The Votes Are In!
2024 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → News Sep 01, 2022
Recall supporters seeking to oust the LA County district attorney submit petition signatures to election officials. | Photo courtesy of Recall District Attorney George Gascon/Twitter
by
share with
The state Supreme Court Wednesday agreed to decide whether Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon has the authority to bar his lawyers from asking for stiffer terms for felony offenders with prior convictions.
The high court granted a petition for review that stemmed from Gascon’s appeal of rulings in the Los Angeles Superior Court and in the Second District Court of Appeal that largely favored claims made by the Association of Deputy District Attorneys concerning the lawfulness of his orders on sentencing enhancements.
“We’re pleased that the California Supreme Court agreed to hear our challenge to the automatic imposition of the three-strikes law,” Gascon said. “This law, which is now 28 years old, has caused tremendous harm to our communities. We believe we can have accountability without the harshest of punishments. We will continue to fight for a more just system for victims and the accused.”
Gascon issued a series of special directives upon taking office, with many of them raising the ire of some law enforcement officials who accused him of being soft on crime.
Gascon, elected in 2020 on a progressive agenda, has said he had a mandate from the people who wanted to see changes in the justice system, moving away from excessively long prison sentences that he claims have done little to reduce crime or act as a deterrent.
In 2021, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant ruled largely in favor of the association, saying Gascon cannot issue a blanket order telling prosecutors to ignore laws the ADDA contends were designed to protect the public, including three-strike additions and other sentencing enhancements.
A three-judge panel of the California Second District Court of Appeal largely agreed in a 71-page ruling in June, stating in part that “voters and the Legislature created a duty, enforceable in mandamus, that requires prosecutors to plead prior serious or violent felony convictions to ensure the alternative sentencing scheme created by the three-strikes law applies to repeat offenders.”
In July, Gascon announced plans to appeal that ruling, saying it “sets a dangerous precedent.”
Gascon maintains the three-strikes law imposes draconian penalties on defendants who were previously convicted of certain prior felonies. He cites research that he says shows longer prison sentences do not result in increased public safety and that the three-strikes law is outdated and disproportionately impacts marginalized communities.
In a statement released after Gascon announced his appeal, the ADDA said his decision to take the case to the state Supreme Court shows he thinks the rule of law doesn’t apply to him.
“He believes his election is a mandate from the voters that vests him with unlimited power to impose his personal ideology, even when doing so means disregarding the will of the voters, the legislators, and the governor who enacted the three-strikes laws,” according to the association.
“He insists on treating first-time offenders and repeat offenders the same. Yet the `science and data’ on which he relies dissolves under basic scrutiny.”
A second attempt to recall Gascon failed earlier this month because proponents could not collect enough valid petition signatures to place the proposal on the ballot.
