Prosecutors applaud, defenders decry LA DA's death penalty decision

California's legal community is divided over Los Angeles District County Attorney Nathan Hochman's announcement that he is overturning his predecessor's ban on seeking the death penalty, in rare cases, with prosecutors praising the move as a return to the rule of law and defenders condemning it as bad news for the defendants with fewer resources.

"Unlike George Gascón, who closed off even the consideration of the death penalty because of his so-called moral objection, Hochman is right to allow for its consideration as a punishment in certain and limited cases involving homicide because it is still the law in this state," former Deputy District Attorney Richard Ceballos, who now practices with Ferrone Law Group in Westlake Village, commented in an email on Friday.

"However," he continued. "I honestly don't see there being a sudden or mad rush to impose the death penalty by his office."

Ceballos pointed to Hochman's replacement policy, which the district attorney said "will consider pursuing the death penalty only after an extensive and comprehensive review and only in exceedingly rare cases" in his March 24 announcement.

"I think the special circumstances committee he is creating will weigh very carefully all the aggravating and mitigating factors before deciding whether to seek the ultimate punishment. I trust the death penalty will only be sought in the most extreme cases of homicide as it should be," Ceballos said.

Gregory D. Totten, chief executive officer of the California District Attorneys Association and former district attorney of Ventura County, agreed.

"The issue of seeking death is really reserved for a very, very small number of cases that represent the very worst of the worst," Totten said in a phone call on Friday, noting that Hochman has previously cited the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting and 2017 Las Vegas shooting as instructive examples.

"California law recognizes that those types of cases would still be eligible for the district attorney. And I think his restoration of that authorization for his office is simply a reflection of that," Totten continued.

Still, public defenders said they were skeptical that such a review process can effectively filter out issues of bias.

LA County Public Defender Ricardo D. García said in an interview Friday, "I do not believe that any policy can be good enough, other than to not have the death penalty, to prevent the risk of racially biased sentencing, and even with the best intentions, our criminal legal system has been historically set up to adversely impact people of colors in their communities," García said.

He pointed to statistics indicating that Black citizens make up 9% of the county's population but 30% of its prison population, as well as recent allegations against the sheriff's department of using faulty DNA kits, potentially impacting some 4,000 cases.

"How can we trust the criminal legal system to make the right decision in death penalty cases? I don't think we can. We can't, in fact, trust the criminal legal system to handle DNA evidence properly. That's been shown over eight months. We certainly cannot trust it with a life-or-death decision," he said.

Robert E. Boyce, vice president of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, agreed, pointing to a 2019 moratorium on executions by Gov. Gavin Newsom, though the state Supreme Court continues to approve juries' death penalty sentences, upholding a law that California voters have repeatedly endorsed in referendums. The sentences are automatically appealed.

"If you ask yourself, why did Newsom place a moratorium on executions in the first place, and which all future Democratic candidates have said that they are going to keep in place? And the reason for that is the discriminatory impact that it has on people of color, especially Black males," said Boyce, who practices with Boyce & Schaefer in San Diego.

Boyce also cited the time required to prosecute death penalty cases, weighing it against what he characterized as unsatisfactory results.

"Death penalty cases take 20 years or more to resolve, while a life without possibility of parole case is much quicker," he said. "You have a trial, and the appellate process is insignificantly short compared to a death process, which requires 20 years or more to resolve - and that's required by the Constitution. Anything less, you risk executing more innocent people," he said.

Boyce said there is a backlog of death row defendants with undecided cases before the state Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court resolves maybe half a dozen to a dozen of these in a good year -- more likely half a dozen," he said. "At this rate, a new death case - you can do the math, but it's going to be the next millennium before it gets resolved."