Law Commons^™

California’S Capital Crisis Continues: Voter-Initiated Time Limit On Capital Appellate Review Upheld Under Improper Directive Interpretation, Stephanie Nathaniel

Golden Gate University Law Review

Part I begins with an overview of the separation of powers doctrine. Part II provides an overview of Proposition 66 and the California Supreme Court case that challenged its constitutionality. This section discusses Proposition 66’s statutory objective, the petitioners’ claim of unconstitutionality, the respondents’ claim about the initiative’s purpose, and the court’s separation of powers analysis. Part III discusses the state of California’s capital crisis by (1) examining the Briggs ruling’s effect on death-row inmates; (2) providing a brief background of California’s death-penalty system; and (3) evaluating the Briggs ruling in connection with the court’s duty to provide meaningful appellate …

Facts And Figures Concerning Executions In California, 1938-1962, Geroge E. Danielson

California Assembly

The purpose of this report is to present as much statistical material as is now available relating to those persons who have suffered the death penalty in California.

This study is prompted by the current debate on whether the California Legislature should enact a moratorium on the death penalty during the 1963 General Session. In making their judgments on that grave question the members of the Legislature need to, consider and evaluate all available factual information. Unfortunately we have observed that, except for the moral question, the discussion on all sides has been noted chiefly for an abundance of undocumented …

People V. Riser [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

In a capital murder prosecution, a trial court's grant of the prosecution's challenge to a juror, who stated that in no event would he vote for the death penalty, was not error.

Caritativo V. Teets [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

Writ of mandate would not issue to compel warden to institute proceedings to determine present sanity of defendant awaiting execution of death penalty after warden determined that there was not good reason to believe defendant was presently insane.

People V. Gilliam [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

Defendant's conviction of first degree murder and sentence of the death penalty were proper because there was no provocation for his conduct, and the circumstances showed an abandoned and malignant heart together with a consciousness of guilt.

People V. Thomas, Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

In murder case, the court did not have the authority to reduce defendant's death sentence to life imprisonment because defendant failed to show prejudicial error with respect to the sentencing order.