Three Vetoes

Gov. Schwarzenegger nixes sensible criminal justice reforms.

Radley Balko | November 8, 2007

(Page 2 of 2)

One recommendation, for example, was that the police officers administering photo or in-person lineups be unaware of the actual identity of the suspect, to prevent them from giving an eyewitness subtle (or not-so-subtle) clues.

Schwarzenegger vetoed this one, too, arguing that even voluntary state guidelines would get in the way of police departments setting their own lineup policies based on their own "unique local conditions."

Gov. Schwarzenegger's refusal to adopt even these modest criminal justice reforms is perplexing, particularly given the spate of conscience-shocking exonerations and the parade of wrongful convictions across the headlines. There's really nothing we can say to someone who spent a decade in prison or was days from execution for a crime he didn't commit. "Sorry" isn't going to cut it. One would think that the least we could do is put in the proper safeguards to cut down on the chances of it happening again.

Former state Attorney General John Van de Kamp, who chaired the commission, told the San Francisco Chronicle that all three recommendations were "modest bills which were based on the best science and the best practices available."

He added, "once again the power of California's law enforcement agencies to block needed justice reform."

Our criminal justice system is in need of repair. The spate of DNA exonerations has at least opened many Americans' eyes to the very real possibility that we're sending innocent people to prison—and even to death row.  But the number of cases in which DNA was found at the scene of a crime was properly preserved, and where testing could establish guilt or innocence, is vanishingly small. DNA testing has exposed the flaws in our system, but those flaws don't exist only in cases where DNA was significant—they also exist in the overwhelming majority of cases where it isn't.

That's why we need to apply the lessons we've learned from DNA exonerations to other cases.  And it's why it's regrettable that Gov. Schwarzenegger's won't adopt even modest reforms.

Radley Balko is a senior editor for reason. This article originally apparead at FoxNews.com.

Comments

|11.8.07 @ 1:44PM|#

Bout time this got published. Good show on lambasting the Governator!

|11.8.07 @ 1:56PM|#

90% of the problems with the police would be solved with a shoulder mounted webcam and small hard drive clipped to their belt. We'll never get there, unfortunately, because casual sadism seems to be either a perk or prerequisite of the job

|11.8.07 @ 2:10PM|#

For years I've been calling for videotaped interrogations, for years I've been ignored, or called soft on crime. The American people become more ovine daily.

|11.8.07 @ 2:21PM|#

Another great column Radley. My wife and I are seriously considering naming our baby after you, hope you wouldn't mind. We've got a couple months to decide.

Fluffy|11.8.07 @ 2:25PM|#

Arnold probably vetoed this because he figures that if you're falsely accused and imprisoned, you can just break out of prison by impaling the guards on steam pipes and then getting to the choppah so you can fly away to kill Sharon Stone while you rescue Alyssa Milano and then melt yourself in a steel mill.

|11.8.07 @ 2:27PM|#

Another terrific column.

|11.8.07 @ 2:37PM|#

Fluffy--before he can get to the choppah he will have to coat himself in mud and kill a Predator.

Barry Bonds|11.8.07 @ 2:42PM|#

Another great column Radley. My wife and I are seriously considering naming our baby after you, hope you wouldn't mind. We've got a couple months to decide.

Me too.

Oh. You meant "Radley".

|11.8.07 @ 2:45PM|#

My wife and I are seriously considering naming our baby after you

Radley, please tell him how the kids at school taunted you and how this is not a good idea.

|11.8.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Re: #1 - I disagree with Mr. Balko - I don't think the decision as to whether a witness' testimony is trustworthy or not should be taken out of the hands of the jury. It's up to the jury to decide and the defense lawyers can always point out which witnesses are "snitches". And who will decide if the snitch's testimony is properly coroborated anyway?

Re: #2 - I agree with Mr. Balko, although I don't think this reform would make much difference. If the cops wanted to beat a confession out of a suspect, they'd just do it in a room with no camera and then record the "legal" part where he signs the confession.

Re: #3 - I agree with Mr. Balko, at least as far as lineups are concerned.

|11.8.07 @ 2:49PM|#

Remember back during the recall and special election, when we thought Arnold might just be something better than California's past governors and not a shit sandwich?

|11.8.07 @ 3:00PM|#

Dan T.,

It goes along with barring other evidence that is judged as being more prejudicial than substantive. I'm leaning towards your position on this, though. Until there is some research demonstrating that this type of evidence frequently lacks substance (i.e. is a lie), judging the value of evidence is a jury's job.

|11.8.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Remember back during the recall and special election, when we thought Arnold might just be something better than California's past governors and not a shit sandwich?

Doesn't it suck when events prove you wrong? It does here.

Ryo|11.8.07 @ 3:05PM|#

If the cops wanted to beat a confession out of a suspect, they'd just do it in a room with no camera and then record the "legal" part where he signs the confession.

Sure, but then they'd be breaking the law which is the point. The police would have to account for the time when the suspect was in custody but not in a cell and not on video. Which would likely involve more actors which increases the likelihood that the beating would be exposed. If nothing else, it's another hurdle abusive interrogators would have to contend with.

|11.8.07 @ 3:07PM|#

Before Radley (rightly) busts my chops, by 'frequently' I mean whatever the appropriate legal threshold might be. Radley presents data regarding a number of events that might qualify as 'frequently'. I am just not convinced that the data he presents is representative of a sufficient number of cases to be able to make that judgment. I will not be surprised if a more comprehensive study does demonstrate that this testimony is often perjury.

|11.8.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Until there is some research demonstrating that this type of evidence frequently lacks substance (i.e. is a lie), judging the value of evidence is a jury's job.

From the article:

A 2004 study by Northwestern University of 111 death row exonerations since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973 found that the testimony of a jailhouse snitch played a role in 51 of the wrongful convictions.

That's 46%.

|11.8.07 @ 3:15PM|#

Sure, but then they'd be breaking the law which is the point. The police would have to account for the time when the suspect was in custody but not in a cell and not on video. Which would likely involve more actors which increases the likelihood that the beating would be exposed. If nothing else, it's another hurdle abusive interrogators would have to contend with.

True. I guess it could only help in that sense.

Schwarzenegger's point is worth considering, though. Would the police ever be able to perform an effective interrogation if both they and the suspect know that everything they say and do might be scrutinized by people unfamiliar with legal and accepted police tactics? Should prosecutors be burdened not only with proving the accused is guilty but also with defending the techniques of the police?

|11.8.07 @ 3:33PM|#

Would the police ever be able to perform an effective interrogation if both they and the suspect know that everything they say and do might be scrutinized by people unfamiliar with legal and accepted police tactics?

We expect juries to sift through all sorts of evidence that they are untrained in. How much does Miss Mary from down the street know about DNA testing procedures?

Should prosecutors be burdened not only with proving the accused is guilty but also with defending the techniques of the police?

If it requires defending, yes.

Dave B.|11.8.07 @ 4:08PM|#

A 2004 study by Northwestern University of 111 death row exonerations since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973 found that the testimony of a jailhouse snitch played a role in 51 of the wrongful convictions.

That's 46%.

46% of wrongful convictions, not 46% of trials involving a jailhouse snitch. You might as well say that defense attorneys are bad because they were involved in 100% of the wrongful convictions.

LarryA|11.8.07 @ 4:41PM|#

[sarcasm] Actually these reforms aren't needed. Arnold recently signed into law legislation requiring all semiauto pistols to have microengraving added to their chamber that will stamp cartridge cases with the make, model, and serial number. We have been promised that this common sense gun law will vastly reduce crime in California, and positively identify criminals to enable their swift and sure prosecution. [/sarcasm]

|11.8.07 @ 4:45PM|#

46% of wrongful convictions, not 46% of trials involving a jailhouse snitch. You might as well say that defense attorneys are bad because they were involved in 100% of the wrongful convictions.

Wrongful death penaly convictions to be completely accurate. for an analogy, let's go to bite marks evidence. Some of the people who were convicted when this type of evidence was presented were in fact guilty. That has NO BEARING on whether this kind of evidence is reliable or germane. If it is unreliable, it should not be presented to a jury. See polygraph evidence for an examole.

Russ 2000|11.8.07 @ 4:49PM|#

46% of wrongful convictions, not 46% of trials involving a jailhouse snitch.

I'll admit the numbers by themselves don;t mean a whole lot, but on the other hand we can't be sure that the other trials involving a jailhouse snitch won't turn out to be wrongful convictions.

Robert|11.8.07 @ 7:02PM|#

"Remember back during the recall and special election, when we thought Arnold might just be something better than California's past governors and not a shit sandwich?"

Being a shit sandwich still doesn't explain the vetoes.

|11.9.07 @ 12:37AM|#

California has far more people than the next two states. You want to look at rates.

150 to 1,500 is a horrible estimate. A difference by a factor of ten is hardy accurate.

|11.9.07 @ 8:53AM|#

Don't forget that he also signed the "micro-stamping" bill, which requires that all new firearms starting in 2010 (?) stamp the shell casing with a unique identifier.