Most people don’t understand the difference between the court system and the prison system, says a retired appeals court judge on a recent visit to San Quentin Prison.
“This is a real monster of a system, and it’s been my experience that because judges preside over court cases, many people believe that the prison and court systems are the same,” retired District Court of Appeals Judge James Lambden said. “That’s not true—they really are quite different systems.”
Lambden visited San Quentin to discuss the current climate of prison population reduction in California and Proposition 36. Lambden, 64, spoke to a crowd of inmates in San Quentin’s Catholic Chapel on Feb. 7.
Usually the closest a Court of Appeals judge gets to state prisoners is reading their writs of habeas corpus, Lambden told the group.
“I came here for two reasons: First I always wanted to, and as luck would have it, I was invited by the Hope for Strikers and Lifers Group. I’m looking forward to this time with you today,” the judge said.
A leader of the inmate group, Forrest Jones, said, “We wanted to bring him in to have a dialogue where we could share with him and he could share with us.” Jones said two of the founders of the group, Eddie Griffin and Sajid Shakoor, have since paroled under Proposition 36.
Jones is serving a 25-year-to-life term for burglary under the Three Strikes Law. He said he thinks Proposition 36 might help many prisoners earn parole.
Judge Lambden expressed his views regarding the future of Proposition 36 and California prisons.
Proposition 36 modifies the Three Strikes Law approved by California voters in 1994 – to impose a life sentence only when the third felony conviction is serious or violent, Lambden commented. It also allows prisoners currently serving life for a third strike to apply for re-sentencing if their crime was not serious or violent.
“Right now there are three important cases regarding Proposition 36: People v. McCloud D063459 and People v. White D063369, were denied January of this year. People v. Soto, B249197 is still pending in the courts,” Lambden said.
The main question in McCloud was the distinction between being armed and having possession of a weapon in the underlying qualifying offense. Either way, these cases are going to affect those within the framework of Proposition 36, Lambden said.
For over two decades, Judge Lambden worked across San Francisco Bay from San Quentin. During those times, he wanted to learn more about prisons, but he could not because of the way the system is set up, he commented.
“I was prevented from expanding my knowledge of prisons because when you become a judge, you lose a lot of your first amendment rights,” Lambden said.
Before his retirement, Lambden sat on the bench for 25 years, and after being sworn in, he said, his role changed from ordinary citizen to an officer of the California Court of Appeals, 1st District, Division 2.
“After that, I had to be careful when I discussed politics, because as a judge, I had influence and I wasn’t supposed to speak about any matters that came before me like politics, or prisons that involved politics,” Lambden said.
Judge Lambden was appointed as a judge to the Alameda County Superior Court by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989. Lambden said the first two years he worked on felony cases. That “taught me a lot, and not only about criminal law, but I learned a heck of a lot about sentencing,” said Lambden.
In 1996, Gov. Pete Wilson appointed Judge Lambden to the Court of Appeals. Since then there has been a big swing in prison reform, which revolves around public opinion, Lambden said.
“There are several changes coming on the horizon since the voters approved Proposition 36,” said Lambden. “With the laws always changing, we’ll just have to wait and see.”
