A lawsuit has been filed against the California Board of Parole Hearings over a new policy that could create a pathway for resentencing or clemency for individuals serving life without parole, including serial killers and mass shooters. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF), along with a coalition of victims’ families and nonprofit groups, initiated legal action, arguing the policy exceeds the board's statutory authority.
The policy, set to take effect later this year, is being challenged on grounds that it improperly uses administrative rulemaking to create a review system for inmates serving life without parole, a move critics say bypasses legislative intent and ballot initiatives like Marsy's Law, which supports the finality of judgments for victims.
"We are talking about people that would have been qualified for the death penalty, OK? So they are the worst of the worst," said Anne Marie Schubert, president and CEO of the CJLF and a former Sacramento District Attorney. She noted that individuals convicted of killing police officers, children, or those involved in mass shootings could potentially benefit from the new regulations.
Among the high-profile cases cited is that of Scott Peterson, convicted of killing his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son in 2002. Peterson’s death sentence was overturned and he was resentenced to life without parole. His family and friends have expressed distress at the prospect of further avenues for his potential release.
"Our family believed that sentence would finally bring some measure of certainty. Victims should not have to spend the rest of their lives wondering whether the person responsible will receive another opportunity for release. Justice demands finality," stated Sharon Rocha, Laci Peterson’s mother, in a prepared statement. Kim Juarez, a close friend of Laci Peterson, echoed these sentiments, stating that the certainty of Peterson never walking free was the only solace for the victims' families.
The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento's Superior Court, contends that the board has established a system of reviews and hearings that resembles parole hearings, which the public voted to curb through Marsy’s Law. The petition argues that the board's actions extend this system to inmates convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances sentenced to life without parole, despite laws mandating such sentences.
Critics also raise concerns that the new process would force victims' families to repeatedly relive traumatic events. The CJLF highlighted the case of Darryl Lamar Collins, who received early release for a 1995 killing under a youthful offender law only to kill his girlfriend less than a year later.
The dispute also arises in the context of a previous legislative attempt to expand parole eligibility for younger inmates serving life without parole. Schubert noted that a bill last year, SB 672, which aimed to provide similar relief for individuals under 26, failed to pass. She stated that the current policy, enacted through a bureaucratic process, is not limited by age.
In its public filings, the parole board has maintained that existing state law permits them to consider individuals sentenced to life without parole for commutation or resentencing recommendations. The board cited Penal Code sections 1172.1 and 4801, arguing these statutes grant discretion to evaluate cases and refer them to the sentencing court or governor. The board asserted that the legislature would have explicitly barred this population if it intended to do so.
Schubert contested this interpretation, stating that the board's regulations are related to 'parole,' and individuals sentenced to life without parole do not qualify for parole. Representatives for the parole board and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation did not immediately respond to requests for comment.