Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- The Black-White Fallacy of Public Option
- Targeting Obesity Remains A Priority in Tough Budget Times
- Thousands Speak Out Against CA’s Costly and Broken Death Penalty
- Cuts Would Jeopardize Well-Being of Many Disabled Citizens
- Fully Fund Our Schools
- Same Governor, Different Goals
- Assemblymember Evans Sets the Record Straight
About Us
David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.
About California Progress Report.
Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).
Sponsors
Books
SB 40 Will Not "Fix" California's Sentencing Scheme and is Unconstitutional

By Jeff Adachi
Public Defender of San Francisco
What is SB 40 and what does it do?
California’s determinate sentencing laws provide three possible sentences: a lower, middle and maximum term. The judge may choose the maximum term if he or she finds certain sentencing factors true. Last January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this procedure violated the Sixth Amendment because juries, not judges, had to decide the truth of sentencing factors used to increase a person’s sentence. The Court offered two solutions: either have the jury decide the sentencing factors, or to adopt advisory guidelines recommending, but not requiring, a particular sentence.
SB was introduced as a two-year, quick fix, solution to this problem. However, instead of giving juries the power to decide sentencing factors, it instead proposes that judges be given the power to sentence a person without any jury findings or sentencing factors, so long as the judge states a “reason” supporting his or her decision.
Does SB “fix” California’s problem?
No. SB 40 will be found unconstitutional because it allows a judge to sentence a person to a maximum term without finding any sentencing factors to be true or submitting these factors to a jury for its decision. Because California’s system is not an “advisory guideline” that gives judges broad discretion to choose any sentence within a range, but instead requires judges to choose one of three fixed prison sentences, it does not qualify under the second solution provided by the Court.
How can I be certain that SB 40 will be found unconstitutional?
Very certain. The Supreme Court gave two examples of sentencing systems that would not violate the Sixth Amendment: Tennessee and Indiana. Both states changed their sentencing schemes to allow judges to sentence persons without a jury finding of sentencing factors where there was a wide range of possible sentences. SB 40 only gives a judge a choice between three fixed prison terms, and the Supreme Court has already said that “under California’ system, judges are not free to exercise their discretion to select a specific sentence within a defined range.”
But what’s the alternative if our sentencing system is unconstitutional?
Seven of nine states who have considered this question concluded that “the plead and prove” method, which requires sentencing factors to be proven to a jury, is the better choice than what SB 40 proposes. Under this method, the prosecutor includes any sentencing factors in the charging document, and if the defendant is found guilty, there is a brief trial where the jury decides the sentencing factors. The judge then imposes sentence using the factors determined by the jury.
Are there any other differences between “the plead and prove” method and SB 40?
Yes. Also, under the “plead and prove” method, sentencing factors must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Under SB 40, there is no standard of proof required. The judge must only state a “reason” for his or her sentencing choice.
Will letting juries decide sentencing factors overburden the system?
Senator Gloria. Romero, who authored SB 40, claims that requiring juries to decide additional facts would overburden the jury system. However, in Kansas, requiring prosecutors to prove sentencing factors to a jury added only one hour to each trial, and California already uses this procedure when a person has prior convictions, which also must be decided by a jury. Seven of nine states facing this identical problem concluded that requiring a prosecutor to prove the sentencing factors to the jury was the better solution.
What other negative effects will SB 40 have?
SB 40 will also unfairly and greatly affect minority defendants. There have been a large number of studies, both national and statewide, which have shown that Blacks and Latinos are more likely to receive maximum sentences than their Caucasian counterparts. Caucasian individuals sentenced to drug offenses serve an average of 27 months while Blacks serve an average of 46 months. Latino youth are 13 times more likely to be sentenced to a juvenile state facility than Whites, where they serve up to the maximum term. These inequities will be even greater if SB 40 becomes law.
What about the fiscal impact of SB 40?
According to an Assembly Appropriations Committee report, California’s incarceration costs could rise dramatically if SB becomes law. Currently, 11 percent of the 54,000 people committed to prison each year receive maximum sentences, which would be affected by SB 40. For every 1 percent increase, the state will pay an additional $2.6 million in the cost of housing these prisoners. If California were to have a 50 percent increase in its imprisonment rates, which is likely the case if SB 40 passes, increased costs of incarceration would be $130 million annually.
If SB 40 isn’t passed, will there be “chaos” in the Courts?
Because SB 40 will likely be found unconstitutional, SB 40 will create even greater havoc and chaos during the two years before it sunsets. As many as 10,000 cases will be directly affected and will have to be re-tried or re-sentenced when SB 40 is found unconstitutional.
If California adopts a “plead and prove method” it will be assured that the constitutionality of its sentencing system will be approved. This is because the US Supreme Court explicitly approved of this method in its decision.
Why is SB 40 a question of constitutional importance?
The right to a jury trial is one of the most fundamental rights in our country. Our founding fathers embodied it in the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. If judges are making the final determinations regarding sentencing, then citizens will be sentenced without the benefit of having a jury decide whether the sentencing factors are true. There are few things more important than protecting our Constitution.
Jeff Adachi is the Public Defender of San Francisco He was recently re-elected and is the only elected Public Defender in California. SB 40 goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for vote on March 22, 2007.
Comments
This is Public Defender Jeff Adachi's third appeal to the legislature to save the 6th Amendment which is quietly slipping away from all Californians under this bill!!!
The outcry from WE THE PEOPLE must be strong as this is on a fast track for a vote in the assembly. It may go back before the senate again because there were amendments to it, then on to the Governor
Not only are there 54,000 prisoners who were unconstitutionally sentenced over the past 30 years that SB40 affects, everyone who will be sentenced in the future, for at least two years will lose their right to have a jury finding the facts.
One never knows when they will be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or when someone they love will be pulled into the dysfunctional court system so fighting back is insurance. One thing that everyone always tells me when they come to the UNION with their lives devastated is "I never thought this could happen to me."
A full call to action with a sample letter, is located in my column at Americanchronicle.com There are also instructions on how to get to the video of Thursday's hearing posted there.
The California Progress Report publisher Frank Russo, whose legal ability as an attorney and cutting edge attentiveness to this battle has allowed Mr. Adachi and the UNION families be able to voice some opposition.
But the roar needs to be much louder from those of us who love liberty and revere the US Constitution. Please post here and fax, email and call Assemblymembers, Senators and the Governor to stand up for the 6th Amendment in opposing SB 40.
Here we are in a prison crisis, with inmates suffering and dying and the brakes are put on an important Supreme Ct. Ruling which enacted right away would ease the overcrowding? This is senseless. Why preserve the present state of chaos when there is an opportunity to give people back their stolen lives?
Everything is a battle and such has always been the case in America. This threat of even more oppression is as real as any historical battle ever fought for our Constitution. Please take action as caring starts with you, post here, see the hearing yourself on the California Channel and be sobered.
Thank you so much P.D. Jeff Adachi and Attorney Frank Russo for your fierce defense of the people's rights on this and all criminal justice issues.
Posted by: Dr. B. Cayenne Bird at March 26, 2007 09:24 AM
Regarding SB 40. Our fore fathers fought for our constitutional rights. SB 40 threatens these rights by giving judges decisions that belong to the people, the jury. Are you willing to give up your Sixth Amendment rights? If this bill goes through our rights are gone. We need to protect our Constitutional Rights or our country will certainly fall apart. When the foundation of America, the Constitution means nothing, then we are doomed. One man, Jeff Adachi, stands firm on the issues of the Constitution and I salute him for standing up for our American standards and rights. Judges should not be allowed to make final decisions on sentencing.
Posted by: Shirley Wetherwax at March 26, 2007 09:28 AM
Regarding SB 40. Our fore fathers fought for our constitutional rights. SB 40 threatens these rights by giving judges decisions that belong to the people, the jury. Are you willing to give up your Sixth Amendment rights? If this bill goes through our rights are gone. We need to protect our Constitutional Rights or our country will certainly fall apart. When the foundation of America, the Constitution means nothing, then we are doomed. One man, Jeff Adachi, stands firm on the issues of the Constitution and I salute him for standing up for our American standards and rights. Judges should not be allowed to make final decisions on sentencing.
Posted by: Shirley Wetherwax at March 26, 2007 09:30 AM
Regarding SB 40. Our fore fathers fought for our constitutional rights. SB 40 threatens these rights by giving judges decisions that belong to the people, the jury. Are you willing to give up your Sixth Amendment rights? If this bill goes through our rights are gone. We need to protect our Constitutional Rights or our country will certainly fall apart. When the foundation of America, the Constitution means nothing, then we are doomed. One man, Jeff Adachi, stands firm on the issues of the Constitution and I salute him for standing up for our American standards and rights. Judges should not be allowed to make final decisions on sentencing.
Posted by: Shirley Wetherwax at March 26, 2007 09:31 AM
Please post here first and then go to this web address to see a sample letter that you can write to the legislators, info on how to see the 35 min or so, hearing itself, and a link to author's other articles which includes Mr. Adachi's full eight page letter to the Committee which seems to have gone over everyone's heads. In my humble opinion the Attorney General's office is misleading everyone on the Constitutionality of SB 40, I can only hope and pray that the legislators wouldn't purposefully betray our 6th Amendment!
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=22783
Posted by: B. Cayenne Bird at March 26, 2007 09:46 AM
I appreciate Mr. Adachi's clarification of the dire consequences of SB 40. On the surface, this bill can seem to be a quick and easy response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that California's sentencing laws are unconstitutional. Looking a little deeper, this bill seems to assume that California can unilaterally declare its judges to be judge and jury -- exactly what the Supreme Court ruled it could not do! Now, looking even deeper, Mr. Adachi has researched the legal technicalities and precidents that bear on SB 40 and has shown us why it too will be found to be unconstitutional -- because to deny defendants jury findings on aggravating factors in fact denies their Sixth Amendment rights. Period. No doubt about it. This seemingly innocuous, little-publicized, pushed-through-the-process bill is a threat to every American who holds our Constitution dear. E-mail your senator and assemblymember, as well as the governor, today! Ask all your friends to do the same! To delay is to agree with the misguided and uninformed sponsors and supporters of this dangerous bill. Protect your Sixth Amendment rights!
Posted by: Barbara Christie at March 26, 2007 01:14 PM
The Attorney General's representatives are leading the legislators astray, just as they did when Prop 83 was on the table. Any legislator who votes Yes on SB 40 knowing that it is unconstitutional is a criminal and traitor to our country and deserves a sentence as harsh as the ones they so callously support on people who shouldn't be in prison in the first place. Would our legislators vote for a clear violation of the 6th Amendment? Apparently so. The Democratic Party in Washington D.C. asked me for money today to support their work and I sent them full information on this outrageous bill. Our right to jury trials is worth defending as the judges in California are completely out of control. Why were they unconstitutionally sentencing people for 30 years and not getting called on it??? After Prop 83, it is clear to me that most of the legislators don't know what the hell is constitutional or unconstitutional. The AG is a disaster.
Posted by: Michael Westmoreland at March 26, 2007 02:30 PM
In my opinion SB 40 violates the constitution. If we let it pass without an outcry to our elected representative we will be continuing the erosion of our 6th amendment rights to a trial by jury of our peers. It is another one of theose laws that the State Legislature is trying to pass as a knee jerk response to something they don't like, just like they did with Prop 83. They did/do not take the time to think it through and really explore what the consequences will be. In both cases there will be a major monetary burden on the tax payer and a longer incarceration to a person who is due to be released.
Thank you Mr. Adachi for standing up and defending the rights of all of us.
Sue Timpson
Sunnyvale, CA
Posted by: Sue Timpson at March 26, 2007 03:37 PM
I watched the hearing today held on March 22 in front of Appropriations where the bill was approved and now travels to the Assembly floor, another pass through the Senate and then to the Governor's desk. I could hardly believe my eyes and ears. Everybody on that Committee except for two people had their minds made up to vote for it before coming to the meeting.
You can see it at www.calchannel.com, click on webcasts, click on search archives, then enter 032207 as the date, Assembly, Committee, Appropriations, March and you can watch it down near the bottom of the list that comes up.
You can see that the whole problem is that they are mad at the Supreme Court for calling them on unconstitutional sentencing and do not want to be bothered with retrials, nor do they want to spend the money.
They are not only very willing to violate everyone's rights to unlawfully incarcerate people who should not be in prison in the first place, but to spit in the face of the Supreme Court by sidestepping the ruling.
Every Californian and every American should be absolutely outraged at what is taking place here and the Attorney General BROWN who is responsible for a great deal of 54,000 men and women in prison on ridiculously harsh terms, along with the judges who participated, should all be tarred and feathered and put in stockades in front of the Capitol for all to see.
this is the most shocking thing I have ever witnessed in my life out of elected officials who are violating their sworn oath of office to uphold the US Constitution.
Notify everybody what is taking place here in your name.
Posted by: Stephanie Gooding at March 26, 2007 05:13 PM
SB40 was not what the people of California needed...shame on you Senator Romero for coming up with a quick fix solution and adding another Unconstitutional law to our books. I was really surprised to see this come from you.
I hope and pray that a Federal Judge puts a stop to this right away. California can not be allowed to Violate our 6th Amendment Right any more.
Governor Schwarzenegger, it's going to be up to you to veto this and have our legislators come up with the right solution, not a quick fix one that will be found unconstitutional.
Mr. Adachi, thank you very much for concern and not being afraid to stand up to these bullies in Legislation. You gave us a great explanation of how bad SB40 really is.
Posted by: Fred Lopez at March 26, 2007 05:48 PM
The names of our elected officials who choose to give away our constitutional rights will be remembered.
Judges acting on their own, should not have the power to impose upper terms simply because they are having a bad day. Absent of any findings by a jury.
SB40 is now going to allow these unconstitutional practices to continue. Where will it end? It will only end when people like Mr. Adachi, have to courage to stand up and speak out.
This system will not withstand against our Sixth Amendment.
Posted by: J Buchanan at March 26, 2007 07:48 PM
Prison Federal Receiver, good idea, or money grab?
Submitted by Nora Weber (not verified) on Sun, 03/25/2007 - 10:29.
The old days of lock-em-up and throw away the key are gone and it is time for real rehabilitation. Unfortunately practically all the training programs that were once operated in the prisons are now gone(for example body shops and machine shops), those instructors are now working as prison guards. There is no rehabilitation for prisoners.
Guards have taken on a more gentle and understanding character towards prisoners? I don't think so and don't kid yourself when the Federal Government takes over the prisons, there will not be a guards union. The union guard contract will be null and void and will then fall under the Federal guidelines of employment.
Maybe the prison guards and wardens showed their colors for torture far too many times. The race is on for the Feds. to take over and the time has run out to stop the clock.
Does the Federal Government need money? What a way to grab it from the State.
We better change our sentencing laws, our parole policy, our blood thirst nature, and come to the conclusion that everyone doesn't belong in a prison. Only the hardened and repeating criminals.
Not the mentally ill and not the poor slob that can't afford an attorney. We need to stop the stacking of charges in order for the Judge to sentence someone to 99 years in prison when it is a first time offense. We also better stop this three strikes crap. Or no one in the prison system will be safe in their jobs.
The State of California Prison System is the largest of any State in the U.S. It also tops any foreign countries prison population. There is a big supply of $$$$$$$$$ in the California prison system.
Now the Federal Government has to pay California to house their Federal prisoners.
When the Feds. take over California Taxpayers will have to pay the Federal Government to take care of California prisoners. This will be a big shift in $$$$$$$$$ to the Federal Government Treasury. Do you think for one minute that the Government doesn't see the prison system as a major industry to produce cash?
The prison health care will be turned over to some very large HMO type of provider such as Health Care Services, Inc. who already has contracts with several other State's prisons.
All prisoner lawsuits will be shifted from State to Federal courts. Medical Mal Practice against prison doctors will be stopped.
The Federal Government will be able to house any prisoner in any State they see fit.
Under the disguise of Rehabilitation, it will allow the Federal Government to contract with private industry to put their manufacturing plants on California Prison property and broaden the horizon as to where these prisoner made products can be sold. This is a big $$$$ business it is not all about prisoner's health care. It is slave labor. it is a Government take-over of California Prison $$$$$$$$$.
Posted by: Nora Weber at March 26, 2007 09:18 PM
Jeff Adachi, please run for office so we can replace at least one of the cowardly assemblypersons who voted for SB 40 today. It is unbelievable to see this irresponsible decision making on the part of our elected officials. No doubt, it will pass the Senate next and G-d only knows, but I can guess that our Governor will rubber stamp this bill. Gloria Romero thinks our courts will be in chaos without this bill. Well she hasn't seen the chaos that will ensue if it passes. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Judges cannot impose sentences based on facts that the jury did not hear, so hold on for the ride Ms. Romero. You ain't seen nothing yet!
Posted by: Leah at March 26, 2007 10:43 PM
Mr. Adachi is the elected public defender of San Francisco overseeing 90 attorneys and their support staff. He cannot win statewide election or win any of our issues until our side organizes and raises funds to put people into office. This is what United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect is all about, knowing when, where, how to fight back and supporting advocates in standing up for the Constitution when a threat is here. They cannot win without our presence, some of our money supporting their campaigns and our votes. Mr. Adachi is the type of person who should be Governor but our side is lame and doesn't want to organize themselves out of the hell created by law enforcement's politicians.
Can it get worse? Clearly it can and it is getting worse. Everybody fax your senator and the Governor today to VOTE NO on SB 40, an unconstitutional bill that interferes with our right to a jury trial.
The legislators obviously do not know about what these crazy state level judges have been doing to people. It is our duty as citizens to tell them!
Posted by: Stephanie Gooding at March 27, 2007 12:47 PM
Mike Davis had a chance to be a hero for the African Americans impacted by SB 40 but instead he opted not to vote at all in the floor vote. Mr. Adachi is a hero and he deserves for everyone to support him by writing to editors, fax and emailing, calling Senators and the Governor. The roar from our side needs to be much louder even when people don't get what is at stake.
Dr. Bird, I saw the hearing and you certainly bottom-lined everything in a manner that truly represented me
With all the people you have watched die, I don't know how you could keep from rising from your chair and screaming at the top of your lungs for what the judges and legislators have done to destruct hundreds of thousands of prisoners and their families.
Your tone of indignation was just right and what you said was so right on. I noticed that no one was else was there for our side except Mr. Adachi, the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and you for the UNION. Beating us is simple when people don't act write, show up, vote, bring others to vote, form a voting group.
Posted by: Katrina Nielsen at March 27, 2007 01:07 PM
“We the People…”
March 27th, 2007
From: Alisha Khan-”United States of America Citizen” -based on the U.S. Constitution
To: Mr./Mrs. California Senator,
OPPOSE SB40- It is absolutely numbing to see the disrespect occurring to our Constitution our Fore Fathers intended for this great nation!! We must pull America back together and quit this political tug-of-war which also disrespects and robs the people -remember "We The People"?- of its voice. And how about humanity? This bill appears to be a quick bandage not in the favor of "what is right" or "U.S. Constitution" but political agenda at the costs of lives. Granted, a criminal should be punished-but should the severity of penalty in its disparities be at the hands of a Judge that may have a personal vendetta for a situation or having a bad day?
Inform and let the people that pay have a say!! The tax-payer.........
No on SB40
Respectfully Submitted, Alisha A. Khan
Posted by: Alisha at March 27, 2007 02:17 PM
The Jury is the guardian of freedom.Any jury can nullify bad laws by voting "not guilty"on any law it deems unconstitutional or does not like.
Many Judges LIE to jury members when telling them that Judges decide the law and juries decide only the facts (Brailsford vs.Georgia-1794.)
Prohibition and slavery were abolished because juries wisely nullified those bad laws,when they voted "not guilty" in those cases. Any jury member can do the same thing in any case.Only one jury member is necessary to check corruption and oppression.
The 6th Amendment does not say or mean that our "Assistance of Counsel" must be a Bar Association lawyer, or that our counsel must have a license.
A judge violates his oath of office when he;
(1) Denies a citizen favorable witnesses to speak in front of the jury
(2) Denies counsel of choice
(3) Denies the jury the right to judge the law and the facts of the case.
This is conspiracy and treason against "We the People."
The jury has the right beyond all dispute, to determine both the law and the facts,and where they do not doubt,of the law,they ought to do so.This of leaving it to the judgment of the court~in effect renders juries useless in many cases.
Juries, if they knew their duties, would protect a man in defending his own rights
Posted by: Alexis Endurance at March 28, 2007 12:52 AM
This is how your elected officials voted on SB 40. The ones who abstained should have voted "NO" instead of not registering a vote at all in my opinion.
UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: SB 40
AUTHOR: Romero
TOPIC: Sentencing.
DATE: 03/26/2007
LOCATION: ASM. FLOOR
MOTION: SB 40 Romero Third Reading Urgency By SOLORIO
(AYES 63. NOES 5.) (PASS)
NOES - HEROES of the people!!!
****
DeVore, Hancock, Leno, Ma,
Swanson
AYES - Voted to suspend jury trials
****
Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Arambula,
Beall, Benoit, Berryhill, Blakeslee,
Brownley, Caballero, Charles, Calderon, Carter,
Cook, Coto, De La Torre, DeSaulnier,
Duvall, Dymally, Emmerson, Eng,
Evans, Feuer, Fuller, Gaines,
Garcia,Garrick, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Horton, Houston, Huff, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Karnette, Keene,
Krekorian, La Malfa, Laird, Levine,
Lieber, Mendoza, Nakanishi, Nava,
Niello, Parra, Plescia, Portantino,
Price, Richardson, Sharon Runner, Ruskin,
Salas, Smyth, Solorio, Spitzer,
Strickland, Torrico, Tran, Villines,
Walters, Wolk, Nunez,
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING - Didn't show up for the war
************ ********* ********* ***
Bass, Berg, Davis, De Leon,
Galgiani, Lieu, Maze, Mullin,
Saldana, Silva, Soto, Vacancy
Posted by: Alexis Endurance at March 28, 2007 01:32 AM
Given a few more years. 50% of California's population will be in prison and the other 50% will be guarding them.
Hmmmmm.
Thank goodness for fair minded people like Mr. Adachi.
Posted by: Morris at March 28, 2007 07:26 PM
Post a comment
Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
RSS 