connect:         
JUDGE: LAWSUIT TO BLOCK EARLY INMATE RELEASES CAN CONTINUE
On September 1, a Sacramento judge rejected California AG Rob Bontaís attempt to throw out a lawsuit challenging the Newsom Administrationís scheme to grant early release to tens of thousands of prison inmates. The suit, brought by CJLF on behalf of crime victims and their families, argues that administrative regulations authorizing the inmate releases, adopted in 2021 by the CDCR, violate numerous state laws and ballot measures that specify when and how a prison inmate qualifies for credits to gain early release and when those credits may be used to advance a minimum eligible parole date. CJLF is seeking a writ of mandate to halt the releases. .........read more >>

CRIME & CONSEQUENCES BLOG
DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT CLAIM THAT PROP. 57 REDUCES RECIDIVISM
After the CDCR released a report in April suggesting that the number of inmates given early release in the year after enactment of Prop. 57, who were convicted of new crimes over the next three years, declined by 3%, CDCR Secretary Jeff Macomber said, "This is the first cohort of released people after the passage of Proposition 57, and it is encouraging to see that credit-earning opportunities, particularly in education-led programs, is having a positive impact to improve public safety." However, a careful review conducted by the CJLF found little evidence to support Macomber's claim. .........read more >>
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LIMITS ON CHALLENGES TO FEDERAL CONVICTIONS
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, clarified the limits on federal challenges to criminal convictions. At issue in this case, Jones v. Hendrix, was how the Court interprets a 1996 Act of Congress adopted to strictly limit federal court review of post-conviction claims. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act restricted the federal courts from considering more than one post-conviction petition from almost all convicted criminals, except where the defendant is demonstrably innocent based on newly discovered evidence or there is a constitutional change in the law which must be applied retroactively. The defendant in this case argued that Congress intended that the courts be allowed to interpret AEDPA to allow additional exceptions .........read more >>