Community
California Black Caucus Gives Thumbs Up to Law Reforming Courtroom Sentencing
The new law marks a correction to a ruling that was only meant to last two years but ended up lasting 14.
Members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) are applauding a new law Gov. Newsom signed on October 8 that modifies the state court sentencing procedure for crimes.
Senate Bill (SB) 567 requires judges to only hand out sentences with lengths that match a number of years that reflect the median point of the possible term.
Moving forward, according to the new law, sentences will only exceed middle term after circumstances presented to a jury are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
“We are now in a period of reckoning that requires us to confront the reality and interconnectedness of racism, inequality, and injustice which have permeated our institutions and deprive people of liberty, without the fundamental standards for fairness in our processes,” said Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), who is chair of the CLBC
The new law marks a correction to a ruling that was only meant to last two years but ended up lasting 14.
In 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held in Cunningham v. California ruled that California’s determinate sentencing law was unconstitutional. The court found that California law impermissibly allowed judges to impose an upper/maximum term based upon facts that were never presented to a jury and deemed to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. This was a violation of the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution right to a trial by jury, according to the SCOTUS.
Later that year, a temporary law was put into place allowing judges to impose any of the three sentencing terms as long as they stated a reason for giving them. The law allowed judges to apply a maximum sentence without granting defendants the opportunity to have a jury determine if the reasoning for the sentence was true or not. The law was supposed to last until 2009 when a review of the sentencing process could determine a long-term solution.
However, the mandate ended up lasting until Gov. Newsom signed the law a little over a week ago.
Bradford was a lead proponent of SB 567 as part of this year’s criminal justice reform efforts.
“SB 567 makes our criminal justice system more credible and is a step in the right direction for criminal justice reform. I am grateful to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing the bill and appreciate the support of my legislative colleagues who voted for the bill because, only together, can we create a system that gives the public more confidence,” he said.
The bill was also sponsored by California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice and supported by organizations such as Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, and San Francisco Public Defender.
“SB 567 is a huge step forward in the fight for true justice in the courtroom. The impact of long sentences on individuals and families should not be taken lightly or subjected to arbitrary terms. As a lawyer and someone who has been impacted by the loss of loved ones to incarceration, I find this bill a worthy step in the right direction,” said Joanna Billingy, policy manager for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.
SB 567 will take effect on Jan. 1, 2022.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of January 15 – 21, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of January 15 – 21, 2025
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of January 8 – 14, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of January 8 – 14, 2025
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
#NNPA BlackPress
Supreme Court Decision Confirms Convicted Felon Will Assume Presidency
NNPA NEWSWIRE — In a 5-4 ruling, the court stated that Trump’s concerns could “be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal” and emphasized that the burden of sentencing was “relatively insubstantial” given that Trump will not face prison time. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority, with four conservative justices dissenting.
By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s emergency request to block criminal proceedings in his New York hush money case, ensuring that a sentencing hearing will proceed as scheduled on Friday. The decision makes it official that, on January 20, for the first time in its history, the United States will inaugurate a convicted felon as its president.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court stated that Trump’s concerns could “be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal” and emphasized that the burden of sentencing was “relatively insubstantial” given that Trump will not face prison time. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority, with four conservative justices dissenting.
Trump was convicted in May for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in a state criminal case, particularly before all appeals in state courts were exhausted.
Trump’s legal team claimed the sentencing process would interfere with his transition to power and argued that evidence introduced during the trial included official actions protected under the Supreme Court’s prior ruling granting former presidents immunity for official conduct. Merchan, the New York judge who presided over the trial, ruled in December that the evidence presented was unrelated to Trump’s duties as president.
Prosecutors dismissed Trump’s objections, stating that the sentencing would take less than an hour and could be attended virtually. They said the public interest in proceeding to sentencing outweighed the President-elect’s claims of undue burden.
Justice Samuel Alito, one of the four dissenting justices, confirmed speaking to Trump by phone on Wednesday. Alito insisted the conversation did not involve the case, though the call drew criticism given his previous refusals to recuse himself from politically sensitive matters.
The sentencing hearing is set for Friday at 9:30 a.m. in Manhattan. As the nation moves closer to an unprecedented inauguration, questions about the implications of a convicted felon assuming the presidency remain.
“No one is above the law,” Bragg said.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Books for Ghana
-
Bay Area3 weeks ago
Glydways Breaking Ground on 14-Acre Demonstration Facility at Hilltop Mall
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
In ‘Affrilachia: Testimonies,’ Puts Blacks in Appalacia on the Map
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Living His Legacy: The Late Oscar Wright’s “Village” Vows to Inherit Activist’s Commitment to Education
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
FILM REVIEW: The Six Triple Eight: Tyler Perry Salutes WWII Black Women Soldiers
-
Alameda County4 weeks ago
AC Transit Holiday Bus Offering Free Rides Since 1963
-
Alameda County3 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Releases Statement on Possible Run for Mayor of Oakland
-
Activism4 weeks ago