saying he had given a lot of thought to the sentence, while acknowledging "the horrific crimes the brothers committed." He added that he was "equally shocked by letters of support he received from prison officials" who spoke highly of the brothers' actions behind bars, calling it "remarkable." Jesic stated the original sentence of life without parole was appropriate, but given the change in state law allowing for resentencing, Jesic said, "They've done enough over 35 years to get that chance." Rahmani stressed that such broad victim-family backing made it all but impossible for the current district attorney to derail the process. "The bottom line is that there was too much support for the Menendez brothers, both inside and outside the courtroom, for Hochman to prevent their resentencing," he said. It just goes to show the power of a Netflix series." He added that "the Menendez brothers should send Netflix and former LA County DA Gascon nice cards this holiday season." The resentencing hearing comes after the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition in May 2023 citing new evidence of sexual assault. Former Los Angeles County DA George Gascon then filed a motion for resentencing in October 2024. Both filings follow the passage of AB 600, a California law allowing for resentencing of long-convicted inmates to align with current law. Gascon recommended resentencing the brothers to 25 years to life for each count of first-degree murder, so a total of 50 years to life for each brother. Because of their age at the time of the murders, that sentence would make them eligible for parole. Gascon cited "a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding sexual violence" and "Erik and Lyle's continuous rehabilitative efforts." During the morning session on Tuesday, three Menendez family members were called to the stand by the defense to try and convince the judge that the brothers had shown remorse and had been rehabilitated. All three witnesses were asked whether they thought their male cousins would in fact commit another heinous crime. "There is no chance," Anamaria Baralt said. "I would bet my life on it." "They are not going to commit a [serious crime]. Because they have too many plans to give back to the world," Tamara Goodall said. "Absolutely. No. None. They are extremely remarkable people now," Diane Hernandez said. SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER Mark Geragos, the attorney for the Menendez brothers, said the family's unified plea for the brothers' resentencing is a "unicorn." The brothers, now 57 and 54, were dressed in blue jail garb, and flashed big grins following their resentencing, and waved to family and friends in attendance. Erik and Lyle Menendez appeared in court via video camera from the San Diego prison where they are incarcerated and were each given a chance to address the court prior to their sentencing. Each brother spoke for about 10 minutes and offered full admission to the crimes. Lyle Menendez spoke first and took responsibility for the cold-blooded killing of his parents in their Beverly Hills mansion in 1989. GO HERE FOR REAL-TIME UPDATES FROM THE FOX TRUE CRIME HUB "I take full responsibility. I killed my parents. I made the choice to kill my mom and dad in their own home." "I made the choice to make a mockery of the justice system. I offer no excuse and I don't blame my parents," he said. "I was impulsive and immature, and I bottled up my own emotions and anger. I was scared, but also filled with rage," he continued. "Had I had the coping skills and trusted others, I would have not done this. Even after I killed him (Jose), I still heard his voice." "I'm deeply ashamed for what I did," he said. After his older brother addressed the court, Erik Menendez spoke, expressing his "profound sorrow." "I fired all five rounds at my parents and went back to reload. I lied to police. I lied to my family. I'm truly sorry," he said. "My actions were criminal, selfish and cowardly. I take full responsibility. I am truly sorry. My parents should be alive. There can never be full healing for my crime," he continued. Geragos took a victory lap following the bombshell ruling for the killers brothers' resentencing. "I never thought two years later we'd be standing here after 35 years with this wonderful family that I have grown to love like my own family," Geragos said. "And now we see the pot at the end of the rainbow, so to speak." Following the judge's decision, LA District Attorney Hochman shared his response to the ruling and said "Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." "The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community, and the principles of justice," Hochman said in a news release. "Our office's motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the Court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision. "The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the judicial system. This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye. Our opposition and analysis ensured that the Court received a complete and accurate record of the facts. Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." The brothers remain in prison, but are now eligible for parole. Both Lyle and Erik are already scheduled to appear before the board on June 13th as part of a comprehensive risk assessment report (CRA) ordered by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is considering the brothers' clemency request – a separate potential path to freedom. Fox News is told the two types of parole hearings cannot be combined. The parole board is expected to submit its clemency recommendation to Newsom on the June date. Newsom can also commute their sentence at any time.
