California re-examines its three-strikes law

Jonathan T. Lovitt

08/22/1996

USA Today

FINAL

Page 11A

Jed Miller is serving 25 years to life in prison for stealing a beat-up pickup with

a couple of bicycles in the back.

When Judge Paul Teilh sentenced him in 1995, Teilh acknowledged that the

punishment was too harsh. But under California's ``three strikes'' law, he said,

there was no choice because Miller had two prior convictions, for a burglary and

a knife fight.

Now Miller is one of about 20,000 inmates who may be eligible for new

sentencing hearings because the state Supreme Court struck down a key feature

of the law.

Hailed as a panacea for keeping repeat offenders behind bars, the law has thrown

California courts into disarray and rekindled a nationwide debate over laws that

require judges to impose mandatory sentences.

Lawmakers, meanwhile, are battling over whether to fix the old law or write a

new one that could pass court scrutiny.

``This literally could be a tidal wave,'' says Larry Brown, president of the

California District Attorney Association.

The three-strikes legislation languished in committee for years. Then 12-year-old

Polly Klaas was abducted and brutally slain by a twice-convicted kidnapper who

had been paroled just months earlier.

Suddenly, the legislation was sailing through the Legislature on an emotional

crest.

The law requires a mandatory 25-years-to-life sentence for any defendant

convicted of two previous violent or ``serious'' felonies. It also doubles the

sentence for second offenses.

Miller, 36, walks with a limp because of the 1981 knife fight that brought his

first felony conviction. He was convicted again in 1987 when he took the time to

cook a chicken dinner and wash it down with a beer while burglarizing the home

of a prominent San Francisco judge. A trail of greasy fingerprints gave him

away.

His public defender, Charlie Gillan, says Miller was stunned by the truck-theft

sentence, and told the judge: ``I deserve to go to jail for this . . . but not for life. I

didn't kill Polly Klaas!''

In some courtrooms, judges and district attorneys openly rebelled against the

law.

One superior court judge in Contra Costa County decided he still had discretion

not to consider prior convictions. Prosecutors refused to take three-strikes cases

before him.

In San Bernardino County, an assistant district attorney was fired for refusing to

prosecute three-strikes cases.

Then, in a unanimous ruling two months ago, the state Supreme Court held that

the three-strikes law did not eliminate a judge's discretion in considering prior

convictions.

Now everyone's waiting for the results of an 11th-hour appeal filed by the San

Diego district attorney asking the court what to do with as many as 20,000

inmates already sentenced under the law.

A decision is expected by Sept. 18, but defense lawyers already are moving

forward on behalf of their clients.

They expect courts will have to let prisoners plead for more lenient sentences and

offer testimony from character witnesses -- a step that was scrapped in

three-strikes cases.

``I've got 8,000 of these cases, and we're going to review all 8,000 of them,'' says

Los Angeles public defender Michael Judge. He has set up a task force

marshaling nearly half of his 560 lawyers and dozens of paralegals and clerical

support.

Supporters credit the three-strikes law with a recent drop in violent crime. But

such crimes had peaked in California by 1991, three years before three strikes

became law.

Critics say the law has packed the courts and prisons with people guilty of

nonviolent crimes like marijuana possession, car theft and burglary.

A February report from the state Department of Corrections found that only 15%

of felons sentenced under the law were serving time for a violent crime; only 6%

were serving time for a serious crime. ``That means that as many as 80% of them

were sent away for things like petty theft,'' Judge says.

But the bottom line for California Gov. Pete Wilson, an ardent supporter of the

three-strikes law, is that ``you don't get sentenced for three strikes unless you

have committed a serious or violent offense at some point,'' spokesman Ron Low

says. ``We're talking about some of the most vicious criminals in the state.''

Police find themselves caught in the middle.

State prisons are overflowing with men and women serving longer sentences.

The Department of Corrections expects the prison population to rise from

136,000 in 1996 to more than 232,000 by 2000. Officials expect half of the

increase will be three-strikes inmates, and they will ask that 13 new prisons be

built by 2001.

The county jails, meanwhile, are full of inmates who, faced with possible life

sentences if they plead guilty, choose to to take their chances with a trial.

``What do they have to lose?'' says Los Angeles Sheriff Sherman Block. He says

more than 70% of his 19,000 inmates are awaiting trial. That's more than double

the number before three strikes became law.

The framers of California's three-strikes law have to take personal responsibility

for ``putting this poorly written piece of legislation on our doorstep,'' says Marc

Klaas, Polly's father and head of a program to protect children from criminals.

``Now the taxpayers are running a geriatric prison system housing aging petty

thieves.''

PHOTO,b/w,AP; PHOTO,b/w,Bob Riha Jr., USA TODAY ; PHOTO,b/w,Frank

Wiese,AP; Caption: Klaas: Her slaying led to landmark law Sentencing disparity:

Michael Judge, a public defender in Los Angeles, says a state report shows that

as many as 80% of three-strikes felons were 'sent away for things like petty theft.

' Los Angeles rally: From left, Hammer, Snoop Doggy Dogg and Tupac Shakur

campaign against the law last week.