Penalty in the Reding Drunk-Driving Case

Richard L. Gausewitz, in his letter (Sept. 21) criticizing the California Supreme Court, is misinformed--a fairly common condition brought about by the misinformation deliberately disseminated by those who would like to change the composition of the court for political reasons.

He blames the Supreme Court for (1) the second-degree murder conviction of Michael Reding for killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol, (2) the sentence imposed by a Superior Court judge for the crime and (3) the repeated parole applications of Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

The Supreme Court is responsible for none of these things.

The decision to prosecute Reding for second-degree murder was made by the Orange County district attorney’s office.

The conviction was by a jury composed of ordinary citizens, who were required to make a decision limited to the crime charged.

The sentence was imposed by the judge in accordance with a California statute that strictly limits a judge’s discretion in sentencing.

All of these are matters over which neither the Supreme Court, nor any other court, has any control.

Gausewitz proposes that Sirhan be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

This can’t be done. Sirhan was convicted some 15 years ago. He cannot now be resentenced to life in prison without parole under a law that took effect after he was convicted and sentenced. The United States Constitution wisely forbids, for the protection of all of us, ex post facto laws and sentencing.

All of the problems of which Gausewitz complains, and I agree that Reding’s sentence seems inordinately harsh, are statutory matters. The California Supreme Court has no control over any of them.

If he has a complaint, it should be made to his legislators.

M. R. JOURDANE

Seal Beach