A new policy by the California Board of Parole Hearings that could pave the way for resentencing or clemency for individuals serving life without parole sentences is facing legal challenge. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF), along with a coalition of victims' families and nonprofit groups, filed a lawsuit alleging the policy exceeds the board's statutory authority and violates victims' rights.
Former Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, now president and CEO of the CJLF, is leading the legal effort. She argues that the parole board is overstepping its bounds by creating a new system for reviewing cases of inmates serving life without parole, a move she contends attempts to rewrite sentencing laws established by the legislature and voter initiatives.
"We're talking about people that would have been qualified for the death penalty, OK? So they are the worst of the worst," Schubert stated. "We are talking about cop killers. We're talking about baby killers... We talk about mass shooters, there's a case out of Fresno that happened in the early '90s where a guy killed 10 people and he pled to life without parole. He would potentially be eligible."
The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court on July 15, specifically targets the administrative rulemaking process used to establish the new guidelines, which were approved by California's Office of Administrative Law on July 9 and are set to go into effect in October. Petitioners argue this process improperly bypasses legislative intent and violates Marsy's Law, a California constitutional provision intended to support the finality of judgments for victims.
"The Board has extended this parallel system to include inmates convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances sentenced to life without parole, despite initiative statutes mandating life without parole as the minimum sentence for this crime and forbidding the striking of special circumstances," the petition reads.
Among the high-profile cases potentially affected by the new policy is that of Scott Peterson, convicted of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn son in 2002. Peterson's death sentence was overturned and he was resentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, expressed concern that the new regulations could force victims' families to endure repeated trauma.
"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," Rocha said in a statement.
Kim Juarez, a close friend of Laci Peterson, echoed these sentiments, stating that the possibility of Peterson's release, even if remote, is distressing. "The only certainty that we had when Scott was put away was that he wasn't ever going to get out," Juarez said. "That's what, to me, is aggravating."
The CJLF lawsuit also cites cases such as that of David Hill, who fatally shot San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza in 2004, and Darryl Lamar Collins, who was released early under a youth offender law only to kill his girlfriend less than a year later. Schubert indicated these individuals, and thousands like them, could be eligible for resentencing or clemency reviews.
In response to public opposition, the parole board has stated that existing state laws, specifically Penal Code sections 1172.1 and 4801, do not exclude individuals sentenced to life without parole from consideration for commutation or resentencing recommendations. The board asserts these statutes grant discretion to evaluate such cases and determine appropriate referral to the sentencing court or the Governor.
Schubert, however, disputes this interpretation, emphasizing that the regulations pertain to "parole," a status not applicable to those serving life without parole sentences. Neither the parole board nor the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation immediately responded to requests for comment.