The California Supreme Court will decide two issues that are critical for lifers appearing before the Board of Parole Hearings.
The court will decide whether the provisions of Marsy’s Law, which sets the minimum parole denial period at three years and the maximum at 15 years, are unconstitutional because they retroactively increase the punishment for a crime.
The court will also determine whether the board may deny parole based upon a lack of insight when the inmate has accepted full responsibility for the crime and shown remorse, but gives an account of the crime that differs from the official version.
The state Supreme Court will decide whether the provisions of Marsy’s Law may be applied to prisoners who committed their crimes prior to its enactment in December 2008.
The Supreme Court decided to review two cases in which prisoners argue that applying Marsy’s Law to their parole hearings violated both the U.S. and California Constitutions, which prohibit the application of ex post facto laws. A law that retroactively increases punishment for a crime violates the ex post facto clause. The court granted review of this issue in the cases of In re Vicks and In re Russo.
The Supreme Court will review four cases to determine when the board may properly use a prisoner’s lack of insight as a basis to deny parole. Several lower courts have concluded that when a prisoner has acknowledged the material aspects of their crime, shown an understanding of its causes, and demonstrated remorse, then the prisoner’s version of the crime is not a basis for concluding that there is a lack of insight into the crime’s causative factors. The Supreme Court granted review of this issue in In re Adamar, In re Shaputis, In re Macias, and In re Russo.
A Supreme Court ruling on these issues is necessary to bring uniformity to the law because of conflicting decision from various California Courts of Appeal.
In addition, The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will decide whether Marsy’s Law violates the ex post facto provisions of the state and federal constitutions. The 9th Circuit has granted review of this issue in these cases, Petrich v. Marshall, Coleman v. Hartley, Saffold v Hartley, and Liebb v. Cullen.
