Killer’s Suit Targets Davis Parole Policy

A Calabasas man convicted of murdering a schoolmate who exposed him as a homosexual asked a federal court Tuesday to grant his release, arguing that Gov. Gray Davis has unlawfully denied him parole.

Robert Rosenkrantz, whose bid for freedom after 17 years in state prison has drawn widespread support, said that there is no evidence that he remains dangerous and that Davis is blocking his release because of a blanket policy against parole.

Rosenkrantz also argued that his incarceration has been unlawfully prolonged by a 1988 voter initiative that gave governors veto power over parole. That law was passed three years after Rosenkrantz’s crime, and his lawyer said that applying it retroactively violates his client’s constitutional rights.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, seeks to “make the governor follow the law like we all do, not do what is politically expedient,” said attorney Rowan Klein, who represents Rosenkrantz.

“It will establish that Robert has served enough time for his crime and that there is no evidence to keep him in prison,” Klein said.

Davis, a Democrat, attracted scrutiny of his parole decisions shortly after taking office, saying that, “If you take someone else’s life, forget it.” Asked whether extenuating circumstances should be a factor in murder sentences, he replied, “No. Zero.”

His statements have prompted critics -- including Rosenkrantz -- to accuse Davis of following a no-parole policy, which courts have said would be unlawful. Of more than 250 eligible murder convicts approved for release by his hand-picked parole board, Davis has freed seven, far fewer than the number released by his Republican predecessor, Pete Wilson.

Davis denies that he has a no-parole policy, and last December the California Supreme Court agreed with him. Acting on a petition brought by Rosenkrantz, the state high court gave the governor wide latitude to deny parole to inmates, even if they have unblemished records and lower courts have ordered their release.

Failing to win freedom in the state courts, Rosenkrantz is now pressing his case in the federal court system, which has been more receptive to claims brought by inmates. Recently, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the release of an inmate who had served 30 years for two slayings in Long Beach, concluding that the parole board had no justification to keep him behind bars.

Rosenkrantz, 36, has come to symbolize the criticism of the governor’s record of blocking parole for murderers judged ready for release by his own parole board.

The inmate has been in custody since July 23, 1985, when he surrendered in the slaying of Steven Redman, 17, who told Rosenkrantz’s parents that he was gay.

Fearful that his father would disown him for his sexual orientation, Rosenkrantz fled the family home and purchased an Uzi. A week later, he confronted Redman and demanded that he retract the story. When Redman refused, Rosenkrantz shot him 10 times.

Sentenced to 17 years to life, Rosenkrantz has maintained a spotless prison record and has attracted widespread support in his quest for parole. Legislators have lobbied for his freedom, as have the Superior Court judge who presided over his trial and a detective who investigated the case.

Gay and lesbian groups have characterized Redman’s outing of Rosenkrantz as a hate crime that mitigated the resulting killing.

But Davis, in rejecting parole for the inmate in October 2000, said: “The stress Mr. Rosenkrantz felt over disclosure of his homosexuality does not minimize the viciousness of this murder.”

Donald Specter, executive director of the Prison Law Office and an attorney for Rosenkrantz in the past, said the federal lawsuit represents an important “test case about the fairness of the governor’s parole policies.”

Among other things, Rosenkrantz argues that it was unconstitutional for Davis to deny him parole because state law has changed since he committed the 1985 slaying.

Until voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1988, governors could not veto a parole board’s recommendation for release. Laws generally are applied in the future, not retroactively.

“The new law clearly has forced prisoners to remain behind bars when they would otherwise be free,” the lawsuit filed Tuesday said.

The state Supreme Court rejected that argument when it heard the Rosenkrantz case, but two justices who dissented from the majority opinion said that they found it convincing, calling it a “bedrock principle of American criminal justice.”

While in prison, Rosenkrantz has earned a college degree and tutored other inmates. Job offers await him if he wins a release.