Reiner Seeks to Limit Court’s Authority to Block Executions

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner proposed a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would limit the authority of the state Supreme Court to block executions.

Reiner also proposed legislation that would double sentences for murders not covered by the death penalty.

The amendment would require the Supreme Court--which has reversed sentences or convictions in 29 of the 32 death sentences it has heard since 1978--to rely solely on federal constitutional principles in evaluating such cases.

Reiner said that the state court has consistently cited state laws or the state Constitution in its reversals. This has handicapped prosecutors, he said, because they are not entitled to appeal cases decided on issues of state law.

However, prosecutors would be able to appeal cases decided on the basis of federal law to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been “more reasonable” in authorizing executions, Reiner said at his first news conference since he became district attorney last December.

“I think it is fair to say that the California Supreme Court has very deep moral convictions against the death penalty,” Reiner said. “These moral convictions influence the way (the justices) view the facts and law in any given case. . . .

“I don’t think we have a problem with the law. I think we have a problem with the interpretation of the law. And we would want to have another court of last resort--the United States Supreme Court. And that is the entire purpose of substituting federal law for state law.”

With Reiner at the news conference was Assistant Assembly Majority Leader Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres), who said he will introduce the amendment, along with the legislation. Both measures were drafted by attorneys in Reiner’s office.

Condit said he expected that both measures would face tough going in the Legislature, where, he said, there is significant philosophical opposition to the death penalty. The amendment would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to qualify as a ballot initiative.

In response to a question, Reiner said the amendment is “unrelated” to a drive by conservatives to unseat Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso when they stand for election in 1986.

Reiner appears to have exaggerated the court’s reliance on state law. At one point, he said that the court had applied state legal standards “without fail” in every death penalty case that has come before it “so there is no review beyond that court.”

However, at least four cases--and possibly as many as 13--were decided by the court on the basis of federal law or the U.S. Constitution, said a defense lawyer who tracks such cases statewide, but declined to be identified.

A Reiner staff member who helped draft the legislation confirmed that “a minority” of the state court’s decisions have turned on issues of federal law. He too asked not to be named.

Michael Millman, a San Francisco lawyer who has been involved in the defense of Death Row inmates, called Reiner’s effort “a totally misguided attack.”

“The California Constitution is responsible for a minuscule percentage of the reversal of death judgments in California,” Millman said. “The real culprit is John Briggs and the poorly drafted death penalty law he foisted on the people who voted for the 1978 death penalty initiative.”

There have been no executions in California since 1967. The three cases in which the state Supreme Court has not reversed death sentences are still winding their way through federal courts on the defendants’ appeals.

The legislation that Reiner proposed would double the penalties for first-degree murders not covered by the death penalty from 25 years to life to 50 years to life. The penalty for second-degree murder would be raised from 15 years to life to 30 years to life.

“Since (prisoners are now) serving approximately half their terms, it seemed appropriate to double their terms so that their actual sentences would conform to what the statute indicates,” Reiner said.

The legislation, entitled the “Death Penalty Restoration Act of 1985,” would also conform state law to existing California Supreme Court decisions on the death penalty by requiring, for example, that prosecutors show an intent to kill when seeking executions for murders committed during felonies such as robberies.

But it would make it easier for prosecutors to show intent by broadening standards to include defendants who “had the intent to commit an act involving a high degree of probability” that death would result.

It would also roll back other California Supreme Court decisions in order to allow, for example, people under 18 to be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Times staff writer Dan Morain also contributed to this story.