Contact: Michael Rushford
(916) 446-0345
A decision in the case of Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, announced today by the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has rejected a lower court ruling that had invalidated the parole revocation procedures enacted in 2008 by California voters. California’s Proposition 9, the Victims’ Bill of Rights, pared back the rights of criminals who face the possibility of returning to prison for violating the conditions of their parole. Today’s decision directed the lower court to reconcile its ruling with Proposition 9. The panel was unanimous on this point, although divided on another issue in the case.
In March 2009, Sacramento Federal District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that his earlier injunction, agreed upon in 2005 to settle a lawsuit brought by parolees against the Governor, took precedence over Proposition 9. The injunction had dramatically increased the rights of criminals facing revocation of parole. Proposition 9, Marsy’s Law the Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, was adopted to abrogate the injunction and put the rights of California parolees on par with other states.
The Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which had assisted in drafting Proposition 9, filed a scholarly amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Ninth Circuit arguing that Judge Karlton’s ruling was improper and should be overturned. The brief was filed on behalf of CJLF, Crime Victims United of California, and Senator George Runner.
“Today’s decision makes it clear that a judge’s order to grant more rights to parolees than constitutionally required does not trump a state constitutional amendment adopted by the people,” said the Foundation’s Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.
Most prison inmates are on parole for a period following the incarceration part of their sentence. Parole includes conditions they must abide by to avoid having their parole revoked and being sent back to prison. Typically the parolee is required to regularly report to his parole officer, refrain from taking drugs or associating with known criminals, avoid firearms, and obey all laws. Parolees are also subject to warrantless searches by any law enforcement officer.
Prior to the injunction, parolees who failed to meet the conditions, often after an arrest for a new crime, were brought before a hearing officer where the evidence of the violation was presented, the parolee then gave an explanation, and the hearing officer decided if parole should be revoked.
In 1973 the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Gagnon v. Scarpelli held that some parolees should be represented by an attorney at revocation hearings. The Court noted that while the state is not constitutionally obliged to provide counsel in all cases, it should do so where the indigent probationer or parolee may have difficulty in presenting his version of disputed facts without the examination or cross-examination of witnesses or the presentation of complicated documentary evidence.
The district court’s injunction went beyond this requirement, ruling that all parolees are entitled to a state appointed attorney, a probable cause hearing before the parole revocation hearing is held, the right to subpoena witnesses, and other specific procedural rights not afforded to parolees in any other state. Due to the increased cost and complexity of the hearing process and the impact these requirements had on crime victims, the proponents of Proposition 9 made the reform of this process a key part of the ballot initiative.
With Proposition 9, California voters adopted new rules for parole revocation hearings with more strict compliance to the Scarpelli decision and the processes utilized by other states. Specifically, Proposition 9 allows some parolees to be provided with an attorney in complex cases or when the parolee is unable to speak on his own behalf. The measure also prohibits the decisions of hearing officers to be influenced by the cost of sending the parolee back to prison.
After Proposition 9 was adopted, the same inmates who had brought the initial lawsuit filed a petition challenging it in Judge Karlton’s court. In his March 2009 ruling, the judge announced that his injunction remains in force despite the fact that it affords more rights to parolees than the Supreme Court requires, and although California voters have adopted a constitutional amendment clearly overriding the Governor’s agreement to the conditions of the injunction.
When attorneys representing the Governor appealed that ruling to the Federal Ninth Circuit, the proponents of Proposition 9 asked CJLF to submit an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief encouraging a decision to overturn the lower court.