Senate Looks at Death Penalty Delays : Deukmejian Aide Blames Tardy Reviews on Bulky Legal System

One of Gov. George Deukmejian’s top lieutenants conceded Tuesday that an unwieldy legal system--rather than political foot-dragging by the state Supreme Court--often is responsible for delays in reviewing death penalty cases.

Rodney J. Blonien, Deukmejian’s undersecretary of the state’s Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, told a legislative panel that a “more complex and greater number” of death penalty cases are the main reasons why the court exceeds its 150-day limit for reviewing capital cases.

Although critical of the “stock motions” by defense lawyers that sometimes delay proceedings, Blonien said the 150-day limit contained in the 1977 death penalty law drafted by Deukmejian makes little sense.

“Looking at it from 1985 rather than 1977, the 150-day period is unrealistic,” Blonien said. “On the other hand, I hope the court could dispose of these cases in a more expeditious manner.”

Blonien helped Deukmejian, then a state senator, draft the 1977 law that restored the death penalty in California and established the 150-day limit for capital cases.

Court Blamed

In recent years, Deukmejian has cited the long time it takes to rule on death penalty appeals and the large number of reversals as proof that the state Supreme Court and Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird are to blame for delaying and frustrating the death penalty law.

Blonien’s statements came during the first of two hearings called by the Senate Judiciary Committee to look into how the death penalty is being administered in light of several bills pending before the Legislature.

Those measures would expand the scope of the death penalty law and make it easier for the Legislature to correct problems that have resulted in many cases being overturned.

Measures introduced last year to streamline the process and speed up death penalty reviews failed because of concern that putting capital cases on a higher priority would simply delay action on other criminal cases.

California’s last execution occurred in 1967. Five years later, the death penalty was struck down by the Supreme Court as “cruel and unusual” punishment. It was reinstated by the Legislature in August, 1977. But the following year, voters approved the so-called Briggs Initiative that expanded the scope of the law but also contained a number of provisions that have prompted complex challenges and resulted in many cases being overturned.

Since that time, the state Supreme Court has reversed death penalties 30 times in 33 capital cases it has considered.

Many of those decisions have drawn a chorus of criticism that has become politically charged with the approach of next year’s scheduled confirmation vote on five Supreme Court justices, including Bird.

In presiding over Tuesday’s hearing, the committee chairman, Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), was careful to steer witnesses away from a political attack. Instead, the officials focused on the 162 death penalty cases pending before the court and why they often take a year or longer to resolve.

Lengthy Transcripts

Blonien said the process is lengthened by the need to review giant trial transcripts and because judges and attorneys “are nervous” about death penalty cases.

Sacramento County Dist. Atty. John Dougherty blamed what he called a “lopsided spending pattern” that he insists has provided defense attorneys with far more money than prosecutors.

But Stuart Rappaport, Los Angeles County’s chief deputy public defender, said he has “never seen the defense be able to outspend the prosecution.”

Michael Millman, executive director of the California Appellate Project, a group that studies the court system, said the Bird court is unfairly blamed for problems that plague high courts in all states. “Some of the delay is inherent in life,” he said, adding that “it’s important not to blame the Supreme Court for a lot of developments that have nothing to do with the court.”