03 February 2017 :

State Supreme Court to review measure to speed up executions. The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide the legality of a voter-approved initiative designed to speed up executions in California and extended its order blocking enforcement of the measure, Proposition 66. The court had put Prop. 66 on hold in December, before it was to take effect, to allow time for written arguments on whether a suit by opponents of the measure should be dismissed without a hearing. All five justices taking part in the case voted to grant review and scheduled further briefings from both sides through April 6. At that point, they are likely to schedule a hearing, while keeping Prop. 66 on hold. California voters approved Prop. 66 by a 51 % majority on Nov. 8. Prosecutors and other supporters of Prop. 66 said it would restore the effectiveness of the death penalty by reducing the time needed to decide appeals, typically 20 years or more. The measure would require the state Supreme Court to rule on death penalty appeals within 5 years of sentencing, more than twice as fast as its current pace. One effect of that timetable would be to force the court to devote more of its time and staff to capital cases and less to other criminal and civil cases on its docket. The measure does not say what would happen if a case took longer than 5 years to decide. Prop. 66 also would set the same 5-year deadline for the 2nd-stage appeals known as habeas corpus and would require defense lawyers to file those appeals to the trial judge within a year, compared with the current 3-year deadline. Habeas corpus usually involves such post-trial claims as incompetent legal representation and misconduct by the prosecutor or jurors and has often been the basis for federal court rulings overturning California death sentences. Another provision would expand the pool of defense lawyers by requiring attorneys to take capital cases if they accept court appointments to represent defendants in other criminal cases. Supporters said the change would ease the shortage of available attorneys that is one reason appeals take so long, but opponents said it would put condemned inmates' fate in the hands of unqualified lawyers and prompt many attorneys to refuse future assignments. The suit, filed by former state Attorney General John Van de Kamp and Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor, contends Prop. 66 would interfere with courts' constitutional authority to decide cases, would cause "confusion and upheaval" in the state's judiciary, and would force both courts and lawyers into hurried and less-reliable decisions in capital cases. Wednesday's court order also allowed sponsors of Prop. 66 to defend the measure in court alongside lawyers for the state. Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and a drafter of Prop. 66, said he was not surprised that the court had granted review of the measure but was disappointed that it would remain on hold. The case is Briggs vs. Brown, S238039.