Advertisement

New Executions Still a ‘Long Time’ Away, Van de Kamp Says

Share
Times Staff Writer

California’s first execution in two decades may occur this year--but even with a new and more conservative state Supreme Court, it will likely be a “very long time” before many more convicted killers go to the gas chamber, state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp said Wednesday.

A large backlog of pending cases, a slow court transition process and the likelihood of further appeals in the federal judicial system all present major obstacles to carrying out the death penalty in this state, he said.

“The bottom line is that we will continue to push cases through the process,” Van de Kamp told members of the California District Attorneys Assn. “But justice will be slow in coming, the November election notwithstanding.”

Advertisement

The attorney general, speaking later to reporters, also said that Gov. George Deukmejian could have eased the transition had he acted more quickly to name successors to former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin, the three liberal jurists who were unseated by the voters last fall.

To Seek Reconsiderations

In a wide-ranging speech to the prosecutors on what he called the “new era” of the court, Van de Kamp reiterated that he will seek reconsideration of at least two decisions issued in recent days before the official departure of the three justices on Monday.

One of the rulings opened the way for release on parole of “Onion Field” killer Gregory Ulas Powell. The other, limiting the scope of the 1982 Victims Bill of Rights initiative, barred the use of improperly obtained incriminating statements to challenge the credibility of a defendant who testifies later at trial.

But Van de Kamp pledged that he will not seek “a massive wave of rehearings” because it would simply add to the new court’s already heavy transitional burdens.

Nonetheless, he said, his office eventually hopes to bring to the court “a carefully thought out list” of new issues involving law enforcement. He will be looking for a case, Van de Kamp said, that could lead to a ruling allowing prosecutors to use evidence obtained in a search without a warrant by police who erroneously, but in “good faith,” believed that they were acting lawfully.

The attorney general, noting that it may be as late as May before successors to the three ousted justices take their seats on the Supreme Court, attributed the slow pace of transition in part to Deukmejian.

Advertisement

Deukmejian late last month disclosed the names of six potential nominees he had sent for evaluation to a commission of the State Bar. But it is expected to be two months or more before the non-binding reviews are completed and the governor selects three for nomination. Then another month or so will ensue before confirmation can be obtained from the state Judicial Appointments Commission.

In his talk to reporters, Van de Kamp said that while “I am not making this a criticism of the governor,” Deukmejian could have sent the names to the Bar commission much sooner, thus easing the court transition.

“If any (delay) comes from this, he has to have some accountability,” the attorney general said. But he added that the governor is a “careful, prudent person . . . and there’s value in that.”

Member of Commission

Van de Kamp sits on the three-member Judicial Appointments Commission, along with the chief justice and the senior presiding justice of the state Court of Appeal.

The attorney general also said in response to questions that he hopes that the court will soon decide the constitutionality of a new state law requiring motorists to carry insurance and will rule on the validity of random stops by police to detect drunk driving.

The justices blocked enforcement of the insurance law in December, 1985, pending consideration of a case contending that insurance was either unavailable or prohibitively expensive in low-income neighborhoods.

Advertisement

Similarly, the use of police roadblocks to catch intoxicated motorists has been suspended pending a ruling by the court on the legality of such temporary detentions.

Gives Reason for Defeat

Van de Kamp, a longtime opponent of the death penalty who has nonetheless criticized the court for delays in deciding capital cases, declined to tell reporters how he had voted on the confirmation of Bird, Reynoso and Grodin. But he did assess what he thought was the reason for their defeat, saying that it was a combination of a “strong public reaction” to their records on capital punishment and a feeling by the voters that “the court had gone too far to the left over the years.”

The old court’s reluctance to uphold death sentences was a key issue during the campaign. Under Bird’s tenure, the court upheld only four of the 69 death sentences it reviewed since capital punishment was restored in 1977.

One of those four cases affirmed the death penalty judgment for Robert Alton Harris, convicted of murdering two teen-age boys he abducted in San Diego in 1978.

Harris, whose case is now pending before a federal appeals court, “could conceiveably” be executed this year, Van de Kamp said in his speech.

Likely to Be Delayed

Even so, he added, a federal appellate ruling on Harris is likely to be delayed until the U.S. Supreme Court rules by this summer on a separate case raising similar issues, among them whether the death penalty is being rendered discriminatorily against those whose victims are white.

Advertisement

The other three cases have not yet reached the federal courts.

There has not been an execution in California since 1967.

In all, the state Supreme Court faces a backlog of 170 capital cases--including 35 that were argued but left undecided by the old court and that now, in all probability, will have to be reargued later this year after the new justices take office.

Scores of other, non-capital cases have been accepted for review and await action by the court. Adding to that burden are the dozens of new petitions that are filed each week seeking review of decisions by lower courts.

Van de Kamp predicted that it will “probably be at least a year” before the new court can resolve the backlog of cases.

Advertisement