Ernest DeWayne Jones v. Robert K. Wong

Filing 59

NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION for Hearing Evidentiary Hearing filed by Petitioner Ernest DeWayne Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Volume 1 Of Exhibits In Support of Motion For Evidentiary Hearing, # 2 Exhibit Volume 2 Of Exhibits In Support of Motion For Evidentiary Hearing, # 3 Exhibit Volume 3 Of Exhibits In Support of Motion For Evidentiary Hearing, # 4 Exhibit Volume 4 Of Exhibits In Support of Motion For Evidentiary Hearing, # 5 Exhibit Volume 5 Of Exhibits In Support of Motion For Evidentiary Hearing, # 6 Exhibit Volume 6 Of Exhibits In Support of Motion For Evidentiary Hearing)(Daniels, Patricia)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MICHAEL LAURENCE, State Bar No. 121854
PATRICIA DANIELS, State Bar No. 162868
CLIONA PLUNKETT, State Bar No. 256648
HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER
303 Second Street, Suite 400 South
San Francisco, California 94107
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Petitioner ERNEST DEWAYNE JONES

10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORINIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

13
14
15

ERNEST DEWAYNE JONES,
Petitioner,

Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC
DEATH PENALTY CASE

16
17
18
19
20

v.
VINCENT CULLEN, Warden of
California State Prison at San Quentin,
Respondent.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTARY HEARING
VOLUME 6

1
2

TAB

3

VOLUME 1

4

A

Declaration of Floyd Nelson

5

B

Declaration of Larry Williams

6

C

Declaration of Jimmy Camel

7

D

Declaration of James S. Thomson

8

E

Declaration of Quin Denvir

9

F

Declaration of David Baldus

10

G

Declaration of George Woodworth, Ph.D.

11

H

Declaration of Steven F. Shatz

12

I

Declaration of Gerald Uelman

13

J

Declaration of Donald H. Heller

K

Transcript of Proceedings From Troy Adam Ashmus v. Robert K. Wong, U.S. District
Court For The Northern District Of California, Case No. C93-0594 (Nov. 19, 2010)

L

Transcript of Proceedings From Troy Adam Ashmus v. Robert K. Wong, U.S. District
Court For The Northern District Of California, Case No. C93-0594 (Nov. 22, 2010)

M

Legislative History Material Regarding California's Death Penalty Statutes
(Part 1 of 4)

14
15
16
17
18
19

EXHIBIT

VOLUME 2
M

20

Legislative History Material Regarding California's Death Penalty Statutes
(Part 2 of 4)

21

VOLUME 3

22

M

23

Legislative History Material Regarding California's Death Penalty Statutes
(Part 3 of 4)

24

VOLUME 4

25

M

26
27

Legislative History Material Regarding California's Death Penalty Statutes
(Part 4 of 4)

VOLUME 5
N

Newspaper Articles Regarding California Death Penalty Statutes (Part 1 of 2)

28
i

1
2

TAB

3

VOLUME 6

4

N

EXHIBIT

Newspaper Articles Regarding California Death Penalty Statutes (Part 2 of 2)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ii

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MICHAEL LAURENCE, State Bar No. 121854
PATRICIA DANIELS, State Bar No. 162868
CLIONA PLUNKETT, State Bar No. 256648
HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER
303 Second Street, Suite 400 South
San Francisco, California 94107
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Petitioner ERNEST DEWAYNE JONES

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORINIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

13
14
15

ERNEST DEWAYNE JONES,

Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC

Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

16
17
18
19
20

v.
VINCENT CULLEN, Warden of
California State Prison at San Quentin,
Respondent.

21
22
23
24
25
26

EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTARY HEARING
VOLUME 6
EXHIBIT N
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES REGARDING CALIFORNIA DEATH PENALTY
STATUTES
(PART 2 OF 2)

27
28

Exhibit N
Page 1546

Exhibit N
Page 1547

Exhibit N
Page 1548

Exhibit N
Page 1549

Exhibit N
Page 1550

Exhibit N
Page 1551

Exhibit N
Page 1552

Exhibit N
Page 1553

Exhibit N
Page 1554

Exhibit N
Page 1555

Exhibit N
Page 1556

Exhibit N
Page 1557

Exhibit N
Page 1558

Exhibit N
Page 1559

Exhibit N
Page 1560

Exhibit N
Page 1561

Exhibit N
Page 1562

Exhibit N
Page 1563

Page 1

Copyright 1990 State Net(R), All Rights Reserved

California Journal

July 1, 1990
SECTION: Feature
LENGTH: 1602 words
HEADLINE: The death penalty in California - Closing in on the first execution
BYLINE: Rebecca LaVally;
Rebecca LaVally, former Sacramento bureau manager for Gannett News Service and United Press International, works
for the Senate Office of Research.
HIGHLIGHT:
After years of litigation and delay, California inches closer and closer to implementing its death-penalty law for the
first time in decades.
BODY:

Governor George Deukmejian, usually not a publicly passionate man, was livid during a hastily called news
conference a few hours before Robert Alton Harris had been scheduled for an escorted walk into San Quentin's gas
chamber.
Deukmejian told reporters that he and most of the state's other citizens were dismayed that the U.S. Supreme Court
had just refused to lift a judge's stay of the execution on grounds that Harris had had inadequate psychiatric assistance at
his trial.
"I know that I share with most Californians great disappointment and frustration," Deukmejian declared. Delaying
Harris' death would "only result in the denial of justice," he complained, branding the federal appellate system
"incompetent."

Exhibit N
Page 1564

The death penalty in California - Closing in on the first execution California Journal July 1, 1990

Page 2

The Republican governor was on safe ground in championing the execution of triple-murderer Harris under a law
that Deukmejian himself had carefully crafted while serving in the state Senate 13 years ago. His long campaign to send
convicts to their deaths has been consistently endorsed and aided by California voters, who paved the way for
Deukmejian to reconstitute the California Supreme Court in a conservative cast early in his second term.

Execution of California's first Death Row inmate since 1967 was just what most voters had in mind when they
dumped Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso from the high Court nearly
four years ago. A single issue dominated that historic revolt against the three appointees of Democratic Governor Jerry
Brown, himself a foe of capital punishment. Voters were infuriated and justices kept reversing death sentences.
In a shift that legal scholars are calling dramatic and remarkable, the state Supreme Court, now dominated by
Deukmejian appointees, has swung away from throwing out most death sentences to upholding most of them. And the
pace of review has quickened (see previous story).
Statistics say it all: Within two years of Bird's departure, the Court's rate of affirming capital cases moved from
third lowest among the 50 states to eighth highest. The Bird Court reversed 58 death sentences and upheld just four
during her decade on the bench. Under her successor, Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, the Court affirmed 64 of the 89
capital appeals it reviewed in just three years. Among the few who lost an appeal before the Bird Court was Robert
Alton Harris -- a fact the governor was quick to point out to reporters as evidence of the appropriateness of his death in
the gas chamber.
Deukmejian made capital punishment an issue in both of his successful gubernatorial campaigns, repeatedly
pledging to appoint "common sense judges."
In the aftermath of the purge of Bird, Grodin and Reynoso, he could mold the seven-member Court in his own
image. It went from a 5-2 liberal majority in 1986 to 5-2 conservative domination in March 1987.
"Rarely has a high Court undergone such a dramatic change in so short a time," wrote Gerald Uelmen, dean of the
Santa Clara University School of Law, in last November's Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review.
In a case-by-case comparison of the Bird and Lucas courts on death-penalty rulings, Uelmen concluded: "One is
haunted by the sensation that two remarkably different institutions are at work, and the animus driving these two
institutions is as different as night and day."
The Bird Court tended to resolve doubts in favor of reversing death sentences; the Lucas Court does not.
The new Court promptly struck down a controversial Bird Court ruling -- responsible by itself for a spate of
death-sentence reversals -- requiring that murderers be shown to have had "an intent to kill" before the death penalty
could be imposed.
Capital cases, most often involving first-degree murder, are elaborate. Separate phases determine guilt, whether
the crime qualifies for the death penalty and, finally, whether death will be imposed. In each phase, troubles and errors
can surface: the competence of the defense, the competence of a defendant to stand trial, jury selection, admissibility of

Exhibit N
Page 1565

The death penalty in California - Closing in on the first execution California Journal July 1, 1990

Page 3

evidence, jury instruction.
The Lucas Court has been more likely than the Bird Court to rule errors harmless, with no effect on the outcome of
a case, in upholding verdicts and penalties.
Deukmejian's 1977 law was enacted by the Legislature over Jerry Brown's veto and was expanded 15 months later
by voter approval of an initiative authored by ultra-conservative state Senator John Briggs, an Orange County
Republican.
Uelmen, who publicly supported Bird, Grodin and Reynoso in 1986, said the Bird Court, in dissecting ambiguities
in the Briggs initiative, sought to encourage prosecutors "to use the death-penalty law cautiously and selectively." The
Lucas Court, he wrote, "has rejected a supervisory role, and the number of new death judgments is spiraling upwards."
Says Briggs: "I used to get the hell beat out of me for drafting a bad initiative, but it wasn't a bad initiative. We had
some bad judges interpreting it. The judges that replaced (Bird, Grodin and Reynoso) agreed with the people and me,
and it's nice to be right, after all these years," said Briggs, who is now a lobbyist in Sacramento.
Others who fought the three justices are applauding the new Court's penchant for directing more convicted
murderers toward the gas chamber. Alameda County District Attorney John Meehan, who has studied the Bird Court's
decisions, says it dragged its feet in reviewing capital cases and would "reach" for reasons to overturn them.
"We had in California a death penalty that was almost a joke," recalls Meehan, former president of the California
District Attorneys Association, which targeted the three justices for defeat. "You'd do everything possible to have a
clean trial but, by that time, the California Supreme Court was looking for any basis to reverse it. The Bird Court
created law retroactively, causing cases to be reversed. It had a tremendous amount to do with their philosophical
beliefs about the death penalty itself. We found ourselves as prosecutors trying cases on what we thought the law might
be by the time it (the case) reached the California Supreme Court, which is an outrageous position."
Meehan says the Lucas Court has served justice by stepping up the pace of reviewing death cases, usually making
its decisions within four months of hearing oral arguments.
"They're hearing a heck of a lot more cases," Meehan said. "Sometimes, with the Bird Court, we had to wait over a
year for a decision to come down after oral arguments. There was a constant delay and lack of activity by the Bird
Court in even considering these cases. Many defendants were sitting over at San Quentin for years waiting for the
California Supreme Court ... You couldn't get the cases litigated. The Lucas Court, procedurally, has really turned it
around.
"It's the feeling among prosecutors that the Court is fulfilling its responsibilities as an appellate tribunal," Meehan
concludes of the Lucas Court.
But some defense attorneys suggest the new Court, mindful of voter sentiment in 1986, seems to sway with the
political wind.

Exhibit N
Page 1566

The death penalty in California - Closing in on the first execution California Journal July 1, 1990

Page 4

"Statistics are the black and white of it," says Elisabeth Semel, president of California Attorneys of Criminal
Justice, the state's largest group of criminal defense lawyers. "The meat of it is the lives of the various defendants
affected by this enormous swing the Court is taking."
She and others say errors ruled "harmless" by the Court could have enormous consequences for the men on Death
Row.
"What I'm concerned about, as I read these opinions, is my perception that ... substantial, compelling issues are
being dismissed in a rather perfunctory way by the Court," says Semel. "I'm concerned that efficiency, expediency ...
are going to become the bywords of the review of cases rather than questions of individualized justice."
San Francisco capital defense lawyer Robert Bryan, chairman of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death
Penalty, complains: "What scares me is ... the arbitrariness of the whole process. A lot of their decisions are shocking.
They recognize error, but they say, well, it's harmless."
Law school dean Uelmen contends the Court is "second guessing" the thoughts of jurors when it rules errors
harmless during the sensitive penalty phase -- the point at which jurors must decide whether to impose death. He calls
the trend "deeply disturbing."
Justices Lucas and Grodin, in remarks published in the Los Angeles Times more than a year before the 1986
election, revealed their stark differences in reviewing death cases for troublesome flaws. Their comments, in a larger
sense, define the difference between the courts of Jerry Brown and George Deukmejian.
Lucas said: "I personally do not apply 'tougher' standards to capital cases ... Assuming proper and careful attention
is given to reviewing these cases, the law should be uniformly and consistently applied without regard to the penalty
selected in a particular case."
Said Grodin: "... the very fact that the penalty is final and irreversible makes it necessary for each judge, no matter
what his or her personal views, to be exceedingly careful. Once the sentence is carried out, it is too late to correct
mistakes."
Rebecca LaVally, former Sacramento bureau manager for Gannett News Service and United Press International,
works for the Senate Office of Research
Art by Rob Wilson (Hourglass with electric chair inside)
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 1992

Exhibit N
Page 1567

SIMPSON ISN'T SEEN AS LIKELY CANDIDATE FOR DEATH SENTENCE
Daily News of Los Angeles (CA) - Sunday, July 24, 1994
Author: Beth Barrett Daily News Staff Writer
Wealthy, famous and well-represented people almost never end up on Death Row in the United States, and legal
analysts say O.J. Simpson would be an unlikely candidate for the death penalty even if he were convicted of killing his
ex-wife and her friend.
The District Attorney's Office has yet to decide whether to seek the death penalty in the Simpson case.
"No one (on Death Row) comes close to Simpson's prominence in terms of
dollars or stature. It's inconceivable to me he'd end up there," said Palmer Singleton, staff attorney for the Southern
Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, a nonprofit group that's represented dozens of prisoners condemned to death.
The District Attorney's Office will not decide for several weeks whether to seek the death penalty in the Simpson case,
and may wait until the trial, said Assistant District Attorney Frank Sundstedt, who makes the final decision on capital
cases after an eight-member committee considers penalty options.
"We haven't ruled out the death penalty. We haven't ruled out any penalty choice," Sundstedt said.
By law, Simpson first would have to be convicted of at least one count of first-degree - or premeditated - murder and a
special-circumstance allegation before he could face either of the state's most serious penalties, the gas chamber or
life in prison without parole.
The charges against Simpson include an allegation of at least one such special circumstance - multiple homicide.
Simpson was arraigned Friday in Superior Court on charges he murdered
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. He pleaded not guilty in Municipal Court after his arrest last month.
The district attorney's special circumstance committee hasn't considered the Simpson case because evidence still is
being evaluated, Sundstedt said. When the committee meets, Simpson's attorneys will have an opportunity to present
mitigating factors in the former football star's favor.
Simpson's case is similar to other potential death-penalty cases only in that it consists of "a whole panoply of factors,"
Sundstedt said.
Among the most significant factors is a defendant's history of violent crimes. Sundstedt said criminal history was a
leading consideration in about 45 cases where the death penalty was recommended over the past 18 months.
"Obviously where there is a documented history of criminal conduct, which is provable over a period of time, that's a
major, major factor," Sundstedt said.
Simpson does not have such a history of violent felonies.
In a domestic-violence case, prosecutors almost never seek a death judgment, said Henry Hall, a Los Angeles County
deputy public defender in the appellate division.
"Even if this wasn't O.J., my guess is it's not a death case," said Hall, who has handled similar cases, including double
murders where the district attorney did not seek the death penalty.
"He has no real criminal record, and there is a tendency for people to understand a little bit more the mind-set of
people involved in domestic violence. There also would be a tremendous public outcry to executing an icon," Hall said.

Exhibit N
Page 1568

Legal scholars who have studied the country's Death Row populations say it would be practically impossible for jurors
to ignore Simpson's larger-than- life public image.
Far more likely to be found on Death Row is the inmate who killed someone during a botched robbery attempt
following a life marred by convictions for other violent crimes, said Victor Streib, professor of law at Cleveland State
University and a researcher on the nation's Death Row population.
In part that's because the killing of strangers typically is treated as a more serious crime than the killing of intimates,
said Samuel Gross, a professor of law at the University of Michigan who has researched Death Row populations.
"Comparatively few people end up on Death Row for killing intimates," Gross said. "It's a reflection of general values in
society and what we fear most - that is the predatory criminals who go out looking for their victims. Crimes against
intimates are more easily understood or explained as expressions of rage, and most people know from experience
how easy it is to lose controls of one's emotions when dealing with relatives, children or spouses."
Simpson's case does not fit a typical domestic-violence pattern in that the second person he's charged with killing,
Goldman, was not a relative, Gross said.
Most men on Death Row have a long history of violence, with battery of their wives or lovers only a fraction of that
history, Streib said.
"The battering dimension, the spousal abuse, is usually so buried in the sea of other violence that it can't really be
concluded as a factor" in condemnations, Streib said. "Most men on Death Row have come from very
violent families, live in violent neighborhoods. The people I represented said everyone is violent, everyone carries a
gun, everyone batters their wives, everyone batters everyone else."
Overall, who ends up on Death Row can be a legal crap shoot because the death penalty is so infrequently imposed,
affecting a very small fraction of murder suspects, Streib said.
While there are about 24,000 homicides committed each year in the United States, only between 230 and 240 people
are sentenced to death, he said.
"It's not really a rational process," Streib said. "The best you can do is to stake out some things around the edges" of
who likely will be condemned.
As of April 20, there were 2,848 people on Death Row in the United States - 383 in California, according to Death
Row, U.S.A., a publication of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and
Educational Fund in New Y ork City.
More than 98 percent of the inmates on Death Row are male, the publication says.
Nearly 50 percent are white, nearly 40 percent African-American and the remaining 10 percent are a mix of racial
groups, the publication says.
Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by 37 states under new constitutional guidelines, 232 people have
been executed, the report says.
California, which uses the gas chamber or lethal injection, executed Robert A. Harris in 1992 and David Mason in 1993.
Critics of the way the death penalty is administered cite a disproportionate number of African-American inmates who
have been executed in cases where the victims were white.
Since 1976, 80 African-American defendants have been executed for killing white people while in only one case was a
white defendant executed for killing an African-American person, according to the figures compiled by the NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The disparity in those defendant-victim racial combinations has prompted legal challenges in some parts of the country.
President Clinton's crime bill now before Congress would allow minorities - such as Simpson, who is African-American

Exhibit N
Page 1569

- to use statistics in arguing there is a bias in the application of the death penalty along racial lines, said Ronald Tabak,
chairman of the death penalty committee of the American Bar Association's section of individual rights and
responsibilities in New York City.
"If the background (for the crime) is the same, the likelihood of a person being sentenced to Death Row is far likelier if
the person is black and the victim is white than the reverse," Tabak said.
Esther Lardent, chief consultant to the American Bar Association's Postconviction Death Penalty Representation
Project in Washington, D.C., said, ''In that sense, O.J. Simpson is typical of people on Death Row in that he is AfricanAmerican and he's accused of murdering two white people."
But, legal experts said the equation in this case is far different
because the African-American accused is O.J. Simpson.
"While Simpson is in the demographic category, other factors so dwarf that fact that about all you can say is race
matters - but you can't say how it matters, because it's O.J. Simpson," Gross said.
Lardent said the public wants to believe Simpson is innocent, a presumption that is supposed to be universal, but
frequently is not.
"I think it's interesting that for an anonymous black man charged with this kind of crime, it's very easy for a jury to be
tainted by racial stereotypes," Lardent said. "Here you have someone people like, who are supportive, who don't
believe he did it."
Further, Streib said in weighing Simpson's life, a jury likely would find too much good to recommend ending it.
"In many cases, it's hard to get any good things into the record," Streib said. "I've had cases where mothers wouldn't
come to court to testify for their sons. In Simpson's case, he'll have character witnesses who are wonderful people,
and he's done many good things as well."
Special circumstances that can draw the death penalty in California include multiple murders, lying in wait for a victim,
or when the crime is particularly heinous, atrocious or cruel.
In general, the odds of ending up on Death Row increase with the number of victims - increasing measurably from one
to two victims, Gross said.
In California, the special circumstance of "lying in wait" recently was expanded under a 1993 state Supreme Court
ruling, People vs. Ceja, to include murderers who conceal their purpose, not just their person, said John Shepard Wiley
Jr. a former federal prosecutor and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
In the majority of death imposition cases, the convicted - in addition to being relatively poor, anonymous, poorly
educated and having a prior record of violence - are under-represented, legal scholars said.
"The truth is, in the preliminary hearing alone Simpson's gotten three times the judicial consideration that most accused
would from the point they were indicted through their appeal," Singleton said. "His situation couldn't be more different
from most capital defendants."
The ABA's Postconviction Death Penalty Representation Project found that when a panel of lawyers was given only the
facts surrounding a number of potential death penalty cases it was unable to predict accurately who among the
accused had been sentenced to death.
The only factor that stood out in deciding the issue was the number and quality of the defendant's attorneys, Lardent
said.
"If the defendant has good lawyers and lots of resources, they can find a lot of information on good character, or they
might find evidence of diminished capacity or a lack of impulse control or fetal alcohol syndrome," Lardent said. "The
person with funds also can pay for experts to examine witnesses, to testify about his or her psychiatric states.
Otherwise, the jury can end up deciding without all the information. We've had numerous horror stories regarding
attorneys in which significant issues weren't raised at trial."

Exhibit N
Page 1570

Simpson has a criminal defense team that legal experts say is unprecedented - headed by Los Angeles attorney
Robert Shapiro, with support
from nationally recognized lawyers, F. Lee Bailey and Alan M. Dershowitz, and Santa Clara University Law School
Dean Gerald Uelmen, Johnnie Cochran Jr. and others.
He also has access to some of the best forensics experts in the country.
By contrast, many defendants are isolated in jail until their arraignment when a public defender is assigned to them,
Singleton said.
Deputy public defender Hall said his clients don't have access to the same resources Simpson does, in that the extent
of their forensics and legal representation is determined by the court.
"The biggest difference is the ease and speed with which things are done (for Simpson)," Hall said. "It's not to say
(public defenders) are less
qualified. It's just that his money gives him more options versus what the court lets us do."
Edition: Valley
Section: NEWS
Page: N1
Index Terms: PENALTY DEATH ROW ; INMATE ; PROFILE ; O.J. SIMPSON ; POPULATION ; STATISTIC ;
ETHNIC ; BLACK ; LAWYER ; REACTION ; CALIFORNIA ; US ; MURDER ; TRIAL
Record Number: 9401310166
Copyright (c) 1994 Daily News of Los Angeles

Exhibit N
Page 1571

Exhibit N
Page 1572

Page 1

Copyright 1995 Metropolitan News Company
Metropolitan News Enterprise (Los Angeles, California)
September 27, 1995, Wednesday
SECTION: Pg. 9
LENGTH: 501 words
HEADLINE: Wilson Signs Bill Allowing Death Penalty For Murdering Carjackers
BYLINE: By PAMELA MARTINEAU, Staff Writer
DATELINE: SACRAMENTO
BODY: Taking time out from his presidential campaign, Gov. Pete Wilson signed legislation yesterday that would
allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty for carjackers who commit murder during a theft.
Saying the bill "sends an unmistakable message to gang bangers," Wilson signed SB 32, by Democratic state Sen.
Steve Peace, of Chula Vista.
"I can think of nothing that makes less sense...than killing someone for their automobile," Wilson said during a bill
signing ceremony in his office at the state Capitol.
"Criminals need to understand, if they commit this kind of crime, they will pay for it with their lives,' Wilson
added.
Flanked by members of law enforcement groups and victims' family members, Wilson also called on federal
lawmakers to reform the nation's habeas corpus laws, saying the laws "make a mockery of the death penalty."
"It is time for members of both parties in Washington to get real and get to work to remove the kind of federal
barriers to see that justice gets done," Wilson said in a halting voice still recovering from throat surgery last April.
"There's no purpose in expanding the death penalty if the federal government continues to stand by idly as the
endless maze of appeals and delays minimizes its enforcement," Wilson added in a written statement.
"Old age shouldn't be the leading cause of death on death row," the statement continued.
SB 32 also adds the killing of a juror to the list of special circumstances allowing the use of the death penalty.
Murders of judges and witnesses already are special circumstance killings punishable by death.
The bill will take effect Jan. 1, 1996, but because it amends an initiative statute, it must be submitted to the voters
for final approval in March 1996.
Another bill that would have made carjackings a capital offense failed to pass the Assembly last year. Wilson
claimed that the new Republican majority in the lower house allowed Peace's measure to pass.

Exhibit N
Page 1573

Page 2
Wilson Signs Bill Allowing Death Penalty For Murdering Carjackers Metropolitan News Enterprise (Los Angeles,
California) September 27, 1995, Wednesday
Mary Broderick, executive director of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, criticized the expanded use of the
death penalty.
"We think it's unfortunate that both the Legislature and the governor have expanded the death penalty in this way,"
Broderick said. "They already have the ability in appropriate cases to bring a death penalty case against a person
accused of this type of offense. We feel that the Legislature has, in essence, wasted a lot of time just to make some
political gain out of a high profile type of crime."
Broderick also criticized Wilson's call for habeas corpus reform, saying political leaders have promulgated a
"myth" that habeas corpus laws need to be reformed.
"If there is a need for reform it's with the abuses that stem from racism in the system, prosecutorial misconduct and
police misconduct," Broderick said.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations, in the City of Los Angeles, there were 3,600 carjackings in
1991. By 1992, the number of carjackings in that city had nearly doubled to 6,297.
LOAD-DATE: October 20, 1995

Exhibit N
Page 1574

Page 1

Copyright 1995 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
Fresno Bee (California)
September 27, 1995 Wednesday, HOME EDITION
SECTION: TELEGRAPH, Pg. A3
LENGTH: 263 words
HEADLINE: Death penalty bill for carjack killings signed by governor;
Legislation won't take effect unless approved by voters in 1996 primary.
BYLINE: Jon Matthews Bee C, Apitol Bureau
DATELINE: SACRAMENTO
BODY:
Gov. Wilson on Tuesday signed legislation to extend the death penalty to murder committed during a carjacking.
The action, which came at a Capitol ceremony, was the first in a series of bill-signings planned for this week by the
governor.
The carjacking bill was given final approval by the Legislature earlier this month. It will not take effect unless
approved by the state's voters in the March 1996 primary election.
'Reasonable limit'
The measure would allow the death penalty -- or life imprisonment without possibility of parole -- to be imposed
specifically for murder during the commission of a carjacking. In addition, it would allow the same punishments for
those who murder a juror in retaliation for official actions or to prevent a juror from acting.
Wilson also urged Congress to enact a "reasonable limit" to the legal appeals that can be filed by death-row
inmates.
Message to gangs
Decrying carjack-related killings, Wilson said the legislation would send an "unmistakable message" to criminal
gang members and other potential offenders.
"They need to understand that if they commit this kind of crime, they will pay for it with their own life.
"It is an act of cowardice, but if that does not shame them -- and clearly it does not -- then they need to know that it
will cost them their own lives," the governor declared.

Exhibit N
Page 1575

Page 2
Death penalty bill for carjack killings signed by governor;Legislation won't take effect unless approved by voters in
1996 primary. Fresno Bee (California) September 27, 1995 Wednesday,
As he signed the legislation, Wilson was flanked by law-enforcement officials, legislators and Pamela Brewer, who
was the fiance of a man who died three days after being shot in a 1993 Sacramento carjacking.
LOAD-DATE: September 28, 1995

Exhibit N
Page 1576

Page 1

Copyright 1995 The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times
All Rights Reserved
Los Angeles Times

September 28, 1995, Thursday, Valley Edition
SECTION: Part A; Page 3
LENGTH: 660 words
HEADLINE: DRIVE-BY MEASURE SIGNED;
LAW ENFORCEMENT: GOV. WILSON OKS BILL THAT COULD MAKE SUCH SHOOTINGS A CAPITAL
CRIME IF VICTIMS DIE. VOTERS MUST APPROVE CHANGE.
BYLINE: By JOHN SCHWADA, TIMES STAFF WRITER
BODY:
Gov. Pete Wilson, moving to recharge his flagging presidential campaign by emphasizing a strong anti-crime stand,
signed legislation Wednesday that could set the stage for drive-by shooters to receive the death penalty if their victims
die.
"Hanging is too good" for drive-by shooters, a truculent Wilson said at a bill-signing ceremony in Van Nuys where
he was surrounded by police officers, community leaders and crime victims, including two who survived the Sept. 16
drive-by shooting at Popeye's Fried Chicken restaurant in Reseda.
Wilson also reacted testily Wednesday when reporters asked if his GOP presidential nomination bid was on the
ropes.
"It'd be nice if those covering this would spend more time on the issues, less on inside baseball," the governor said,
while refusing to provide his own characterization of the fortunes of his latest political bid.
That campaign has in recent days been hamstrung by financial difficulties, staff resignations and continuing signs
that California Republicans are not enthused that their party leader wants to go to Washington.
Against this backdrop of sagging prospects, Wilson on Wednesday rehashed his anti-crime record in Sacramento
and pulled out the stops to describe his contempt for drive-by shooters.
Wilson signed legislation that lays the foundation for amending the state's 1978 death penalty law to add fatal
drive-by shootings to the list of capital crimes. Nineteen types of crimes are now punishable by the death penalty, but
voters must approve any expansion.
State Sen. Ruben Ayala (D-Chino), author of the drive-by shooting law, said he expects voters to approve the death

Exhibit N
Page 1577

Page 2
DRIVE-BY MEASURE SIGNED;LAW ENFORCEMENT: GOV. WILSON OKS BILL THAT COULD MAKE
SUCH SHOOTINGS A CAPITAL CRIME IF VICTIMS DIE. VOTERS MUST APPROVE CHANGE. Los Angeles
Times September 28, 1995, Thursday,
penalty expansion in the statewide election next March.
"We're going to enact tougher laws and speak to these animals who have become so brutal that they callously
disregard human life. We'll speak to them in the only language they understand," Wilson said as prepared to sign the
drive-by shooting law.
"They have issued a death warrant in random fashion to decent, innocent people and, by God, we'll issue a death
warrant to them. We will not tolerate this law of the jungle."
Wilson made his remarks at the LAPD's Van Nuys Division police station. He was joined there by Ayala, LAPD
Chief Willie L. Williams and two survivors of the Popeye's shooting, Henry Hagwood and Brian Henderson, both of
Tarzana.
Still wearing bandages, Hagwood and Henderson, who were eating at the restaurant when injured, thanked Wilson
for signing the legislation. "I'm hoping it'll bring justice to our community," said Hagwood, a Bullock's employee who
was shot in the neck.
Daniel Mejia, 22, of Reseda, an alleged gang member, has been arrested in connection with the shooting and
charged with murder. The shooting resulted in the death of Samuel Barrios, a 16-year-old gardener who police say was
associated with a rival street gang. Barrios' sister and cousin were in the audience Wednesday, applauding Wilson's
stand.
Mejia is being held in lieu of $2.6-million bail. Police expect to make other arrests in the shooting.
Williams also praised the drive-by shooting measure as another useful tool to fight crime.
Wilson used Wednesday's signing ceremony to expand on his anti-crime record, including his proposal to let
taxpayers nationwide elect to have 1% of their federal taxes be used for crime-fighting efforts in their own communities.
If the plan were enacted, it could generate up to $6.5 billion annually, or five times as much tax revenue as the
"so-called Clinton crime bill," Wilson said, referring to 1994 legislation backed by the President to provide grants to
local jurisdictions to hire up to 100,000 officers.
Wilson grew angry when asked if there was any way to characterize his presidential bid as anything other than
disastrous. Wilson said that there was but then refused to elaborate, electing instead to walk away from the microphones
and disappear into the Van Nuys Police Station.
GRAPHIC: Photo, Gov. Wilson, flanked by survivors of drive-by shooting, hands signed copy of bill to LAPD Chief
Willie L. Williams. ; Photo, In a ceremony in Van Nuys, Wilson signs legislation that would add fatal drive-by
shootings to the list of capital crimes, if voters approve. ; Photo, Gov. Wilson talks with relatives of Samuel Barrios, a
16-year-old who was killed in the drive-by shooting at Popeye's restaurant in Reseda. BORIS YARO / Los Angeles
Times
LOAD-DATE: September 29, 1995

Exhibit N
Page 1578

Exhibit N
Page 1579

Exhibit N
Page 1580

Exhibit N
Page 1581

Exhibit N
Page 1582

Exhibit N
Page 1583

Page 1

Copyright 1996 The Chronicle Publishing Co.
The San Francisco Chronicle

MARCH 24, 1996, SUNDAY, SUNDAY EDITION
SECTION: ;Pg. 6/Z1
LENGTH: 2256 words
HEADLINE: STATE PROPOSITIONS AT A GLANCE
BODY:
PROPOSITIONS AT A GLANCE
.
PROPOSITION 192
A $ 2 billion bond measure that would provide more than $ 1 billion to strengthen 1,100 small bridges, overpasses,
on-ramps and off-ramps around the state against future earthquakes. It also contains $ 650 million to begin
earthquake-proofing work on Bay Area toll bridges.
* ARGUMENTS FOR: Passage of the bond would improve the safety of state highways, giving them a better
chance of withstanding future earthquakes. It also would free up $ 2 billion in highway construction money for other
highway projects.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Projects paid for out of bond funds would be exempted from state environmental
laws. No money is contained in the measure for mass transit. Toll bridge revenue, rather than bond funds, is the
appropriate source to repair toll bridges.
* SUPPORTERS: Governor Wilson; California Chamber of Commerce.
* OPPONENTS: Planning and Conservation League.
* FISCAL IMPACT: Assuming an interest rate of 5.5%, the cost would be about $ 3.4 billion over 25 years.
.
PROPOSITION 193
Would exempt from reassessment homes and up to $ 1 million in real property transferred from grandparents to
grandchildren whose parents are deceased. Current law exempts from reassessment real property transferred from
parents to their children.

Exhibit N
Page 1584

Page 2
STATE PROPOSITIONS AT A GLANCE The San Francisco Chronicle MARCH 24, 1996, SUNDAY, SUNDAY
EDITION
-- ARGUMENTS FOR: A glitch in current law is corrected in which property transferred from grandparents to
grandchildren whose parents are dead is reassessed, usually leading to increased property taxes.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Property tax inequities created by Proposition 13 are perpetuated.
* SUPPORTERS: California Tax Reform Association; Senior Legislature.
* OPPONENTS: San Jose lawyer Gary Wesley.
* FISCAL IMPACT: Overall fiscal impact would be minor -- about $ 1 million a year after several years.
.
PROPOSITION 194
Seeks to remove one of the perceived impediments to the state approved ''joint venture'' program that allows
prisoners to work for private employers by denying inmates unemployment insurance when they lose their jobs because
they are released from prison.
* ARGUMENTS FOR: Unemployment benefits for inmates are a disincentive for businesses to participate in the
program; inmates should not be entitled to unemployment benefits simply because they are released from prison.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Unemployment insurance is paid for by private employers at no cost to taxpayers.
Under the joint venture program, employers are entitled to below-market rents, a 10% tax credit and do not have to pay
health and dental benefits for inmate labor.
* SUPPORTERS: State Senate Republican Leader Rob Hurtt of Garden Grove wrote the measure.
* OPPONENTS: The California Labor Federation; the Friends Committee on Legislation, a group affiliated with
the Quaker church.
* FISCAL IMPACT: Overall impact likely to be minor. Greater participation in the program could result in some
increased revenue for the state.
.
PROPOSITION 195
Makes murder during a carjacking and murder of a juror new special circumstances, juries can return upon
conviction of a defendant, requiring a sentence of either death or life without possibility of parole.
* ARGUMENTS FOR: Strengthens California's death penalty law.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Preserves existing death penalty law.
* SUPPORTERS: The Legislature voted overwhelmingly to put Prop. 195 on the ballot. Those in favor tend to be
death penalty supporters.
* OPPONENTS: Those opposed generally oppose capital punishment.
* FISCAL IMPACT: The legislative analyst concluded it will have minimal impact on the criminal justice system
because most murders during a carjacking can already be prosecuted as murder during a robbery, and law enforcement
officials cannot recall a case where a juror was murdered.

Exhibit N
Page 1585

Page 3
STATE PROPOSITIONS AT A GLANCE The San Francisco Chronicle MARCH 24, 1996, SUNDAY, SUNDAY
EDITION
.
PROPOSITION 196
Makes murder during a drive-by shooting a special circumstance.
* ARGUMENTS FOR: Puts drive-by shooters on notice that they will be subject to the strongest penalty that the
state can impose.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Preserves existing law and avoids costs and constitutional challenges which would
arrise from an expanded death penalty.
* SUPPORTERS: The Legislature voted overwhelmingly to put Prop. 196 on the ballot. Those in favor tend to be
death penalty supporters.
* OPPONENTS: Those opposed generally oppose capital punishment.
* FISCAL IMPACT: The legislative analyst concluded its potential impact is unclear because it is unknown how
many drive-by shootings would be prosecuted as capital crimes that are not already covered by some other special
circumstance.
.
PROPOSITION 197
Would repeal the mountain lion's status as a specially protected mammal and permit governmental agencies and
landowners to kill mountain lions imminently threatening public health, safety or livestock. It would require the state
Fish and Game Commission to manage lions as it manages mammals that are not rare, endangered or threatened and
require the Department of Fish and Game to implement a mountain lion management plan that ''promotes health, safety,
livestock (and) property protection.''
-- ARGUMENTS FOR: Lions have increased. People, livestock, other mammals, endangered species and pets are
in serious jeopardy.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: The gun lobby is using the horrible death of a Northern California mother to fool
voters into legalizing the trophy hunting of mountain lions.
* SUPPORTERS: California Sheriffs' Association, State Association of Counties, National Rifle Association,
California Farm Bureau Association, California Cattlemen's Association, California Forestry Association.
* OPPONENTS: California State Park Rangers' Association, Sierra Club, Mountain Lion Foundation, Humane
Society of the United States, Bay Area Open Space Council, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of California
Parks.
* FISCAL IMPACT: Authorizes up to $ 250,000 for each of the next three years and $ 100,000 annually thereafter
until 2020 to prepare and carry out a lion management plan. The money will come from the state's Habitat Conservation
Fund. The measure also will authorize an additional $ 250,000 a year to administer public safety and information
programs related to mountain lions.
.
PROPOSITION 198

Exhibit N
Page 1586

Page 4
STATE PROPOSITIONS AT A GLANCE The San Francisco Chronicle MARCH 24, 1996, SUNDAY, SUNDAY
EDITION
Would alter California's current primary election system. Instead of getting a single-party ballot, voters would
receive a ballot listing all candidates for each office.The candidates with the most votes from each of the state's eight
officially recognized parties would then advance to the November election.
* ARGUMENTS FOR: Proponents see the measure as a way of increasing voter participation and getting
candidates to appeal to a broader base of the electorate, including the state's 1.5 million independent voters
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Opponents say it would invite electoral mischief and weaken the political parties.
* SUPPORTERS: Former state Senator Becky Morgan; Eugene C. Lee, former director, Institute of Governmental
Studies at UC Berkeley, and Dan Stanford, former chariman, California Fair Political Practices Commission.
* OPPONENTS: California Republican Party Chairman John Herrington and former California Democratic Party
Chair Bill Press.
* FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal overall impact on the state; counties could realize some minor savings in preparing
fewer ballots.
.
PROPOSITION 199
Would end rent-control on mobile homes.
* ARGUMENTS FOR: Mobile home park owners claim that rent control is bad for taxpayers because it requires a
costly bureaucracy to regulate it.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Tenant groups claim the initiative is aimed at enriching mobile home park owners
and that rent increases would drive widows, widowers and senior citizens on fixed incomes from their homes.
* SUPPORTERS: Western Mobilehome Park Owners Association, Mobilehome Park Owners Alliance.
* GROUPS AGAINST: Golden State Mobilehome Owners League, California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
* FISCAL IMPACT: Local agencies with rent control laws would see increased costs to administer the phase-out
of rent control. Later savings statewide probably would total at least several million dollars annually.
.
PROPOSITION 200
Would create a no-fault system of auto insurance by requiring insurers to compensate their own customers for
injuries suffered in auto accidents, regardless of who was at fault.
-- ARGUMENTS FOR: Money saved by eliminating lawyers from the compensation process would help reduce
insurance premiums. An accident victim would get paid even if the other driver did not have insurance or other assets.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: There is no guarantee that rates would go down. A victim could not sue even reckless
drivers unless they were drunk or committing a felony, so compensation for any injuries would be limited.
* SUPPORTERS: Jennifer Frank, director of Voter Revolt to Cut Insurance Rates; Jim Conran, executive director,
Consumer First; Regene Mitchell, president, Consumer Federation of California, Harvey Rosenfield, author of
Proposition 103.

Exhibit N
Page 1587

Page 5
STATE PROPOSITIONS AT A GLANCE The San Francisco Chronicle MARCH 24, 1996, SUNDAY, SUNDAY
EDITION
* OPPONENTS: Wendell Phillips, president, California Council of Police and Sheriffs; J. J. Hannigan, former
commissioner of the Highway Patrol.
* FISCAL IMPACT: Major annual savings to state and local governments in emergency health costs, reduced
claims, and health insurance costs but major annual revenue losses in vehicle registrations, gross premium taxes.
Administrative costs also would increase: $ 15 million to implement the law and about $ 10 million annually thereafter.
.
PROPOSITION 201
Would make losers pay winners' legal fees and expenses in shareholder lawsuits against companies for
securities-law violations. At the start of a suit, shareholders would have to post a bond equal to the company's estimated
costs unless they owned more than 5 percent of the company. -- ARGUMENTS FOR: Groundless lawsuits would be
discouraged, freeing companies with volatile stock prices from exorbitant legal costs. Plaintiffs with strong cases could
recover more money because their legal expenses would be paid by companies found guilty.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: ShareHolders with legitimate complaints would not sue because they could not afford
to post the bond and then risk losing it if the case goes against them.
* SUPPORTERS: Governor Pete Wilson, Attorney General Daniel Lungren, Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle,
Thomas Proulx, co-founder of Intuit, California Republican Party, Association for California Tort Reform.
* OPPONENTS: Consumer Attorneys of California, Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California, Ralph
Nader, American Civil Liberties Union, California Democratic Council, California State Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.
* FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown, but probably not significant.
.
PROPOSITION 202
Would limit lawyers' fees to 15 percent of any settlement won within 60 days of an offer in personal-injury or
property-damage disputes. If an offer were rejected, the lawyers could receive their usual percentage of any winnings
beyond the proposed settlement.
* ARGUMENTS FOR: Lawyers would earn less in cases requiring little work, leaving more for their clients.
Settlements would be encouraged, and lawyers would have less incentive to file weak cases just to make a quick profit.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Lawyers would have to disclose virtually everything about their clients' cases
immediately, leaving them at a strategic disadvantage. The limited fees would not always cover lawyers' costs, so
consumers would have difficulty finding representation in legitimate cases.
* SUPPORTERS: Governor Pete Wilson, Attorney General Daniel Lungren, Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle,
Thomas Proulx, co-founder of Intuit, California Republican Party, Association for California Tort Reform.
* OPPONENTS: Consumer Attorneys of California, Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California, Ralph
Nader, American Civil Liberties Union, California Democratic Council, California State Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.
* FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown, but could affect the number and costs of cases filed against state and local
agencies.
.

Exhibit N
Page 1588

Page 6
STATE PROPOSITIONS AT A GLANCE The San Francisco Chronicle MARCH 24, 1996, SUNDAY, SUNDAY
EDITION
PROPOSITION 203
Would provide $ 3 billion to build or repair schools, with $ 2.025 billion earmarked for primary and secondary
schools and $ 975 million to be split among the university, state and community college systems.
* ARGUMENTS FOR: Will help meet school enrollment growth, make schools earthquake safe, wire classrooms
for computer technology and ease overcrowding.
* ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Bonds cost the state money in interest payments. Half the state budget goes to
schools already, mostly to bureaucrats.
* SUPPORTERS: Fran Packard, president, League of Women Voters of California; Lois Tinson, president,
California Teachers Association, and Kirk West, president, California Chamber of Commerce.
* OPPONENTS: Gail Lightfoot, chair, Libertarian Party of California; Ted Brown, member of the executive
committee, Libertarian Party of California, Pam Probst, teacher.
* FISCAL IMPACT: assuming an interest rate of 5.5%, the cost would be about $ 5.2 billion over 25 years.
LOAD-DATE: March 25, 1996

Exhibit N
Page 1589

DA's crowded death-row docket - COURTS: 16 defendants are targeted _ the most ever _
despite the decline in the county's murder rate.
The Orange County Register - Sunday, October 20, 1996
Author: STUART PFEIFER: The Orange County Register
The prosecutors who gather in the Orange County District Attorney's Office to decide which killers deserve the death
penalty have not changed. Neither, they say, has the way they make those grim decisions.
The county's murder rate dropped in 1995 and is on pace to decline again this year.
Yet at no time in the county's history have as many accused murderers faced the death penalty as the 16 now
targeted by the District Attorney's Office.
In the past 20 months, the district attorney's homicide unit has seen its load of death-penalty cases quadruple. It took
the county 10 years after the 1978 reinstatement of capital punishment to impose its first 16 death sentences. It could
take as little as one year to condemn the next 16.
The dramatic increase has overwhelmed the Public Defender's Office, which is now asking the county to hire private
attorneys to represent death-penalty defendants.
Michael Giannini, a supervising attorney in the Orange County Public Defender's Office and a veteran death-penalty
defense attorney, said he can't help but wonder what role politics plays in the increase.
"The DA being an elected official has to decide which cases are the worst of the worst and call for the death penalty,"
he said. "We in the defense think that number should be very, very few. The number of cases should be drastically
reduced."
Prosecutors say they seek death in only a fraction of eligible cases and only after a thorough review by the office's
"special-circumstances committee."
Still, they are at a loss to explain the increase.
"Is it just the luck of the draw? Suddenly it's coming up tails, and soon it will be coming up heads? I don't know," said
Assistant District Attorney John Conley. "We're praying this is a temporary situation."
The office no longer has the luxury of allowing prosecutors to try several murder cases before embarking on a deathpenalty case, perhaps the most important the office prosecutes.
Conley said the county simply may have seen an increasing number of gruesome, unmitigated killings that fit the "worst
of the worst" criteria.
There was Edward Charles III, a Fullerton gas-station mechanic who murdered his mother, father and brother, drove
their corpses to a high school parking lot and torched the car. He later tried to pin the killings on his grandfather in a
foiled plot from his jail cell.
There is Gerald Parker, who earlier this year was linked to the "bedroom basher" slayings in which five women and
one unborn child were beaten by an intruder in the late 1970s.
And Gunner Lindberg, accused of stabbing to death Thien Minh Ly as the college student glided along a Tustin High
School tennis court on in-line skates. Lindberg allegedly boasted of the killing in a letter to a friend, referring to the
victim with an ethnic slur and enclosing newspaper clippings about the crime.

Exhibit N
Page 1590

"They're some real bad cases," Conley said. "The good side is we're talking about a year, year and a half. Maybe it's
just a streak of extremely bad luck _ for the victims and the system."
A criminology professor said Conley may have reason to be optimistic.
"The numbers are not so big that we could not rule out just happenstance," said William Thompson, a professor at the
University of California, Irvine.
Giannini said he believes the increase also could be related to changes in state law that gave prosecutors more
special circumstances to make a killer eligible for death. Conley estimated that 60 percent of all Orange County
murders are eligible for the death penalty.
"They have gotten into this strange devil's bargain," Giannini said. "They pushed and pushed to get the special
circumstances added. Now they're sitting on a mound of cases and they feel obligated to go forward with the death
penalty."
Said Thompson, "The real issue is whether the number of truly heinous crimes has shot through the roof or whether the
standards for what we call a truly heinous crime have lowered."
Since the death penalty was reinstated in California in 1978, Orange County has sent 32 killers to death row. By the
end of 1997, that number could jump 50 percent.
In contrast, San Francisco County _ a community with a more liberal electorate and one-third the population of Orange
County _ has sentenced just four killers to death.
Only Los Angeles County and Alameda County have more killers awaiting execution. Neighboring San Diego County,
with a slightly larger population than Orange County, has sentenced 28 percent fewer people to death.
"It seems to undermine the legitimacy of the death penalty if it's applied in an arbitrary way," Thompson said. "The fact
that there's county-to-county variation does create an impression of arbitrariness."
In Orange County, juries have soundly supported the district attorney's decisions to seek the death penalty. In 15
death-penalty cases since 1992, juries have returned 14 death verdicts and only one of life in prison without parole.
"We are being more restrictive in seeking the death penalty than in prior years," Conley said. "It's borne out by the
statistic that jurors are usually agreeing with us."
Conley said he is confident that the office makes responsible decisions when deciding whether to seek death. Defense
attorneys attend committee meetings and have influenced the office not to seek death, he said.
"I don't think the committee is responsible for any of this," Conley said. "It's factors outside it. The very fact defense
attorneys always come, I believe, is evidence they don't feel they're wasting their time."
SIDEBAR AND LIST: Who's targeted for death penalty, and why
Sixteen people are facing the death penalty in Orange County Superior Court. Here is how they got there:
JOHN ABEL: Abel, 52, was serving a 52-year sentence for armed robbery in Folsom State Prison last year when
detectives linked him to a Jan. 4, 1991, slaying at a Tustin bank. Abel is accused of shooting to death Armando Miller,
26, after Miller had withdrawn $20,000 for business transactions involving his family's market in Orange. Investigators
had closed the case because of a lack of leads when an anonymous tip led them to Abel.
ERIC WAYNE BENNETT: An Orange County jury last month recommended death for Bennett, a Costa Mesa flooring
installer convicted of raping and murdering a 50-year-old Laguna Hills woman in 1994. The victim, Marie Evans Powell,
had hired Bennett to repair flooring in her home. Bennett, 25, denied any involvement in Powell's death, but DNA
evidence linked him to the crime. Superior Court Judge Kathleen O'Leary is scheduled to sentence Bennett on Dec. 13.
EDWARD CHARLES III: A third jury will be asked to decide next year whether Charles, 24, deserves to die for killing
his father, mother and younger brother, whose bodies were found inside a torched car in 1994. The jury that convicted

Exhibit N
Page 1591

him deadlocked on the penalty he should receive, favoring death, 11-1. A second jury recommended death, but the
verdict was overturned after it was revealed that a juror had sought spiritual guidance from a church deacon before
voting. A new trial on Charles ' penalty is scheduled to start March 25.
WILLIAM CLINTON CLARK: Clark was convicted of killing Kathy Lee, 47, during a 1991 robbery at a Comp USA
computer store in Fountain Valley. Lee was shot to death when she went to the store to pick up her son. In addition,
Clark, 42, has been convicted of ordering the 1994 slaying of Ardell Williams, a key w itness to the murder of Lee.
Jurors deadlocked on whether he should get the death penalty. He is next due back in court for a hearing Jan. 10.
JONATHAN D'ARCY: D'Arcy, 34, is serving as his own attorney as he stands trial on murder and torture charges
stemming from an attack on a bookkeeper at a Tustin janitorial services company. D'Arcy allegedly stormed into the
office Feb. 2, 1993, demanded money he believed he was owed, then doused Karin LaBorde with gasoline and set her
ablaze. LaBorde, 42, suffered burns over 98 percent of her body. D'Arcy's trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 12.
ROBERT MARK EDWARDS: Edwards, 35, is accused of sexually torturing and murdering Marjorie Deeble, 55, at her
Los Alamitos home in 1986. The case was unsolved until 1993, when Edwards was charged with a strikingly similar
slaying on Maui. Both cases involved older women whose attackers broke their noses, strangled them and tortured
them in a distinctive manner. Edwards says he was dating Deeble's daughter at the time of the slaying, and insists he
was selling LSD at a rock concert on the nigh t the crime occurred. His trial continues this week.
JOHN JOSEPH FAMALARO: Pictures of 23-year-old Denise Huber appeared on handbills and billboards throughout
Orange County after the Newport Beach waitress vanished while coming home from a rock concert June 3, 1991.
Three years later, authorities in Dewey, Ariz., found her body in a freezer stored inside a stolen rental truck next to
Famalaro's mother's home. Famalaro, 39, a house painter who once lived in Lake Forest, is accused of kidnapping,
sodomizing and bludgeoning Huber at a Laguna Hills warehouse. His trial, scheduled to begin Nov. 4, will likely be
postponed.
MARK RICHARD HILBUN: Hilbun arrived at the Dana Point post office May 6, 1993, with the word "psycho"
emblazoned on his shirt. The ex-postal worker, who had just stabbed to death his mother and her dog, shot and killed
letter carrier Charles Barbagallo and wounded a postal clerk. By the time Hilbun's 38-hour crime spree was over, six
more people were wounded by gunfire. Jurors quickly convicted him of the attacks in August but could not agree on
whether he was sane at the time. A date for th e new sanity phase will be set Nov. 15. If he is found sane, Hilbun, 42,
would face the death penalty.
GUNNER LINDBERG: Lindberg, 21, is charged with murder, robbery and a hate crime for allegedly stabbing to death
a young Vietnamese man on the tennis courts at Tustin High School on Jan. 28. Authorities say Thien Minh Ly, 24, a
former Vietnamese student leader at the University of California, Los Angeles, was in-line skating at the school when
Lindberg and another assailant attacked him, stabbing him repeatedly. Lindberg was arrested after he reportedly
bragged of the slaying in a letter to a friend. His trial is set to begin Nov. 4.
RUBEN SONNIE MARTINEZ: Martinez, 21, a gang member from Norwalk, is accused of killing Uwe Jurgens, 52, a
machine shop supervisor who interrupted a carjacking. Police said Martinez stole a produce truck in Santa Ana, then
crashed it in Brea. Jurgens stepped out of the machine shop to find Martinez trying to steal another car at gunpoint
from an employee. Police said Martinez told Jurgens, "Get out of here," then shot him in the back when he turned to
leave. His trial is set to start April 21.paralyzed. His trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 4.
GERALD PARKER: Authorities say Parker, 41, a convicted rapist, recently confessed to being the "bedroom basher,"
who bludgeoned six Orange County women in the late 1970s. Five of the victims died. The sixth, a pregnant woman
whose unborn child died as a result of the attack, had identified her husband as the assailant. Kevin Green spent 16
years in prison before DNA evidence and Parker's reported confession cleared him. Parker's six murder charges are
the most faced by an Orange County defenda nt since serial killer Randy Kraft was convicted of 16 slayings and
sentenced to die in 1989. Parker's trial is scheduled to begin April 28.
BILL CHARLES POYNOR: A convicted armed robber, Poynor is charged with the murder of a bank courier who
disappeared while delivering cash to automatic teller machines. The charred body of the courier, Robert T. Walsh, was
pulled from a burning car in the parking lot of an Orange strip mall April 16, 1995. Poynor, 52, who was on parole for a
string of bank robberies when he was arrested, also is charged with holding up banks, flower shops and movie
theaters around the time of Walsh's slaying.

Exhibit N
Page 1592

STEPHEN M. REDD: In the early 1970s, Redd was a decorated Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy. By the 1980s,
he had become a bank robber who wounded a La Habra police officer in a shootout. After he allegedly killed Alpha
Beta store manager Timothy E. McVeigh on July 18, 1994, he became Orange County's most notorious fugitive. Redd,
51, was arrested in March 1995 in San Francisco, where he had been living among the city's homeless. In an interview
after his arrest, Redd said he turned to cr ime because he felt rejected by society. "I feel free to rewrite the rules," he
said. Opening statements in his murder trial are expected to begin this week.
NOEL URIEL VARGAS JR.: Vargas, a 20-year-old gang member from Norwalk, is accused of killing 7-Eleven clerk
Nirmal Singh of Fullerton during a robbery. Authorities allege that Vargas and a 16-year-old accomplice entered the La
Habra convenience store at 3 a.m. Aug. 21, 1995. Videotape from a surveillance camera showed Singh, 44, a father
of three, begging for his life before one of the robbers shot him. One of the assailants then grabbed $50 from the
register before they fled.
ANTOINETTE YANCEY: Prosecutors say Yancey assassinated Ardell Williams, a crucial witness in the murder trial of
her boyfriend, William Clark. Yancey allegedly befriended Williams and earned her trust before killing her March 13,
1994. Yancey visited Clark at the Orange County Jail two hours after Williams was killed, authorities contend. Yancey,
30, the third woman ever to face the death penalty in Orange County, is on trial.
Caption: GRAPH:BLACK & WHITE PHOTO Caption: GRAPH: PENDING CASES - bar graph shows statistics from
1992-1996 GRAPH: MORE DEATH-PENALTY JUDGMENTS SOUGHT - Bar graph shows the number of pending OC
cases in which the death penalty is sought has jumped to 16 from 5 in January 1995 (GRAPHICS REPORTING BY
STUART PFEIFER) FAMALARO HILBUN VARGAS CLARK YANCEY BENNETT LINDBERG REDD CHARLES
PARKER Credit: The Orange County Register
Memo: NEWS FOCUS - SIDEBAR ATTACHED
Edition: MORNING
Section: METRO
Page: B01
Index Terms: STATISTICS ; LIST ; OC ; COURTS ; DEATH ; SENTENCE ; MURDER
Record Number: OCR709259
Copyright 1996 The Orange County Register

Exhibit N
Page 1593

Exhibit N
Page 1594

Exhibit N
Page 1595

Exhibit N
Page 1596

Page 1

Copyright 2000 State Net(R), All Rights Reserved

California Journal
February 1, 2000
SECTION: Feature
LENGTH: 11475 words
HEADLINE: Propositions
HIGHLIGHT:
Big-time Indian casinos are back, and so are school funding and campaign finance reform, among other hot topics.
BODY:
Proposition numbering: In 1983, the Legislature passed a law
requiring that ballot measures be numbered consecutively from
election to election, retroactive to the November 1982 election.
The law was designed to keep voters from confusing ballot
measures that may have shared the same proposition number in
different election cycles. The law as amended in 1996 provides
for a 10-year turnover, so the ballot odometer rolled back to
"Proposition 1" in November 1998. But legislators can circumvent
the numbering sequence by passing legislation that leapfrogs
their pet proposals to the top of the ballot: That's just what
happened this year with the Indian gaming initiative, which by
legislative decree became "Proposition 1A."
Proposition 1A
A constitutional amendment to allow Indian tribes to offer
Nevada-style gambling, including slot machines, blackjack and
other "house-banked" card games.
Background: For nearly a decade, California's tribal casinos

Exhibit N
Page 1597

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

have operated under a legal cloud. Federal laws allow tribes to
offer only those casino games that are legal in their state; in
California, that means the lottery, horse racing and some card
games. As a result, federal attorneys and former Governor Pete
Wilson moved to shut down the tribes' video slot machines,
contending they violated the state's constitutional ban on
Nevada-style gambling. Wilson also negotiated new tribal-state
compacts in 1998 that, among other requirements, placed strict
limits on the number and style of slot machines allowed in tribal
casinos. Outraged, the state's wealthy casino tribes poured $67
million into a 1998 campaign that resulted in overwhelming
passage of Proposition 5, which allowed tribes to expand their
video slot machine gambling. But less than a year later, the
state Supreme Court tossed out Proposition 5, ruling the
initiative violated the state constitution's ban on casino-style
gambling. Subsequently, nearly 60 tribes and Governor Gray Davis
negotiated new tribal-state compacts last year that allowed the
tribes to expand their current gambling. The compacts also
require gaming tribes to set aside $1.1 million of their revenues
annually for every tribe that doesn't operate a casino, as well
as provide unspecified funds for state regulation, impacts on
local governments and gambling addiction programs. Those
compacts, however, are contingent upon passage of Proposition 1A
to amend the state constitution. Unlike the record-breaking
spending that characterized Proposition 5, when wealthy tribes
squared off against equally well-heeled Nevada casinos in a
campaign where spending by both sides nearly topped $100 million,
the Proposition 1A campaign amounts to spare change. Tribes have
committed to spending whatever it takes to win but, in the first
round of fund raising, reported a modest $7.3 million in
contributions. They reported spending about $5.8 million, much of
it on television advertising already on the air. B contrast,
Proposition 1A's opponents, a small, under-funded group of church
members, citizen groups, and alcohol and gambling addiction
treatment professionals, raised and spent a total of $2,237.
That's total. Needless to say, the No on Proposition 1A side does
not expect to run any radio or TV advertising in the campaign.
Proposal: The exact number of slot machines that would be
allowed in California should Proposition 1A pass remains in
dispute. Tribes and the governor say it's a modest expansion,
leading to a potential total of about 43,000 slot machines. The
state's Legislative Analyst, meanwhile, has estimated there could
be more than 100,000 slot machines running in California tribal
casinos. Tribes also will be allowed to offer blackjack and other
"house-banked" card games that currently are considered illegal.
Arguments for: Proposition 1A means economic survival for
California Indians, supporters contend. That's the fundamental
message given by tribes in their second campaign to win voter
approval of tribal gaming. They say Proposition 1A will finally

Exhibit N
Page 1598

Page 2

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

clarify the legal rights of tribes to run casinos on tribal land.
Tribal spokepersons, such as Mark Macarro of the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Indians, who appears frequently in tribal TV campaign
ads, maintain that Indian gaming on tribal land is the only
viable option to keep tribal members off welfare. Tribes say that
Indian gaming provides 50,000 jobs for Indians and other
California residents while generating $120 million annually in
state and local taxes. Aside from jobs, they note, casino
revenues have enabled tribes to provide their members with better
health care, education and housing.
Arguments against: Proposition 1A will "trigger a massive
explosion" of legalized gambling in California, contends
Assemblyman Bruce Thompson (R-Fallbrook), a longtime gambling foe
who wrote one of the ballot arguments against the initiative. By
increasing the number of slot machines and by permitting
previously illegal blackjack card games, Thompson and other
opponents believe that Proposition 1A will usher in an unwelcome
era of gambling-related problems, such as addiction, underage
gambling and other negative impacts on local communities. And
they predict it will heighten efforts by cardrooms and horse
racing tracks to be allowed the same gambling rights as Indian
casinos. Another opponent, Leo McCarthy, former lieutenant
governor and Assembly speaker, warns that expanded gambling under
Proposition 1A will dramatically increase the number of gambling
addicts in California. Calling video slot machines the "crack
cocaine" of gambling, McCarthy said their proliferation can
quickly turn many problem gamblers into pathological gamblers. A
dramatic increase in problem gamblers will cost California
millions, he said, in social and economic costs of gambling, such
as bankruptcies, unemployment benefits, divorce and child abuse.
-- Claudia Buck
Proposition 12
Parks bond used to buy and maintain recreational, cultural
and natural areas.
Background: In the past quarter-century, voters have approved
about $1.9 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for
improved natural areas and the purchase and improvement of parks
and beaches -- passing a bond about every four years from 1960 to
1988. This, however, is the first statewide parks bond in the
last 10 years. Proposition 12 needs only a simple majority to
pass.
Proposal: This bond would provide funds to protect land
around lakes, rivers and streams, and the coast, build
neighborhood parks and reduce pollution. Every city and county
would get a part of this money. The amount of money each receives
is based on population (per capita). Some cities plan to use the
money to develop school parks or build trails, volleyball courts

Exhibit N
Page 1599

Page 3

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

and other recreational facilities in existing parks.
Arguments for: Proposition 12 has a list of supporters that
includes the California Taxpayers Association, the California
Chamber of Commerce, the California Association of Realtors, as
well as the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters.
Supporters say the measure is needed because parks around the
state have deteriorated, becoming unsafe and unusable. They say
Proposition 12 will provide substantial grants to communities to
renovate existing parks, as well as acquire open spaces in urban
areas.
Arguments against: Opponents, including state Senator Ray
Haynes (R-Riverside), Assemblyman Brett Granlund (R-Yucaipa) and
Lewis Uhler of the National Tax-Limitation Committee, say the
bond money provided by this proposition, if passed, will go
mostly to special interest groups and cities such as San
Francisco, which is looking to receive $45 million, and the Los
Angeles area, which is slated to receive $190 million. They say
the government doesn't need to acquire more land since California
has trouble paying for the upkeep of the parkland it already has.
-- Melissa Mikesell
Proposition 13
The Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection
Act will provide a $1.97 billion general obligation bond to
extend existing water supplies in California and to protect and
restore waterways.
Background: The last statewide water bond, for $995 million,
was approved by voters in 1996.
Proposal: This water bond would provide water to 8 million
Californians by increasing underground storage, and promoting
better conservation, recycling and water management. Bond money
also would be used to control pollution of lakes, rivers and the
California coast. The price tag for this initiative is $1.97
billion. Distribution of the money is population-based.
Arguments for: Supporters of the water bond include Governor
Gray Davis, the California Chamber of Commerce and the Nature
Conservancy as well as the bill's author, Assemblyman Mike
Machado (D-Stockton). Supporters say that Proposition 13 doesn't
just add more facilities -- from dams to reservoirs and canals -it also looks for solutions to meet the state's growing water
needs. Building dams, supporters say, has a devastating impact on
the environment. That is why supporters want to look for ways to
recycle, conserve and preserve the state's water supply and the
Delta's delicate ecosystem. The majority, $630 million, of the
bond money will be spent on managing water supply. Another $468
million will be used for watershed protection (all spending is
subject to appropriation by the Legislature). In addition to the
$1.97 billion included in the bond, California will also be

Exhibit N
Page 1600

Page 4

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

eligible to receive $600 million in federal matching funds.
Arguments against: Opponents include the Libertarian Party of
California and Dennis Schumpf, director of the Tahoe City Public
Utility District. They prefer that allocations of money for water
infrastructure upgrades come from current budgets, rather than
through expensive bonds. Opponents also argue that too much of
the money goes to pay for water treatment plants and watershed
programs in specified areas -- including the Central Valley and
Los Angeles. They point out that 60 percent of the bond money
will benefit Southern California. These improvements, they say,
should be paid for locally.
-- Melissa Mikesell
Proposition 14
California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public
Library Construction and Renovation Act of 2000.
Background: Cities and counties pay most of the cost of
building, operating and maintaining libraries. This bond provides
for the state to pick up part of the bill. Similar to 1988's
Proposition 85, also sponsored by legislators, Proposition 14
will assist cities in the construction or renovation of existing
libraries.
Proposal: This $350 million bond will help communities pay to
upgrade or build libraries. The state will pay 65 percent,
assuming the city or county can demonstrate its ability to pick
up 35 percent of construction and all maintenance and operating
costs. The minimum grant is $50,000 and the maximum is $20
million. Priority is given to cities and counties that offer
joint projects between schools and local libraries.
Arguments for: Many communities have outgrown their
libraries, but without state money, they are unable to meet the
needs of library patrons, say Senators Richard Rainey (R-Walnut
Creek) and Dede Alpert (D-San Diego), who both support the
proposition. They say local participation is important, and the
grant money won't be beyond the reach of local communities since
grants are available in small as well as large amounts. They hope
to encourage schools and libraries to work together, providing
after-school homework centers for students.
Arguments against: Since this bond would require cities or
counties to pay 35 percent of construction costs, only the
wealthiest communities will be able to afford the bond.
Opponents, such as state Senator Ray Haynes (R-Riverside), say
only those communities with surplus cash will be able to afford
renovation or construction -- but the entire state will have to
pay the bill.
-- Melissa Mikesell
Proposition 15

Exhibit N
Page 1601

Page 5

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

A statewide bond that would sponsor the construction of local
crime laboratories.
Background: California cities and counties operate 19 local
crime laboratories for collecting, analyzing and interpreting
crime scene evidence. Cities and counties pay for their own crime
laboratories through fees and fines collected from persons
convicted of certain offenses -- including drug and alcohol
violations.
Proposal: This measure would allow the state to sell $220
million in general obligation bonds for construction, renovation,
and infrastructure costs associated with these laboratories. Like
all general obligation bonds, there will be no increase in taxes
and the bonds will be paid back from the state's general fund.
Local governments can apply for grants from the state to build
local forensic labs. The local government will have to provide 10
percent of total project costs and agree to pay the ongoing
operation costs.
Arguments for: Since the money will be used to update crime
labs, supporters, such as Assemblymen Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys)
and Tom Torlakson (D-Martinez), U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein,
the State Sheriffs' Association and the California Professional
Firefighters, say this bond could help law enforcement agencies
solve crimes. New and updated labs, they say, will help speed up
the analysis of evidence because of improved equipment and
facilities -- including high-tech equipment used for examining
DNA, toxicology, blood typing, body fluids from sexual assaults,
drugs, ballistics, arson evidence and explosives. Supporters also
say that California's current facilities are out-of-date and
unable to process the volume of evidence brought in by law
enforcement.
Arguments against: The opposition to this measure comes from
the Libertarian Party, which contends the state should use
private labs rather than build new facilities at taxpayer
expense. Opponents say there are plenty of private companies that
provide the type of services, including DNA testing,
fingerprinting, handwriting analysis and audio and video
analysis, that the forensic crime labs proposed by this bond
would perform.
-- Melissa Mikesell
Proposition 16
This $50 million bond issue will provide funding to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for the purpose of designing and
constructing veterans' care homes in California.
Background: The state Department of Veterans Affairs operates
two residential homes for veterans, one in Yountville in Napa
County, the other in Barstow in San Bernardino County. These two
homes have enough beds for approximately 1,800 elderly or

Exhibit N
Page 1602

Page 6

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

disabled California veterans. No veterans' ballot initiative has
ever failed in the state.
Proposal: Authorizes the state to sell $50 million in general
obligation bonds to pay the state's share (35 percent) of
construction costs for new homes at Lancaster and Satiscoy, and
for the renovation of the state's 100-year-old veterans home at
Yountville.
Arguments for: Supporters, including state Senator Joe Dunn
(D-Garden Grove), the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign
Wars and American Association of Retired Persons, say this bond
is necessary to meet the needs of California's military men and
women.
Arguments against: The Libertarian Party of California
opposes this bond, arguing that the money to complete these new
facilities should come from the state's budget -- rather than
being paid for by costly bond measures.
-- Melissa Mikesell
Proposition 17
This proposition would modify the state Constitution to
permit nonprofit organizations to conduct raffles.
Background: The state Constitution requires that any change
to the lottery system be approved by the voters. Currently in
California, the only legal raffle is the California State
Lottery. All other raffles are illegal.
Proposal: This proposition would amend the Constitution to
allow private nonprofit groups to charge money to win a prize in
a lottery system, so long as 90 percent of the profits go to the
nonprofit organization. Some regulatory fees would be associated
with raffles.
Arguments for: Supporters, including the proposition's
author, state Senator Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz), and
Florence Green of the California Association of Non-Profits, say
the current law puts nonprofit organizations and law enforcement
in an awkward position. Since raffles are illegal, law
enforcement can shut down any lottery-style raffle. But few are
willing to stop charities from raising money for scholarships,
medicine and health care, parks and wildlife preserves,
libraries, food banks, religious groups -- even law enforcement
agencies. They say no commercial raffles would be allowed.
Arguments against: State Senator Dick Mountjoy (R-Arcadia)
and the Committee on Moral Concerns are among the opponents of
this proposition. They fear this legislation will allow phony
charities to make money on raffles. They say that if charitable
raffles are permitted, they should be limited -- especially as to
time and frequency.
-- Melissa Mikesell
Proposition 18

Exhibit N
Page 1603

Page 7

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

Changes the language of Penal Code section 190, which defines
the special circumstances under which first-degree murder is
punishable by either death or life imprisonment without parole.
Background: Typically first-degree murder is defined as
murder that is intentional or deliberate or that takes place
during certain other crimes. The sentencing is typically 25 years
to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. However,
under certain circumstances the sentencing for first degree
murder may be life imprisonment without parole. One circumstance
involves murder committed while "lying in wait." Court
interpretation, from the Rose Bird Supreme Court, of "lying in
wait" has led to prosecution only when the murder was committed
immediately upon the confrontation between the murderer and the
victim -- ruling out such interpretations as waiting for the
victim, capturing the victim, or transporting the victim before
committing the murder.
Proposal: This measure would change the language from "while
lying in wait," to "by means of lying in wait." This overcomes
the court's interpretation of "while lying in wait" as excluding
cases of kidnapping, and limited only to cases where the
criminal's goal was primarily to kill.
Arguments for: Supporters, including former Governor George
Deukmejian and Ventura County District Attorney Michael Bradbury,
say this proposition corrects an odd decision by the California
Supreme Court under former Chief Justice Rose Bird. They argue
that current case law allows a murderer who kidnaps with the
intent to kill to get a lesser sentence than a kidnapper who
kidnaps but doesn't intend to kill.
Arguments against: Opponents, including state Senator John
Vasconcellos (D-San Jose), say this proposition would only
increase the number of crimes punishable by death. They argue
that the death penalty hasn't been shown to deter crime, and
therefore shouldn't be extended to any further circumstances.
-- Melissa Mikesell
Proposition 19
Extends the sentence of life in prison without the
possibility of parole, for second-degree murder, to anyone who
murders a peace officer employed by the Bay Area Rapid Transit,
the University of California and the California State University
system.
Background: In 1998, voters approved Proposition 222, which
enhanced criminal sentences for persons convicted of murdering
police officers under specific circumstances. Later in 1998, the
Legislature passed a bill requiring any amendments to this
statute be subject to voter approval, which is why this amendment
is on the ballot. Existing law allows that punishment for murder
in the second degree of specified peace officers is life without

Exhibit N
Page 1604

Page 8

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

the possibility of parole if the crime occurs while the officer
is on duty, and if it is aggravated.
Proposal: This proposition would extend the stiffer sentence
of life in prison without the possibility of parole to anyone who
murders under the same circumstances a BART, UC or CSU peace
officer.
Arguments for: This measure merely asks voters to extend the
same protection that police officers have to BART, UC and CSU
peace officers. Since these peace officers investigate many of
the same crimes as do police officers, supporters, including
state Senator Richard Rainey (R-Walnut Creek), and President of
the BART Board of Directors, Thomas M. Blalock, think this
enhanced sentence should be extended.
Arguments against: The main opponent to this proposition is
the Libertarian Party of California, which argues the measure
represents an unwarranted expansion of the state's authority.
-- Melissa Mikesell
Proposition 20
Allocates part of state lottery revenues to be used for
purchasing instructional material in California classrooms.
Background: Since 1985, the state has operated the
California State Lottery. Fifty percent of revenues are returned
to players as prizes, at least 34 percent is allocated to public
education and a maximum of 16 percent can be used to administer
the lottery. The amount school districts receive is based on
student enrollment. The state currently provides schools almost
$600 million each year that must be spent on education materials
-- including textbooks, computer software and arts and crafts.
This equates to about $100 per student per year.
Proposal: Propostion 20 does not affect the total dollar
amount of the lottery funds allocated toward education. Rather,
it redistributes the education money, increasing the annual
amount of funds dedicated to instructional materials.
Arguments for: Supporters, including Assemblymembers Tony
Cardenas (D-Sylmar) and Nell Soto (D-Ontario), say this
proposition is necessary to provide schools with a continuous
flow of funding for textbooks and instructional materials.
Arguments against: Opponents, including Wayne Johnson of the
California Teachers Association, Sandy Clifton of the Association
of California School Administrators and Leslie DeMersseman of the
California School Boards Association, say Proposition 20 will
take away local control over spending decisions. While opponents
agree schools need more textbooks, they say the flow of money
from the lottery is too unstable and won't allow districts to
plan ahead.
-- Melissa Mikesell

Exhibit N
Page 1605

Page 9

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

Proposition 21
An initiative statute increasing penalties for juvenile and
gang-related crimes.
Background: California's overall crime rate has decreased the
past seven years. Juvenile crime also has dropped overall, though
arrests for violent juvenile offenses went up 60 percent between
1983 and 1998, in part because of increases in gang-related
crime. Two years ago, Republican Governor Pete Wilson, along with
several law enforcement organizations, tried passing legislation
to stiffen criminal penalties for violent juvenile offenders.
Democratic lawmakers rejected the plan, saying it went too far
and more should be done to prevent juveniles from committing
crimes rather than just locking them up. Thwarted by the
Legislature, Wilson and the bill's sponsors put their plan,
dubbed "The Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act," on
the ballot as Proposition 21. Last year, Democratic lawmakers
tried circumventing Proposition 21 by passing legislation that
included $11 million for programs to avert school violence and
juvenile crime and toughened some penalty provisions for youthful
offenders. Governor Gray Davis signed the legislation but vetoed
the appropriations, citing the $100 million he had already
included in the state budget for school violence prevention. A
court challenge last December by opponents of Proposition 21
resulted in some modifications to the ballot arguments by
proponents, such as language saying a juvenile convicted of a
brutal murder is likely to be released within three years under
the current system. That language was altered by Superior Court
Judge James T. Ford, along with some of the opposition's ballot
arguments. Ford toned down the claim by opponents that
Proposition 21 would "put kids in prisons with adult inmates,"
saying in those instances when juveniles are sentenced to adult
prisons, they are always housed in separate facilities.
Proposal: Proposition 21 requires juvenile offenders 14 years
and older accused of certain murder and sex offenses to be tried
in adult court, instead of juvenile court, and that certain
convicted juveniles serve in adult prisons instead of youth
authority institutions. It limits the discretion of probation
departments when determining whether a juvenile accused of
certain crimes should be held or released before appearing before
a judge. It bans the sealing or destroying of criminal records
for juveniles 14 years and older who are convicted of serious or
violent offenses. It adds two to 10 years onto sentences of gang
members, depending on their offense. It expands the "special
circumstances" under which a youth convicted of gang-related
murder can be eligible for the death penalty, expands the use of
wire taps against suspected gang members and requires anyone
convicted of a gang-related offense to register with local law
enforcement. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates a
one-time cost to the state of approximately $750 million if

Exhibit N
Page 1606

Page 10

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

Proposition 21 is adopted, and ongoing annual costs of $330
million. It estimates the one-time cost to local governments at
$200 million to $300 million and ongoing yearly costs ranging
from tens of millions to more than $100 million.
Arguments for: Supporters of Proposition 21 include former
Governor Pete Wilson, the California District Attorneys
Association, California State Sheriffs' Association, California
State Police Chiefs Association, seven crime victims'
organizations, Secretary of State Bill Jones and Insurance
Commissioner Charles Quackenbush. Supporters say tougher
sanctions are required to combat the problem of violent juvenile
crime, which has been increasing while adult crime has declined.
They also say that preventive measures, such as education, are
important, but won't be enough to combat the juvenile crime wave
some predict will occur due to a 33 percent increase in the
state's juvenile population over the next 15 years.
Arguments against: Opponents of Proposition 21 include the
American Civil Liberties Union, the California Teachers
Association, Catholic Conference of Bishops, League of Women
Voters of California, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice,
Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, Marc Klass, whose
daughter's murder helped push the adoption of California's "Three
Strikes" law, and the archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger
Mahony. They argue that the funds to implement Proposition 21
would be better spent on preventive measures targeting at-risk
youths and gang members. They say California already has tough
laws to combat gangs and youth crime, such as trying and
incarcerating 14-year-olds as adults in some circumstances. They
contend the measure will do nothing to keep kids out of gangs or
prevent school shootings.
-- Noel Brinkerhoff
Proposition 22
An initiative statute banning out-of-state gay marriages from
being recognized in California.
Background: Currently, California law does not allow couples
of the same sex to marry. It also provides that a legal marriage
occurring outside of California is valid within the state. Four
years ago, the issue of homosexual marriage became a hot topic
when Hawaii appeared to be on the verge of legalizing such
unions. Although that effort never succeeded, conservatives
around the country responded by passing legislation in Congress
and dozens of state Legislatures that allowed states to disregard
out-of-state same-sex marriages. In California, state Senator
William "Pete" Knight (R-Palmdale) tried unsuccessfully several
times to pass legislation that banned out-of-state gay marriages
before taking his cause directly to voters with Proposition 22,
dubbed "The Knight Initiative" by opponents.
Knight has insisted his effort is about preserving the

Exhibit N
Page 1607

Page 11

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

traditional form of marriage between men and women and that there
is no personal motivation behind his cause. However, Knight's
family has been a subject of discussion in the Proposition 22
debate. Knight has a son, David, who is gay, and the senator has
said that their relationship has been strained since David told
him four years ago about his homosexuality. Knight also had a gay
brother, John, who died of AIDS in 1996.
Last December, Vermont came close to making same-sex
marriages a reality when the state Supreme Court ruled that gay
and lesbian couples should be entitled to all the benefits that
married couples enjoy, although the court stopped short of
actually legalizing homosexual marriage. Both sides of the
Proposition 22 debate have used the Vermont decision to support
their arguments; proponents say it demonstrates the urgency for
California to pass the initiative and preserve the "traditional"
form of marriage; opponents say the court decision demonstrates
the growing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Last year,
the Legislature and Governor Gray Davis approved several gay
rights measures granting domestic partner benefits for state
employees, increasing criminal penalties for hate crimes against
homosexuals and banning harassment of gays and lesbians in public
schools.
Court action also took place on Proposition 22 after state
Attorney General Bill Lockyer -- a liberal who once served in the
Legislature -- changed the title of the measure from "Defense of
Marriage" to "Limit on Marriage." Lockyer said the change more
accurately described the measure's intentions. Supporters of
Proposition 22 challenged the modification in court, saying
Lockyer's action was prejudicial and would sway voters to oppose
it. Superior Court Judge James T. Ford, however, agreed with
Lockyer's justification for altering the title and left the
change intact.
Surveys have shown that a majority of Californians do not
support the concept of gay marriage. As for Proposition 22, most
polling has it topping 50 percent in support, with some surveys
showing a 20-point lead. Historically, however, initiatives
targeting homosexuals have enjoyed leads in pre-election polls,
only to lose on Election Day. Previous examples include Prop. 6
in 1978, the so-called "Briggs Initiative" that required the
firing of gay teachers, Prop. 64 in 1986, an initiative sponsored
by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche that sought the isolation and
quarantine of AIDS patients, and Prop. 102 in 1988, an initiative
sponsored by former Republican Congressman William Dannemeyer and
tax reformer Paul Gann that would have required doctors and blood
banks to report all AIDS cases to health officials, including
those not verified by medical testing.
Proposal: At 14 words, Proposition 22 is easily the shortest
ballot measure in recent memory. It simply reads: "Only marriage
between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Arguments for: Supporters of Proposition 22 include Senator

Exhibit N
Page 1608

Page 12

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

Knight, the Committee on Moral Concerns, Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, California Catholic Conference of Bishops,
plus 150 other churches and religious organizations, the
California Republican Party, GOP legislative leaders Assemblyman
Scott Baugh (R-Huntington Beach)and Senator Ross Johnson
(R-Irvine), and the Hispanic Business Roundtable. They argue that
the measure is designed to protect the traditional form of
marriage between men and women and ban legalized gay marriages in
another state from being recognized in California. They say it is
not meant as an attack on gays and lesbians, nor will it take
away any rights currently enjoyed by domestic partners.
Arguments against: Opponents of Proposition 22 include
various gay rights organizations, the American Civil Liberties
Union, the League of Women Voters, the California Teachers
Association, plus 20 other labor organizations, the California
Democratic Party, presidential candidates Al Gore and Bill
Bradley, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, U.S. Senators
Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Assembly Speaker Antonio
Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), Republican Congressman Tom Campbell
and approximately 100 religious leaders in California. They argue
that Proposition 22 is not about gay marriage, since current law
already forbids it, but about undermining the rights that gays
and lesbians have already won. A vote against the measure is a
vote against government interference in people's private lives,
opponents say, adding that opposing Proposition 22 will not
legalize gay marriage.
-- Noel Brinkerhoff
Proposition 23
An initiative to require ballots in federal and state races
to offer voters the option of voting for "none of the above."
Background: The percentage of voters turning up at the polls
over the last several decades, both in California and nationwide,
has been on a steady decline. The rise of negative campaigning
and the perception that most candidates are beholden to
corporate, rather than citizen interests, has made voters loathe
to exercise their voting privileges. Often as a statement of
rebellion, voters stay away from the polls rather than cast a
vote for what they consider unacceptable choices. This, coupled
with a growing number of registered voters who do not wish to
affiliate with either of the two major political parties -particularly pronounced among youth -- has given rise to a growing
number of people who wish to exercise a little defiance at the
polls. It is their belief that voters should have the opportunity
to show their disapproval for all candidate choices by casting a
vote for "none of the above." In 1975, Nevada passed a provision
allowing the "none" option and since that time, in four different
races, "none of the above" received more votes than either of the

Exhibit N
Page 1609

Page 13

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

candidates. Several years ago, an organization connected with
Ralph Nader tried to place a similar measure on the California
ballot, but failed to gather enough signatures. This time around,
with the backing of computer industry entrepreneur and Seagate
Technology founder Al Shugart, Proposition 23 was born. Shugart
previously made a political name for himself in 1996 when he
tried to run his dog, Ernest, as a candidate in the 17th
Congressional District to convey his frustration with the
political party system. Though ultimately blocked from doing so
by election officials, Shugart went on to found the Friends of
Ernest, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization to promote public
interest in politics.
Proposal: In all state and federal elections, California
voters would be given the option to cast a vote for "none of the
above" along with listed candidates. The "none" option would
apply to presidential, congressional, legislative and statewide
races in all elections. The measure would not apply to elections
for judges and local offices. The number of votes received for
"none of the above" would be tallied and reported but would not
impact election results. Candidates with the most votes, whether
listed on the ballot or as write-ins, would win election. Only
minor costs are expected to result from the measure's
implementation.
Arguments for: The measure's sponsor, Friends of Ernest
Political Action Committee, is the primary supporter of
Proposition 23. They argue that voters disenchanted with the
political process should be able to register their displeasure
with a slate of candidates. They view the opportunity to vote
"none of the above" as a way to express their dissatisfaction
with lackluster candidates and negative campaigning. It is their
contention that voting "none of the above" would send a message
to candidates that constituents want to see issue-oriented and
positive campaigning. They feel certain that more voters would
turn up at the polls if they could register their discontent.
Arguments against: In their ballot arguments against
Proposition 23, the Green Party argues that this measure only
gives voters a false sense of accomplishment. More meaningful,
they say, would be systemic changes to the political process.
They advocate allowing instant runoffs where voters rank their
vote choices or proportional representation, which requires a
lower threshold for candidates to win a race.
-- Kathleen Les
Proposition 24
The Case of the Missing Initiative
When does 25 come after 23? When the California Supreme Court
says it does. In early December, 1999, the state's high court
took the unusual step of removing Proposition 24 from the

Exhibit N
Page 1610

Page 14

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

statewide ballot. By a 5-2 vote, the court said the initiative,
which sought to link a legislative pay cut to a new system of
redrawing California's political boundaries, violated state
constitutional provisions mandating that the provisions of a law
deal with a single subject. The court's action was an ignominious
end to the GOP's intrigue-plagued attempt to block a
Democrat-controlled redistricting in California. Bakersfield
Republican Representative Bill Thomas spearheaded the Proposition
24 effort on behalf of his GOP colleagues in the House. He
stuffed a competing redistricting proposal being pushed by GOP
gadfly Ron Unz (see next section), and convinced state and
national party leaders to bankroll the slow-starting
signature-gathering process. Thanks to an 11th-hour direct mail
pitch, the initiative qualified, but within weeks it had been
challenged by, among others, state Superintendent of Public
Instruction Delaine Eastin. The high court agreed to hear the
case, and with a day to spare, struck down Proposition 24. It was
only the fifth time since the inception of the initiative process
that a proposition had been removed from the ballot. Though
another redistricting proposal is in the circulation pipeline for
the fall, gun-shy GOP leaders are leery of pumping another pile
of money into it, and the prospects of such an initiative
appearing on the November ballot are considered less than 50-50.
-- Steve Scott
Proposition 25
Campaign finance reform initiative to limit the size of
campaign contributions and require Internet disclosure of money
received.
Background: If there's one subject in which Californians have
plenty of voting experience, it is campaign finance reform. Since
1988, statewide election ballots have included no fewer than five
different measures seeking to limit the amount of money any one
person or group can give to political races. In most cases, these
measures have also sought to place voluntary limits on the amount
that can be spent on campaigns. Three of those five measures were
approved by voters, but in each case, the proposals ran afoul of
either the state or federal courts, which have tended to view
political contributions as a form of free speech. The most recent
attempt, 1996's Proposition 208, was stayed in early 1998 by the
federal courts, and is still hanging in legal limbo. The end
result: California is still one of six states that puts no limits
on the size of political contributions and the source of those
contributions in state races. Enter Ron Unz, the Silicon Valley
software magnate responsible for 1998's successful bilingual
education initiative, Proposition 227. Angered by a last-minute
infusion of money against 227, Unz chose campaign finance reform
as his next project. He hooked up with Tony Miller, one of the

Exhibit N
Page 1611

Page 15

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

architects of Proposition 208, and set about writing an
initiative that would pick through the legal minefield. Unz's
original strategy was to couple campaign finance reform with a
scheme to change the way new legislative and congressional
district lines are drawn. The link was designed to win the
support of Republican leaders, who were scrambling for a way to
have an impact in California's redistricting process in the wake
of their across-the-board defeats in 1998. Eventually, the GOP
establishment chose to back what became Proposition 24, the
redistricting initiative removed from the ballot by the state
Supreme Court. Undaunted, Unz pressed ahead with a stripped-down
measure, using his own money to help underwrite the
signature-gathering campaign.
Proposal: The central features of Proposition 25 are its
restrictions on the size of campaign contributions. These limits
-- $3,000 per individual for legislative and local races, and
$5,000 per individual for statewide contests -- are considerably
higher than those included in any of the previous reform
initiatives. Corporate contributions would be banned altogether.
The measure also proposes a schedule of voluntary campaign
spending limits for candidates. Candidates and ballot-initiative
campaigns that agree to the caps would be given broadcast
advertising credits underwritten by a $1 per taxpayer allocation
from the state general fund. Proposition 25 also proposes
immediate Internet disclosure of campaign contributions and the
immediate posting on the Internet of all campaign advertising -printed as well as broadcast. Statewide candidates and
initiatives would have to disclose the names of their top two
donors in campaign ads. Proposition 25 would also relax some of
the major donor reporting requirements by boosting from $10,000
to $100,000 the threshold needed to trigger a major-donor filing.
Arguments for: Supporters of Proposition 25 include Unz and
Miller, as well as Common Cause, the sponsors of many of the
state's past campaign-reform efforts. Also on board in support is
Arizona Senator John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate
who has made campaign reform the centerpiece of his campaign.
Backers say the state's political process is corrupted by
special-interest campaign contributions. Limiting the size of
these contributions, supporters contend, is the only way to curb
the influence of money in politics, and they argue the limits in
Proposition 25 are guaranteed to withstand court scrutiny. The
spending limit and advertising disclosure will, they maintain,
level the playing field between well-funded and under-funded
candidates, and will also lift the curtain behind which special
interests hide in initiative campaigns.
Arguments against: Opposing Proposition 25 is a coalition of
business, public employee groups and organized labor, including
the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Teachers
Association, and Service Employees International Union. Many of
these groups contribute to campaigns, mostly through political

Exhibit N
Page 1612

Page 16

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

action committees. Also opposing the measure is the League of
Women Voters, which opposes limits on initiative campaigns. They
argue that spending and contribution limits make it easier for
wealthy candidates to dominate the political process, since the
U.S. Supreme Court has said that individuals can spend as much of
their own money as they want on campaigns. Opponents say the
measure will create the same "soft money" loophole that currently
allows political parties to collect and spend tens of millions of
dollars, ostensibly for "voter outreach." They also contend the
measure amounts to a $55 million taxpayer subsidy to finance
political advertising.
-- Steve Scott
Proposition 26
An initiative to amend the state constitution to lower the
requirement for approving local school bonds from a two-thirds
majority to a simple majority -- 50 percent plus one vote.
Background: California public schools, from kindergarten
through community college, will need several billion dollars each
year for construction, modernization and renovation to keep pace
with booming enrollment and to repair time-worn facilities. The
state currently helps local governments pay for these items by
using bonds from the school facilities program. Bonds are like
long-term loans that help spread out payments over years. The
state often asks voters to approve bonds to build and maintain
schools throughout California. However, it takes the approval of
two-thirds of the voters to approve local school bonds.
California is one of four states with this requirement. Local
school districts have long objected to the super-majority
requirement because many school bond measures have failed to meet
the two-thirds vote required. Since 1986, 47 percent of school
bond measures failed to receive a super-majority. In 1993,
teachers' groups, school districts and the business community
joined state Senator Jack O'Connell, (D-San Luis Obispo), in
lobbying the Legislature to put the issue before voters. As a
result of their efforts the Legislature placed Proposition 170, a
constitutional amendment, on the November 1993 ballot. The
measure would have allowed a simple, rather than two-thirds
majority of voters, to approve bonds for schools when those bonds
raise property taxes above the 1 percent limit prescribed in
Proposition 13, which passed in 1978. Voters resoundingly
defeated Proposition 170 by 69 percent to 31 percent. The Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which led the campaign to defeat
the 1993 measure, out-raised opponents nearly two-to-one ($1.18
million to $633,500). The group has vowed to raise millions more
this year to defeat Proposition 26.
Proposal: Proposition 26 would amend the California
Constitution by changing the requirement for approving local

Exhibit N
Page 1613

Page 17

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

school bonds from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority -- 50
percent plus one vote. The measure would also require local
school bond measures to include a list of specific projects that
would be completed with bond funds. Districts would have to
submit to two independent audits of bond projects each year.
Audits would examine whether bond money was spent on school
facilities (and not other items like salaries or operating
expenses) and would determine if projects are completed on time
and within budget.
Arguments for: The California Teachers Association and
computer industry multimillionaire Reed Hastings have joined
forces to put the initiative on the ballot. The measure is also
supported by business and labor groups as well as the League of
Women Voters and the California Congress of Seniors. These groups
argue that any tax increases would be minimal. They contend that
a simple majority vote on bond measures would allow school
districts to obtain the benefits of local bond money and a better
chance to qualify for a share of funds from 1998's Proposition
1A, the voter-approved $9.2 billion statewide bond measure to
modernize and build schools. To be eligible for those funds,
schools must put up matching local funds, which they usually
obtain through bond proposals. Proponents say Proposition 26 will
provide needed funds for new school construction necessitated by
booming enrollment and smaller classes mandated by the state's
class-size reduction program. Funds also are needed for repairs
of aging or dilapidated school facilities and to provide schools
with intercoms, phones and other security devices to ensure
student safety.
Arguments against: Opponents of the measure, including the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, consider the two-thirds
requirement on local school bonds a fire wall against future tax
increases. Critics argue that if the measure passes, so will most
bond measures and Californians will see higher property taxes and
a crippling burden of bonded indebtedness. Opponents have charged
that property taxes could double as a result of the initiative,
therefore placing a heavy load on property owners whose tax money
pays off the bonds. Furthermore, opponents argue that the
accountability measures contained in the initiative are either
weak or duplicate existing laws. The Jarvis group also contends
that if the two-thirds requirement is rescinded for school bonds,
there will be attempts to do the same for parks and water
projects and other bond elections.
-- Emelyn Rodriguez
Proposition 27
An initiative statute permitting congressional candidates to
sign a voluntary pledge to limit their terms in office and making
these pledges a matter of public record on ballots and

Exhibit N
Page 1614

Page 18

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

voter-education materials.
Background: For the third time in a decade, advocates of term
limits for Congress members are going directly to voters. In
1992, voters passed Proposition 164 mandating a limit of three
terms for U.S. representatives and two terms for U.S. senators.
Supporters argued it was in their power to regulate congressional
term limits at the state level because the state bears the
responsibility of preparing ballot materials. But the U.S.
Supreme Court, ruling in an Arkansas case, determined that states
lacked authority over terms of federal officeholders. The ruling
effectively nullified California's measure as well. Then, two
years ago, Proposition 225 asked voters to call on their elected
officials to enact a federal constitutional amendment to cap
congressional terms. Similar measures passed in nine other
states, but these, too, failed to pass muster with the courts. A
new approach, since adopted in Colorado, Alaska and Idaho, takes
a less-incendiary tack. If Proposition 27 passes, California
would join these states in allowing congressional candidates to
sign a voluntary non-binding pledge to limit U.S representatives
to three two-year terms and U.S. senators to two six-year terms.
Candidates would be under no obligation to sign such a pledge,
but those who do could make their pledge public on voter
materials. With this information in hand, presumably voters
supporting term limits would make their candidate selections
accordingly.
Proposal: Federal law sets no limits on the number of terms
congressional members can serve. Under this measure, candidates
for Congress are offered the opportunity to sign a declaration
stating their intent to serve no more than six years as a U.S.
Representative or 12 years as a U.S. Senator. Candidates can
request the Secretary of State to include mention on election
materials stating whether or not they declared their intent to
limit their term in office. It is estimated that the cost to the
state and counties to implement the declaration statements would
be relatively minor.
Arguments for: Proposition 27 supporters include the
California Term Limit Coalition and U.S. Term Limits, the
nationwide advocacy group promoting congressional term limits.
Supporters point to what they see as success with legislative
term limits approved by voters in California and argue that
turnover in federal officeholders would produce a higher number
of citizen legislators with stronger ties to their local
communities. Voluntary term-limit pledges will, they say, give
voters a means for both knowing which candidates are willing to
minimize their years in office and provides a way for voters to
hold elected officials accountable to their pledge.
Arguments against: Ballot arguments against Proposition 27
have been filed by the Sacramento City Taxpayers' Rights League.
It is their contention that term limits will undercut the state's
ability to receive federal funding because the most senior

Exhibit N
Page 1615

Page 19

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

congressional members have the clout to direct money to their
states. They argue further that without long-term, experienced
lawmakers with sound working knowledge of the political system, a
knowledge vacuum emerges -- to be filled by lobbyists and special
interest groups who use the system to the disadvantage of the
average citizen. Voters always have the option of voting their
representatives out of office, say those who oppose the measure,
if indeed there is dissatisfaction with congressional
representatives.
-- Kathleen Les
Proposition 28
An initiative to repeal a cigarette tax imposed by
Proposition 10.
Background: Despite the millions that tobacco interests paid
trying to extinguish it, voters in November 1998 narrowly
approved Proposition 10, a measure imposing a 50-cents-per-pack
cigarette tax to fund early child-development programs. This year
the issue is revisited by Ned and John Roscoe, owners of one of
the nation's largest discount cigarette store chains, Cigarettes
Cheaper!
Proposal: This measure repeals the excise tax imposed on
cigarettes and other tobacco products by Proposition 10, passed
by voters in November 1998. It eliminates funding of early
childhood development and smoking prevention programs enacted by
Proposition 10. It also indirectly affects other programs funded
by existing tobacco taxes -- specifically health education,
research and breast cancer programs funded by Proposition 99 of
1988. And the measure would prohibit imposition of additional
surtaxes on the distribution of cigarettes or tobacco products
unless enacted by the state Legislature.
Arguments for: Supporters, including the California
Association of Retail Tobacconists, say they want to lift a heavy
tax burden on cigarette smokers, who they claim have been
unfairly discriminated against. They also contend the program is
fundamentally flawed, wastes taxpayer money and creates a huge
government bureaucracy. The repeal campaign argues that neither
county nor state officials oversee or control the spending to
ensure that funds will be spent effectively. They also point out
that since the passage of Proposition 10, hundreds of millions of
dollars have been collected but counties have not spent any of
the money.
Arguments against: Opponents of the measure include
actor/director Rob Reiner, who championed Propostion 10, the
American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association. These
critics say tobacco companies are attempting to put their profits
ahead of the interests of children and families. They argue that
tobacco companies are trying to thwart the will of voters by

Exhibit N
Page 1616

Page 20

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

repealing Proposition 10. If the measure passes, opponents say it
will slash more than $680 million a year from critical programs
that benefit children. These programs provide services such as
preschool education opportunities and child care, smoking
prevention aimed at pregnant women and parents of young children,
and health care for children including immunizations and
boosters. Backers of the cigarette tax say that counties have not
yet spent money because the initiative first required the
creation of decision-making panels to approve spending plans.
They say the initiative comes just as the first counties are
putting their Proposition 10 tax money into action.
-- Emelyn Rodriguez
Proposition 29
A referendum that would formally approve the so-called Pala
Compacts, tribal gaming agreements signed by former Governor Pete
Wilson and 11 tribes in 1998. The compacts, approved by the state
Legislature, place strict limits on both the type and the number
of gambling devices allowed each tribe.
Background: After 17 months of negotiations, former Governor
Pete Wilson reached agreement with the Pala Band of Mission
Indians in San Diego County on the first tribal-state compact in
California. Although written expressly for the Pala tribe, it was
intended as a "model compact" that could be adopted by the rest
of California's gaming tribes. Since 1988, federal law has
required all tribes running casinos nationwide to negotiate a
compact with their state government. But for nearly 10 years,
most of California's tribal casinos have operated without such an
agreement. The Pala Compacts were enacted after federal
authorities threatened to shut down some 13,000 existing video
slot machines at Indian casinos, contending they violated the
state constitution's ban on Nevada-style gambling machines. The
majority of the state's wealthy gaming tribes bitterly opposed
the Pala Compacts, saying they threatened tribes' economic
security by forcing them to install new types of gaming machines
that gamblers would not find acceptable. They also felt the Pala
Compacts, by requiring casino tribes to allow union elections
among reservation employees and to meet with local officials to
mitigate traffic and environmental concerns, interfered with
their sovereign rights as independent governments. Faced with
shutting down their existing machines and signing the unpalatable
Pala Compacts, the tribes subsequently launched a history-making,
near $100 million effort to qualify and pass Proposition 5 on the
November 1998 ballot. It passed but was later overturned by the
state Supreme Court. A revised version of that measure, now
renamed Proposition 1A, is currently on the ballot, along with
Proposition 29.
Proposal: The Pala Compacts would limit the total number of

Exhibit N
Page 1617

Page 21

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

video gaming machines operating in California tribal casinos to
no more than 19,900 statewide. Every tribe, whether it operates a
casino or not, would receive an initial allotment of 199
machines. Those choosing not to engage in casino gambling could
"sell" their allotment to a gaming tribe, thus enabling
non-casino tribes to reap financial benefits. No single tribe
would be allowed to run more than 975 gaming machines, fewer than
what some casino tribes currently own. Unlike the video slot
machines now available in California's tribal casinos, the Pala
Compact requires that tribes run a new lottery-style slot machine
that would have the look and feel of a conventional slot machine
but would operate as a lottery-style device, in order to comply
with the state constitution. The Pala Compacts also require
tribes to allow union elections among casino service workers and
require tribes to negotiate with local governments to mitigate
the traffic, public safety and health impacts of casinos. The
compacts also set the legal age for gambling in tribal casinos at
21, instead of 18 as currently allowed. The fate of Proposition
29 is directly linked to that of Proposition 1A on the ballot,
the measure to amend California's constitution to allow
blackjack, slot machines and other casino-style gambling on
Indian reservations. Proposition 1A would enact provisions agreed
to last September by Governor Gray Davis and nearly 60 California
tribes. If Proposition 1A passes, it would pre-empt and nullify
Proposition 29.
Arguments for: Without the limits on Indian gambling
contained in Proposition 29, supporters say that California is
destined to become "Las Vegas-by-the-Sea", with full-fledged
casino-style gambling available to its residents. Proposition
29's supporters include Art Croney, executive director of the
Committee on Moral Concerns; Harvey Chinn, state director of the
National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion; and Cheryl A.
Schmit, co-chair of Stand Up for California!. By allowing a
"modest" expansion of tribal gambling, they say Proposition 29
would enable tribes to maintain their economic security while
still meeting concerns of local communities. They say Proposition
29 preserves the rights of local residents and communities to
resolve negative impacts created by casinos, such as traffic
congestion, zoning issues, sanitation and pollution problems, as
well as ensure adequate law enforcement and fire protection.
Arguments against: Proposition 29 is no longer needed,
according to Richard Milanovich, tribal chairman of The Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, because the gambling
provisions it contains have been rendered moot by the compacts
signed by tribes and Governor Davis last year. Milanovich said
Proposition 29's strict limits would end the ability of tribes to
support their families and stay off welfare.
-- Claudia Buck

Exhibit N
Page 1618

Page 22

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

Propositions 30 and 31
Referendum to ratify the Fair Insurance Responsibility Act
and two laws passed by the Legislature that allow third-party
lawsuits in some insurance cases.
Background: To most Californians, a "Royal Globe" is what
Prince William uses for his geography lesson. But to insurance
companies, especially large automobile liability providers, the
phrase "Royal Globe" is frightening enough to make them spend
more than $50 million to insure it doesn't become part of the
state's legal lexicon. It refers to a 1979 state Supreme Court
decision (Royal Globe Insurance Co. vs. Superior Court) that
interpreted state law to allow accident victims the right to sue
the insurer of the person at fault if that company used unfair
claims practices -- deliberately withholding payments, needless
delays, etc. Over the next nine years, these bad-faith lawsuits
caused a substantial increase in auto-related litigation, a
development that companies say helped drive up the cost of car
insurance. In 1988, with its majority switching from more liberal
to more conservative, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier
decision and outlawed these third-party lawsuits. Since that
second ruling, California's civil litigation attorneys, who
routinely battle insurance companies in the high-stakes
Sacramento political wars, have lobbied the Legislature to
re-institute third-party lawsuits. With Republicans George
Deukmejian and Pete Wilson occupying the governor's office, the
efforts went nowhere. But the election of Democrat Gray Davis as
governor changed the political dynamic. In the summer of 1999,
the state Legislature approved Senate Bill 1237, which reinstated
third-party lawsuits. With the insurance and business communities
breathing down his neck, Davis asked the Legislature to hold the
bill up just before it was to be sent to his desk. Another
measure, Assembly Bill 1309, was crafted that narrowed the scope
of the original bill, and Davis signed the two legally
interconnected measures in October, ignoring an 11th-hour
advertising and lobbying campaign. Saying the legislation would
ultimately cost them more than $1 billion a year in additional
claims, a coalition of most of the big names in car insurance
Allstate, State Farm and 20th Century among them -- immediately
set about the process of qualifying referenda -- ballot measures
designed to strike down laws approved by the Legislature and
signed by the governor. Using techniques developed by
California's Indian tribes in their successful qualification of
1998's Proposition 5, the insurers organized a gargantuan
campaign of television advertising, direct mail and paid
signature-gatherers to collect the 419,260 signatures needed to
place the laws before the voters on the March ballot. They
succeeded with time to spare, at a cost of roughly $30 million.
Trial lawyers, the lobbying group which engineered the
Legislature's passage of the new laws, began organizing as well,

Exhibit N
Page 1619

Page 23

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

but lagged badly behind the insurers, who had already dumped $42
million into the campaign by the end of December.
Proposal: A "Yes" vote for Propositions 30 and 31 would
ratify the actions of the Legislature and the governor in
re-instituting third-party lawsuits. Proposition 30, the main
legislation, lets an individual or business file a third-party
lawsuit against an insurance company when a claimant is awarded
more than they asked the insurer for and the insurer unfairly
handles the claim. In cases where the damage award is under
$50,000, the cases could go to a new arbitration system set up by
the law. Proposition 31, which can only go into effect if
Proposition 30 passes, eliminates the ability of businesses to
sue other businesses, requires that property-damage suits can
only occur in auto cases, disallows certain types of emotional
distress, and restricts lawsuits in cases where arbitration is
chosen. In each case, the groups who put the proposition on the
ballot are asking for a "no" vote, while those defending the law
as passed by the Legislature ask for a "yes" vote.
Arguments for: The primary legislative supporters of the new
law, and the main supporters of a "yes" vote on Propositions 30
and 31, are the state's civil litigation trial lawyers, led by
their trade organization, the Consumer Attorneys of California.
Also backing the measure are Consumers Union (publishers of
Consumer Reports magazine), the California Congress of Seniors,
the state Nurses Association and Harvey Rosenfield, author of the
landmark 1988 insurance initiative, Proposition 103. Their cover
group is called Consumers and their Attorneys, Yes on the
Governor's Insurance Reforms. They contend that insurance
companies, especially the large out-of-state conglomerates
responsible for the referenda, routinely engage in unfair claims
practices -- deliberately delaying claims, sometimes for years.
The only way to hold these companies accountable, they argue, is
to let them be sued. Supporters (and Governor Gray Davis, who as
of this writing had taken no position on the referendum) dispute
claims by opponents that the new laws give drunk drivers license
to sue, insisting the law explicitly prohibits such lawsuits.
Supporters also say insurance industry projections of the impact
on premium costs are inflated, and note that one major in-state
carrier, Mercury, does not oppose the new laws.
Arguments against: The primary opponents of the new laws, and
the main financial backers of the ballot measures to overturn
them, are several of the larger car-insurance carriers operating
in the state -- Allstate, State Farm, Liberty Mutual Group, and
Farmers Insurance Group among them. They are joined by the
California Chamber of Commerce, the consumer group Voter Revolt,
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and the Civil Justice Association
of California. Their cover group is called Consumers Against
Fraud and Higher Insurance Costs. Opponents contend the frivolous
lawsuits produced by the new laws will drive up total insurance
costs in California by $1 billion a year, translating to premium

Exhibit N
Page 1620

Page 24

Propositions California Journal February 1, 2000

hikes averaging $200 to $300 a year. They contend the law isn't
needed since consumers can take their disputes to court or the
state Department of Insurance if they don't like the size of the
settlement. Citing an analysis by Mothers Against Drunk Driving,
they contend the new laws will let some drunk drivers sue
insurers, in cases where the drunk driver was at fault but nobody
was injured. They contend insurers by and large operate in good
faith and that the laws are the work of trial lawyers looking to
drum up more business.
-- Steve Scott
LOAD-DATE: February 8, 2000

Exhibit N
Page 1621

Page 25

Exhibit N
Page 1622

Exhibit N
Page 1623

Exhibit N
Page 1624

Exhibit N
Page 1625

Exhibit N
Page 1626

Exhibit N
Page 1627

Exhibit N
Page 1628

Exhibit N
Page 1629

Exhibit N
Page 1630

Exhibit N
Page 1631

Exhibit N
Page 1632

Exhibit N
Page 1633

Exhibit N
Page 1634

Exhibit N
Page 1635

Exhibit N
Page 1636

Exhibit N
Page 1637

Exhibit N
Page 1638

Exhibit N
Page 1639

Exhibit N
Page 1640

Exhibit N
Page 1641

Exhibit N
Page 1642

Exhibit N
Page 1643

Exhibit N
Page 1644

Exhibit N
Page 1645

Exhibit N
Page 1646

Exhibit N
Page 1647

Exhibit N
Page 1648

Exhibit N
Page 1649

Page 1

Copyright 2000 Times Mirror Company
Los Angeles Times

February 25, 2000, Friday, Home Edition
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 7; Op Ed Desk
LENGTH: 2200 words
SERIES: Reporters and editors for The Times interviewed the candidates in recent weeks. Last of three parts.
HEADLINE: COMMENTARY;
GARCETTI'S KEY THIRD-TERM GOAL: RAMPART SCANDAL CLEANUP
BYLINE: Garcetti was interviewed by Times staff writers Molly Selvin and, Tim Rutten
BODY:
On March 7, GIL GARCETTI faces two challengers in his quest for a third term as district attorney of Los Angeles
County. The 58-year-old Garcetti, a career prosecutor, was first elected in 1992. He led the office during the trials of
O.J. Simpson and Lyle and Eric Menendez and takes credit for major initiatives that have helped to cut crime
countywide. Garcetti was interviewed by Times staff writers Molly Selvin and Tim Rutten.
Question: Let's talk about the Rampart scandal. Is this the most distressing thing that's occurred?
Answer: It is. It is the most important case my office has ever handled since I've been the D.A. It is my obligation
now to get to the bottom of this, and I will, we will, be working closely with the LAPD. I think we will have a better
police department when we finish with this, because not only will officers be fired, but I think they will learn that it's
simply not worth it, because you are very likely to go to state prison.
Q: How do you respond to those who question your own deputies for having relied on the testimony of these
officers . . . in hundreds, dozens, thousands of cases perhaps?
A: Our role is to seek justice based within the law and the ethics that we have as prosecutors. But prosecutors are
human beings, they're not clairvoyant. When a police officer tells you that this is what happened, and there doesn't seem
to be any independent inconsistency of that other than a defendant saying that's not the way it happened, and you have
no other reason to disbelieve this officer, you haven't seen other cases where there's a doubt or a question or a gut
reaction, you're going to go forward.
Q: Is there anything that you feel you've learned from this about the necessity of additional skepticism regarding
police testimony? Any change you've adopted, things you've put in place, attitudes you're attempting to cultivate
through training? Because clearly, this could happen again.

Exhibit N
Page 1650

Page 2
COMMENTARY; GARCETTI'S KEY THIRD-TERM GOAL: RAMPART SCANDAL CLEANUP Los Angeles
Times February 25, 2000, Friday,
A: It could happen again. There have been some small changes. And some of those have been at our direction,
some have been, you're just a more aware prosecutor. I'm the one who does the final hiring, and I bring up this issue
about police officers and their testimony. And their fudging and their lying, prosecutors have to be aware of that. We
have an incredible training program that we didn't have some years ago. And then we finish training and I meet with
them all, for two or three hours, and this is one of the issues I bring up: when you have a doubt, when you have a
question. We talk about that when something hits me wrong, or I know this officer lied, or whatever, that's your
responsibility to know how to go forward. But most important, when you do have an officer who you believe is lying,
that has to be reported to the head deputy D.A. . We prosecuted officers for perjury. We're not talking about a bucketful
of officers, but we do that.
Q: Other than Mark Fuhrman, when was the last time an LAPD officer was prosecuted?
A: I can't answer that. I don't know about LAPD, but we just prosecuted the police chief of Hawaiian Gardens for
testifying in court, for perjury.
Q: If the LAPD had had an honest officer-involved shooting evaluation system, maybe it would have noticed the
bad shootings in Rampart. Same question for your office. If you had had the "roll-out" teams (a recently reactivated
program in which prosecutors go to the scenes of police shootings), if you guys had gone to Shatto Place--where two
apparently unarmed men were shot, one fatally, by police in 1996--would it have been different?
A: Certainly if we had gone to disgraced former Officer Rafael Perez, it would not have made a difference.
Q: How about Shatto?
A: I don't think so. Based on what I know, I can say categorically, in the Javier Francisco Ovando case in which
officers shot an unarmed man, planted a gun on him and perjured themselves to send him to prison , when they had two
police officers Perez and Nino Durden who said this is what happened, we had no other criminal evidence, the physical
evidence all corroborated what the officers said, and we didn't have any reason at that time to doubt the two officers. So
we show up, and there is nothing we're going to find.
I know, based on my experience, that the vast majority of officer-involved shootings are not close cases in terms of
being criminal conduct. Maybe bad tactics, judgment, whatever. But there is, based on the facts we're able to establish,
there's no criminality on the police officer's part. In an Ovando shooting, perhaps even the Shatto Place shooting, where
you have one bad shooting, is it worth it to have roll-out teams that maybe would have uncovered it? My answer would
be yes. It is worth it. We started this program again.
Q: You've been in office for eight years. Even the president of the United States doesn't serve three terms. Why
should voters reelect you again?
A: Both the experience and the wisdom that I have gained out of difficult experiences have made me a better
district attorney and a more effective district attorney and, with humility, a more respected district attorney. I believe I
can accomplish a lot more because of that. In my second term, I was a more effective D.A. than in the first term, and I
can even do better in the third term. There still is a lot to do. I really want to focus on juvenile crime. Juvenile crime to
me is where we can do more to prevent crime rather than simply react to the latest crime and prosecute it.
Q: What's your position on Proposition 21, on juvenile crime?
A: I'm neutral. Most of it I like. I don't like the continuing expansion of the death penalty. If we continue to expand
the death penalty, pretty soon all first-degree murderers are going to be special circumstance cases.
I think juvenile crime is so important right now. The system has ignored the first, second, even the third-time minor
offender. We kiss them off until he or she has committed a violent crime, and then we come down on them like a ton of

Exhibit N
Page 1651

Page 3
COMMENTARY; GARCETTI'S KEY THIRD-TERM GOAL: RAMPART SCANDAL CLEANUP Los Angeles
Times February 25, 2000, Friday,
bricks. There's a huge mental health problem with kids who are coming into the juvenile justice system, and everyone
kind of kisses that off. Why do we wait for them to physically mature? No one's taking care of the mental illness
problem until, again, they kill someone or rape someone, and then they're put in prison, and they're still not getting any
real help there.
I'm still answering your question about why I still have the passion about being district attorney. We really have to
do something about financial elder abuse, because you have a huge, vulnerable group of people there. It's over 900,000
people in the county of Los Angeles who are age 65 or older, and we're going to hit 950,000 by the end of this year or
next year. In the area of cyber-crime, we have one lawyer and three investigators assigned to it right now. We are the
first office in the nation, local prosecutor's office, that has this. And we prosecuted some cases. I will guarantee within a
couple years you're going to have 20 lawyers there. Cyber-crime is just taking off. And the vulnerability and what it
could mean to individuals, families and businesses is immense. And I want to be on the cutting edge of that. What we
continue to do with family violence: I'll take a fair amount of credit for the somewhat dramatic reduction in the number
of domestic homicide cases in L.A. We go into the bars and clubs where young people go and try to warn the women
about drug rape, because that's a huge problem in the community. And we try to tell the guys you may not be a street
thug, but you're a rapist, and you're going to go to prison for the rest of your life if you engage in drug rape. This is what
the D.A. should be doing. The last thing is in the area of hate crimes. Since I created the nation's first hate crime unit, it
has been hugely successful.
Q: Back to Rampart, do you think you ought to provide more information to the defense bar?
A: No. We have provided the defense with as much information as I think we can without compromising the
integrity of our investigation. We gave information to the public defender, and they can do whatever they want with
those cases. If you want to go seek a writ, that's our responsibility. I really don't want to compromise that investigation.
We're not talking about the extraordinarily large number of cases that has been printed. We're in reality talking about a
few hundred. It is my responsibility not only to hold the guilty accountable but to protect the innocent.
Q: How much of what occurred in Rampart was made possible because of the taint that attaches to the words "gang
membership?"
A: I don't know if I can answer that question. You had an officer who was by all accounts an excellent officer, who
at some point went 180 degrees. What made a cop go bad, I don't know. Is it money? Is it power? Is it just an evil streak
that comes through?
Q: Virtually everybody caught up in these injustices, though, were immigrants or children of immigrants; they
almost all have Latino surnames. They almost all were alleged to be members of gangs or associates of gangs. Did the
system accept the word of police officers against theirs more readily because of who they were?
A: The answer is no. I've never seen evidence of that. Does the system treat the kind of individual you described a
little harsher? Maybe. There is no perfect system of justice in the world. This is, I think, the best it gets. Are there going
to be mistakes? Absolutely. It's going to cut both ways. It's really hurtful, I think, when an innocent person is convicted
or pleads guilty or is forced into that position.
yet?

Q: Let's talk about the Belmont Learning Complex. What should the D.A.'s office be doing on this? Why no action

A: There has been plenty of action by our office. We have been working with LAUSD chief investigator Don
Mullinax for a very long time. We're not an investigative agency, we're a prosecutorial agency. So we have to rely 99%
of the time in our cases on an investigating agency, be it the police department or regulatory agency, to handle the
investigation. With Belmont, I can tell you we've been extremely active for a long time. We have at least five or six
people working full-time as a team on reviewing all of Belmont to determine, is there evidence, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that a crime is committed, first. Second, that a particular individual committed that crime. I want to prosecute

Exhibit N
Page 1652

Page 4
COMMENTARY; GARCETTI'S KEY THIRD-TERM GOAL: RAMPART SCANDAL CLEANUP Los Angeles
Times February 25, 2000, Friday,
that case because I was as outraged as everyone else about how much that has cost. And the kids who are suffering as a
result. But I also have to understand the ethics and the legal responsibilities I have. I don't prosecute people who are
dumb, who are incompetent, who are less than criminally negligent. When we're ready to move forward on something,
we'll move forward.
Q: Is there a sense of when that might be?
A: My guess is that this team that I just told you about will be working together for several months.
Q: Several months more?
A: And probably working longer than that. Will we have anything before that, in terms of criminal prosecution, I
don't want to speculate.
Q: How about the assignment of trial deputies? Is there any merit to allegations that internal politics and favoritism
somehow militate against having the strongest prosecutors in the toughest cases?
A: I rarely get involved directly or indirectly in the assignment of lawyers to cases. I do occasionally get involved.
And it's strictly on the basis of who is the best trial lawyer that we can put on this case who is available, who can handle
this particular case given the circumstances of the case, given the nature of the case, given the likely defendant and
defense lawyer in the case. We have to consider all of that, and do. Since I've been D.A., I have probably been directly
or indirectly involved in the assignment of half a dozen. All the others are done usually by the head deputy.
Q: Is there anything else you want to say?
A: I'm very proud of where we've come in eight years. We begin with the hiring of the deputies. I've changed the
diversity of our office, and I think it benefits everyone to have as much diversity as we have. The training that we had
was really shameful. I directed a change in that. We now have a full month of training to start off with. We're second to
none in the nation on training. They come back after six months for an additional three days. The computerization of
our office. That was a big undertaking, but everyone has a computer. The morale of the office, contrary to what my
opponents say, I think is extremely high. I easily won the plebiscite conducted last month among deputy district
attorneys here. Pay raises have been beyond anyone's expectations. I have fought for them. And they got parity. Even
my detractors, who said I'd never get it done, were amazed that we were able to get parity with the county counsel. And
the promotions. The promotions have been immense. Women and minorities have seen the change in the office. I'm
proud of that. Because our office now more closely resembles, I think, the community that it serves.
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Gil Garcetti PHOTOGRAPHER: GINA FERAZZI / Los Angeles Times
LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2000

Exhibit N
Page 1653

Page 1

Copyright 2000 Ventura County Star
Ventura County Star (California)
February 29, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: Editorials; Pg. B09
LENGTH: 1384 words
HEADLINE: Letters: Help our children
Vote for Prop. 18/Taxes won't be raised/Dumbfounded by stance/Don't be conned again/The Mikels buzz/Little know
deception
BYLINE: Polly Vlasic/Pete Kossoris/Victoria Myers/William Maple/Dorothy Drummond/Bill and Rose
Edwards/Elinor Gustafson
BODY:
Help our children
I am asking people to please vote for Proposition 26. My oldest child started school in 1979, when the effects of the
old Proposition 13 started to become apparent. As a frequent PTA volunteer, I saw with my own eyes, year by year, as
the schools went downhill.
Every year, there was less money, more students per teacher, less maintenance of buildings. My children's
education clearly was impacted.
It is time to stop that trend. Our children deserve an excellent education. Proposition 26 will help.
-- Polly Vlasic,
Thousand Oaks
Vote for Prop. 18
Re: your Feb. 22 editorial, "Cracking down on violent crime":
I have been a Ventura County deputy district attorney for 34 years and prosecuted major crimes and capital crimes
for 28 of those years. I proposed Proposition 18 as a result of the 1997 Diana Haun-Michael Dally trial where the
defendants were having an affair and plotted to kill Dally's wife, Sherrie. Haun lay in wait for her outside a Target store,
kidnapped her and beat her and stabbed her to death.
Because of some bizarre Rose Bird court decisions from the l980s, Haun could not be charged with a kidnap special
circumstance or found guilty of a lying-in-wait special circumstance, nor could her paramour be charged with a kidnap
special circumstance. That is despite the fact both kidnap and lying in wait are listed in the penal code as special

Exhibit N
Page 1654

Page 2
Letters: Help our childrenVote for Prop. 18/Taxes won't be raised/Dumbfounded by stance/Don't be conned again/The
Mikels buzz/Little know deception Ventura County Star (California) February
circumstances.
out.

Fortunately, both Haun and Dally are in prison for premeditated murder convictions and will probably never get

Proposition 18 will correct the tortured interpretations of the law these l980s decisions represent, as well as a
similar misinterpretation regarding the arson special circumstance.
Consequently, it was passed by huge bipartisan majorities: 66-2 in the Assembly and 28-6 in the Senate and has
been endorsed and/or voted for by Republican leaders like former Govs. Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian and
Democratic leaders like Gov. Gray Davis, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, former Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa,
incoming Speaker Rob Hertzberg and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante.
The ballot arguments against this proposition center entirely on opposition to the death penalty. I hope all but the
most adamant opponents of the death penalty will concur with the bipartisan support this measure has attracted and vote
for it.
-- Pete Kossoris,
Thousand Oaks
Taxes won't be raised
It really bothers me that they are advertising that Proposition 26 will raise your taxes. That is totally false! This
initiative won't raise a single tax. It only allows us to take it to the local taxpayers to make a fair and informed decision.
How sad it is that bonds for jails or sports stadiums can be passed at a majority-plus one, but bonds for schools that
are educating our children and our future leaders have to be passed by two-thirds. Don't we value our children's futures
more than sports or deviants? If we do, we surely need to start doing something about voting Yes on Proposition 26.
Our schools are old and in need of repair. Most people work in a safe, warm/cool, dry workplace. Don't our
children deserve the same conditions? They can't vote to change things, but we can and must do it for them!
-- Victoria Myers,
Simi Valley
Dumbfounded by stance
Re: your Feb. 27 editorial, "Intolerance under the guise of virtue":
I was dumbfounded by your editorial against Proposition 22. Rarely have I read such a lengthy piece that said so
little. If, as claimed in your editorial, "Proposition 22 therefore serves no purpose," why go to such efforts to turn voters
against it?
What is meant by your statement that "it would be in society's best interest to maximize the number of household
units by expanding the number of family arrangements eligible for such legal and financial support"? If the Star is not
endorsing same-sex marriage," what sort of expanding definition can we assume?
Proposition 22 takes a simple stand that, "Only marriage between a man and a women is valid or recognized in
California." The Star, on the other hand, has resorted to lengthy doubletalk to endorse social engineering under the guise
of tolerance.

Exhibit N
Page 1655

Page 3
Letters: Help our childrenVote for Prop. 18/Taxes won't be raised/Dumbfounded by stance/Don't be conned again/The
Mikels buzz/Little know deception Ventura County Star (California) February
-- William Maple,
Newbury Park
Don't be conned again
When we voted for Proposition 5 in 1998, we believed that nice man in the blue shirt when he said it was needed to
"keep the gaming they had then." Our state Supreme Court (not nasty out-of-state casino operators) saved us then, but it
won't be able to if we let ourselves be conned again.
Please read your voter information guide. Proposition 1A invites Las Vegas-type casinos into every Californian's
back yard. Tribes without tribal lands can and will buy land and build casinos (all financed and operated by those same
out-of-state bad guys). A San Diego county tribe chose Harrah's Entertainment from among "several competitors" to
build a $100 million casino on its land. Those competitors are surely romancing tribes all over the state.
Now, those very sincere-sounding women on TV are telling us the tribes that have casinos will share with those that
don't. The voter guide explains that the payments could be up to $1.1 million per year per tribe. The tribes with gaming
now were able to spend $63 million on Proposition 5 and, just through Jan. 22, $15.3 million on Proposition 1A. With
profits like that, they could have shared with poorer tribes instead of trying to turn California into a spread-out Las
Vegas.
We still want to help the Indians and we can. Proposition 29 does allow the Indians the gaming they have now.
Never heard of it? Back to your voter guide. Vote No on Proposition 1A and Yes on Proposition 29.
-- Dorothy Drummond,
Simi Valley
The Mikels buzz
What are they saying about Judy Mikels?
Sen. Cathie Wright, 19th State Senate District: "After closer examination of the records of two Republican
candidates and the way they are conducting their campaigns, there is no doubt in my mind who will best serve the 19th
Senate District: Supervisor Judy Mikels."
Ventura County District Attorney Michael Bradbury: "Judy Mikels is a proven leader who will do a great job in the
Senate. She's shown that she can tackle tough problems and find real solutions."
Sheriff Bob Brooks: "Judy Mikels is law enforcement's choice. Judy is a proven leader who has put taxpayers and
public safety first, while helping make Ventura County one of the safest in the nation."
Retired Assemblyman Nao Takasugi, respected Oxnard leader: "Judy is a proven leader with a solid record -- she
supports public safety and believes in cutting government waste. She listens to the concerns of local residents and works
hard to solve the problems we face in the region."
Fillmore City Councilman Roger Campbell: "Without doubt, Judy Mikels is the best choice for residents in the 19th
State Senate District. She's been a friend of Fillmore and the Santa Clara River Valley."
Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson: "Judy Mikels is unquestionably the superior choice for state Senate for
our communities. I will do all I can to help her win."
Judy Mikels has also been endorsed by the Ventura County Deputy Sheriff's Association and the Ventura County

Exhibit N
Page 1656

Page 4
Letters: Help our childrenVote for Prop. 18/Taxes won't be raised/Dumbfounded by stance/Don't be conned again/The
Mikels buzz/Little know deception Ventura County Star (California) February
Professional Firefighters Association. All of this plus endorsements from the entire Simi Valley City Council, who have
known and worked with Judy during the years that she was an elected city councilwoman.
If I may quote Sen. Wright again, "Judy Mikels is an honest, experienced public servant who has lived here among
us. Judy Mikels is a local resident who knows the many challenges facing our local neighborhoods and schools."
-- Bill Edwards & Rose Edwards,
Simi Valley
Little-known deception
Re: your Feb. 24 editorial, "An 'open primary' that really is not":
Help! It would seem that many of us would like, and need more information about, this little-known deception.
Surely it must have been published before, but overlooked or just not digested by most, until the time is upon us.
Is there a solution?
We spent a long time deciding our ballot, and were so happy to finally have the opportunity to vote as we please for
the first time. I wonder how many other people have very strong feelings about this.
-- Elinor Gustafson,
Thousand Oaks
LOAD-DATE: February 29, 2000

Exhibit N
Page 1657

Page 1

Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times
All Rights Reserved
Los Angeles Times
June 10, 2002 Monday
Home Edition
SECTION: PART A MAIN NEWS; Part 1; Metro Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1030 words
HEADLINE: California Courts Sentencing Fewer Killers to Death Row;
Justice: The decline comes as violent crime falls. D.A.s are more selective in capital cases.
BYLINE: STUART PFEIFER, TIMES STAFF WRITER
BODY:
The number of defendants sentenced to death in California is falling at its most rapid pace since the state
reinstituted the death penalty 25 years ago, according to an analysis of state records.
The drop in death sentences between 1999 and 2001--from 43 to 21--came as violent crime also plummeted. But
the falling crime rate explains only part of the decline in death sentences. Publicity about innocent people freed from the
nation's death rows and reluctance by prosecutors to pursue a penalty that may never be imposed have reduced the
number of cases, attorneys and legal experts say.
"The D.A.s are becoming more discriminating in seeking the death penalty," said Gary Schons, an assistant
attorney general who oversees death-penalty appeals in several Southern California counties.
"They have had the benefit of having lived with this law for nearly 25 years," Schons added. "They have also seen
the tremendous cost of getting cases through the system, both in fiscal costs and the emotional costs to the survivors."
California is home to the nation's largest death row, with more than 600 convicted murderers awaiting execution.
The state has executed nine people since reinstating capital punishment in 1977.
Although district attorneys said they have not changed their criteria for deciding whether to seek death, state
records indicate a greater proportion of defendants eligible for death are receiving life in prison instead. In 1999, 19.3%
of defendants convicted of capital murder received death sentences. By 2001, the number had fallen to 12.6%.
In San Diego County, for instance, none of the 27 people convicted of capital murder in 2000 and 2001 were
sentenced to death.
"Some of it may be the fact that it's so difficult to execute someone," said San Diego County Public Defender
Steven J. Carroll. "It takes so much time and money, the decision-makers may be deciding it isn't worth it to try unless
it's a really aggravated case."

Exhibit N
Page 1658

Page 2
California Courts Sentencing Fewer Killers to Death Row; Justice: The decline comes as violent crime falls. D.A.s are
more selective in capital cases. Los Angeles Times June 10, 2002 Monday
The same pattern can be seen in other urban counties. In Los Angeles County, 15 defendants were sentenced to
death in 1998--14% of those who were potential capital cases. Last year, the number of death sentences fell to seven, or
9%.
In Orange County, where seven killers were sent to death row in 1997, only one defendant received death last
year--a Santa Ana gang member convicted of shooting a man in the back of the head during a street robbery.
Prosecutors sought the death penalty in one other case--a Santa Ana man who intentionally drove his car onto a
preschool playground and killed two children. The man's attorneys argued he was mentally ill, and the jury
recommended a sentence of life in prison without parole.
One of the state's largest shifts has occurred in Riverside County. In 1998 and 1999, prosecutors obtained 13 death
sentences out of 24 eligible cases. In 2000 and 2001, they obtained five death sentences out of 35 eligible cases,
according to records.
Riverside County Dist. Atty. Grover Trask said that despite the numbers, his test for what makes a death-penalty
case remains the same: Is the death penalty appropriate, given all the circumstances, and would a jury be likely to return
a death verdict?
His approach has changed through the years. For instance, Trask said he has learned that juries in his county are
less likely to return death verdicts when the defendant is young or the crime is committed among family members.
"We understand the costs and other issues. We obviously do not want to go forward on cases where there's no
reasonable likelihood a jury will return a verdict of death," Trask said.
California's experience mirrors a national trend. The 214 death sentences imposed in the United States in 2000 were
the lowest since 1980, according to a U.S. Justice Department report.
The drop in death sentences in California corresponds with a big fall in murders across the state. The number of
homicides in California dropped from 3,876 in 1992 to 2,074 in 2001.
The declines also come as the death penalty is under increased scrutiny. There have been highly publicized reports
of wrongly convicted inmates freed from death rows and allegations of racial bias in application of the death penalty.
Illinois and Maryland imposed moratoriums on capital punishment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed
eight California death sentences since November.
Several polls have found that support for the death penalty in California and the nation is declining, although a
majority still supports it. A 2000 Field Poll found that most Californians would support a moratorium on the death
penalty until its fairness is studied further.
Although the death penalty might not be as popular as it once was, prosecutors point to other factors as reasons for
the declining numbers. Many gang leaders who caused the spike in homicides in the early 1990s are behind bars,
resulting in fewer of the killings that could warrant the death penalty.
"There's public sentiment moving away from the death penalty ... but that's not the big factor," said Santa Clara
County Dist. Atty. George Kennedy, whose office obtained just one death sentence in the last three years. "We've been
lucky during that time period not to have the kinds of cases that jurors will return death on."
District attorneys in many counties--Los Angeles, Riverside and Orange among them--have established committees
of veteran prosecutors to help decide whether to pursue death sentences. They review available evidence and invite
comment from defense lawyers before making the choice.
Carroll, the San Diego public defender, said his attorneys start investigating the backgrounds of murder defendants

Exhibit N
Page 1659

Page 3
California Courts Sentencing Fewer Killers to Death Row; Justice: The decline comes as violent crime falls. D.A.s are
more selective in capital cases. Los Angeles Times June 10, 2002 Monday
as soon as possible--exploring a defendant's family history and psychological background--so they can make a powerful
argument against the death penalty to San Diego County Dist Atty. Paul Pfingst.
"We don't go in and try to prove our client innocent to the D.A. What we try to do is convince him a death decision
is not appropriate," Carroll said. "We've had tremendous luck in doing it. So we've had much fewer death cases going
through."
Times staff writers Ray F. Herndon and Doug Smith contributed to this report.
GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC: Sentencing in California CREDIT: PAUL D. RODRIGUEZ / Los Angeles Times
LOAD-DATE: June 10, 2002

Exhibit N
Page 1660

Page 1

Copyright 2003 The Chronicle Publishing Co.

The San Francisco Chronicle
APRIL 24, 2003, THURSDAY, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1
LENGTH: 1067 words
HEADLINE: How prosecutors choose death penalty;
Stanislaus D.A. says Laci case meets most of his criteria
SOURCE: Chronicle Legal Affairs Writer
BYLINE: Harriet Chiang
BODY:
It's the hardest call for a prosecutor to make. But the district attorney in Stanislaus County indicated Wednesday that he
is leaning toward seeking the death penalty in the murder trial of Scott Peterson.
"This case cries out for the ultimate (punishment)," District Attorney Jim Brazelton said. "I owe it to Laci and
Connor."
Brazelton said he would talk to relatives of Laci Peterson to hear what they want done with her husband, who has
pleaded not guilty to killing his 27-year-old wife and her unborn baby. "I intend to give the family's opinions a lot of
weight," he said.
But in general, he said, cases involving multiple murders -- especially when one of the victims is an unborn baby -deserve the death penalty.
Despite Brazelton's comments for a syndicated television show, veteran prosecutors predict that the district
attorney is likely go through an intense and exhaustive process before deciding whether to seek capital punishment for
the Modesto fertilizer salesman.
And they say it may be a closer than most think.
"You're talking about the most serious punishment there is," said Bob Kochly, district attorney of Contra Costa
County. "You're also talking about incredible resources. Everything takes longer when you're seeking death."
Peterson is eligible for the death penalty because he's been charged with two murders -- those of his wife and the
unborn child, whom the couple intended to name Connor. A multiple murder is one of the special circumstances that
triggers the death penalty.

Exhibit N
Page 1661

Page 2
How prosecutors choose death penalty;Stanislaus D.A. says Laci case meets most of his criteria The San Francisco
Chronicle APRIL 24, 2003, THURSDAY,
But local district attorneys interviewed say they pursue capital punishment only in a fraction of the eligible cases.
They said Peterson's spotless criminal record and apparent lack of violent history will weigh in his favor.
On the other hand, the fact that the victims were a pregnant woman and her full-term baby may sway Brazelton
toward seeking death.
There are also the unknowns -- at least for the public. How did Laci Peterson die? How much did she suffer?
"It's supposed to be for the worst people and for the worst crimes," said San Mateo County Public Defender John
Digiacinto. "But that isn't always what happens, and it varies by county."
Some prosecutors say they take a far more practical approach, gauging whether they have a strong enough case for
a jury to send a defendant to the death chamber.
"I plug everything in, and I make an evaluation of whether a jury may reasonably come back with death," said
Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff, who estimates that his office seeks capital punishment in about a quarter
of eligible cases. "That's kind of the bottom-line test. All murders are bad. How bad is this one?"
Each county sets its own guidelines, but each generally goes through a similar process.
Because the decision carries so much emotional and political baggage, district attorneys usually rely on a
committee of lawyers to make a recommendation.
There is no set formula. "This is a very fact-specific decision," said Santa Clara Assistant District Attorney Karyn
Sinunu, who oversees homicide cases. Prosecutors in her county, she said, do not seek the death penalty in the majority
of eligible cases.
Prosecutors tend to focus on the defendant and the crime. If a defendant has a history of violence or the killing was
particularly heinous or vicious, a prosecutor is likely to pursue a death sentence.
But they also take into account mitigating factors -- including whether the defendant is particularly young, has
mental problems or was a victim of child abuse. They often rely on defense lawyers to provide information on
defendants' background.
"Basically, it can be anything," Orloff said.
One factor Brazelton may take into account is the fetus of Laci Peterson, who was 7 1/2 months pregnant when she
was killed. "Jurors seem to place significant weight on the vulnerability of the victim," Orloff said.
But being charged with a child's murder does not carry an automatic death sentence. The defendant's mental state
and the way the murder was carried out also play a part in what prosecutors decide to do.
In San Mateo County, prosecutors chose not to seek the death penalty against Megan Hogg of Daly City, who
suffocated her three children in 1998, because she had a history of mental problems.
However, Santa Clara County prosecutors sought capital punishment for William Michael Dennis, who was
charged with hacking to death his eight-months-pregnant ex-wife and her fetus.
Dennis, who was ultimately convicted of the Halloween 1984 murders and is now on death row, was a former
Lockheed machine operator with no criminal record. But Sinunu said the 4-year-old daughter of Dennis' ex-wife had
watched as her mother was killed, and prosecutors took that into account.
One of the pivotal issues in most murder cases is how the victim died. Coroner's officials in Contra Costa County,

Exhibit N
Page 1662

Page 3
How prosecutors choose death penalty;Stanislaus D.A. says Laci case meets most of his criteria The San Francisco
Chronicle APRIL 24, 2003, THURSDAY,
where Laci Peterson's body was found last week near the bay, have said they may never know her cause of death.
On Wednesday, Brazelton said the cause of death didn't concern him. He said he was sure Laci hadn't gone
swimming.
But other veteran prosecutors said cause of death is a big issue. "The manner in which the murder is carried out is
probably one of the most -- if not the most -- important factor for the prosecution in assessing whether to seek the death
penalty," said Steve Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney in San Mateo County.
"That decision is made more difficult when the precise circumstances of the killing are not clear," he said.
Even if the cause of death remains a mystery, veteran defense lawyers say Scott Peterson's conduct after his wife's
disappearance -- his arrogance, lack of cooperation with police, the sale of her car and news of his extramarital affair -may come back to haunt him.
"A prosecutor could try to reach backward and say he probably committed the offense with the same mind-set,"
said Emeryville defense attorney Ted Cassman.
Ultimately, public pressure may prompt Brazelton to seek the death penalty against Peterson.
"As long as district attorneys are elected county officials," Contra Costa prosecutor Kochly said, "they have to do
what the residents of their county want, within the dictates of the law."Chronicle staff writer Stacy Finz in Modesto
contributed to this report. / E-mail Harriet Chiang at [e-mail].
GRAPHIC: PHOTO, District Attorney James Brazelton (left) and Sharon Rocha, mother of Laci Peterson, enter
Stanislaus County Superior Court. / Scott Peterson is eligible for the death penalty because he's been charged with two
murders. / Al Golub/Modesto Bee
LOAD-DATE: April 24, 2003

Exhibit N
Page 1663

Interactive map: See where murderers most often get the death penalty
Published Wednesday, Jul. 01, 2009
The state is considering new lethal injection guidelines for executing criminals. From 1998 to 2007,
California prosecutors obtained about one death sentence per 100 murders, according to a Bee analysis of
new crime data. But there was wide disparity by location. Riverside County, for instance, issued death
penalty convictions at a rate three times higher than the statewide average. On the opposite side, San
Francisco County hasn't issued a death sentence in at least a dozen years.

Notes: Counties with an asterisk had fewer than 100 murders, so it doesn't take many convictions to
change their rates.
Several factors can affect how often prosecutors obtain death penalty convictions. These include, but are
not limited to, how often prosecutors seek the death penalty, law enforcement's murder arrest rates, the
makeup of juries and the frequency of particularly heinous killings.
Fixed Merced and Mariposa county figures at 3:30 PM Thursday 7/2; added one murder conviction to
each.
Source: Office of the California Attorney General, Criminal Justice Profiles (Tables 1 and 6)

Exhibit N
Page 1664

Among large counties, Riverside had the highest rate of death penalty convictions. Here's what Riverside
District Attorney Rod Pacheco, a former Assemblyman who was elected in 2006, had to say in an
interview with The Bee, edited for length, about his office's approach to prosecuting murders. He started
out by noting that many of the convictions came or started under his predecessor's watch ...
I have changed the approach. It's not that the prior district attorney's approach was not acceptable. Our
violent crime rate is now exceedingly low. It used to be one of the worst. But I opened up the process ...
to law enforcement and to the victim's family. We ask them, "Do you have a recommendation for us." We
also bring in the defense attorneys and say "Tell us anything you want about this case."
Has that changed the number of death penalty prosecutions?: Every case is different. I don't know if
we've had more or less (death penalty prosecutions) ... The people here have a very different view of
public safety than the people in San Francisco.
You've been vocal about the length of time it takes in California to exhaust all the appeals of a
convicted death row inmate: It's horrific. We need to reform the death penalty in California. It takes
about five years for some (convicted murderers) to even be represented by a lawyer.
Have tough budget times affected the number of death penalty prosecutions?: It's funny you should
ask that. I had a judge suggest that we not pursue the death penalty (because of financial considerations.)
That's not a suggestion that is appropriate. Morally, I don't think I should consider the relative cost of a
death penalty conviction.

The Northern California ACLU has published extensive studies of geographic patterns in death penalty
convictions, arguing that they show where a murderer lives is often the most important factor in whether
he gets condemned. Natasha Minsker is the director of the office's Death Penalty Policy Program. She
started this interview, edited for length, by summarizing her office's findings.
Large counties continue to send more people to death row that smaller and mid-sized counties. And the
culture of the district attorney's office is the biggest factor in these convictions.
Why are their fewer convictions in the smaller counties?: We've heard from people that it is a
combination of budget problems and futility. It takes a lot of resources from the office, and it costs a lot of
money.
How much does the political leanings of juries come into this?: I have seen no evidence that political
beliefs play a part in this. In Northern California, Alameda County stands out as having the most
convictions, and it is one of the most progressive counties in the state. ... (Because the voir dire process
weeds out jurors who say they can't impose the death penalty) the juries you end up with in Alameda
County are all still pro-death penalty.
What has been happening since 2007?: We feel like we see these trends changing over time. In 2008,
only five counties accounted for 90 percent of the death sentences.

Exhibit N
Page 1665

LETTERS
The Sacramento Bee - Tuesday, March 19, 1996
Proposition 192 Prop. 192: Another evasion," editorial, Feb. 26: Retrofitting bridges is absolutely necessary. The plan
to retrofit the Santa Monica freeway would have cost $3 million to $4 million. Because Caltrans wasn't quick enough,
we spent $24 million on the rebuild and the economy lost another estimated $90 million due to the collapse (estimated
at $1 million per day). We certainly don't need to relearn the experience
We cannot continue to cover this emergency retrofit work from a fund not designed or budgeted for it. The rest of our
highway system suffers greatly from this draw down.
The Bee's "higher standard" of voting No on Proposition 192 is shortsighted and shows a lack of intelligent viewing of
the critical need (belatedly) for funds. A Yes vote on Proposition 192 is the right choice. Maybe then our legislators
and governor would get the message that we will support transportation needs, and begin to do the better job to which
the editorial alludes.
Skip Brown Roseville
The highway lobby is spending $2 million to trick voters into believing that Proposition 192 would provide more funding
to make highways and bridges earthquake safe. It would not. It would just shift money into new highway construction.
By law, seismic retrofitting already is first priority for the $2.4 billion we pay each year in gas taxes. Proposition 192
simply substitutes expensive debt-financing from the general fund for existing gas taxes, so the gas-tax funds can be
diverted to subsidize new highway construction.
Using scarce general fund money to pay for highways steals money from schools, higher education, parks and other
critical needs.
Gerald H. Meral Executive Director Planning and Conservation League Sacramento
Proposition 194 Re "Yes on Prop. 194," editorial, Feb. 28: Despite currently falling short of expectations, the Joint
Venture Program still employs 150 people in the prison system, thereby economically disenfranchising 150 people
outside that system. The potential attraction for JVP employees is a (literally) captive labor force at low wages,
without expenses for medical insurance, sick leave, paid holidays, etc.
Now the people of California are asked to sweeten the pot by additionally lowering unemployment insurance premiums
for employers. It doesn't make sense. If these men and women don't get unemployment benefits, we taxpayers will
have to support them on welfare.
The paltry wages paid prisoners can't make even a small dent in the costs of incarceration, damages perpetrated in
criminal acts and support for their families. Balanced against the loss (both current and potential) of jobs in the open
market, this is a bad deal for the taxpayer and we should not make it any worse.
Roxanne Bate de Koning West Sacramento
Proposition 195
Re "No on Prop. 195 and 196," editorial, March 4: Changes relating to carjacking-related first-degree murders are
necessary for the simple reason that carjacking is a distinct crime with distinct elements separate and apart from
robbery.
Carjacking first-degree murders cannot easily be prosecuted as first-degree murders under the robbery-based special
circumstance. Instead, it requires a series of procedural hoops. Proposition 195 solves the problem by directly making

Exhibit N
Page 1666

carjacking-related first-degree murders a special circumstance.
In the case of kidnap-carjacking, the California Supreme Court has noted that kidnapping and kidnapping for the
purpose of robbery are crimes distinct from kidnap-carjacking. As in the case of carjacking-based first-degree
murders, this measure makes a kidnap-carjacking first degree murder a special circumstance.
As to the issue of jurors, the juror murder provision is designed to place these kinds of despicable forms of murder in
the same category as retaliatory murders of witnesses or judges, which are currently special circumstances.
Sen. Steve Peace D-Chula Vista Sacramento
Proposition 196
The Bee argues that there is no difference between a drive-by and any other murder. But in fact, drive-by shooting is
especially cowardly, the murderers who commit this heinous crime are harder to identify and arrest, and it is extremely
dangerous to innocent bystanders.
The Bee editorial also tried to argue that Proposition 196 would be hard to defend in court. But the California District
Attorneys Association and the Department of Justice - the very prosecutors who must defend the proposition from any
legal challenges - support Proposition 196. The professional prosecutors have no doubt it will stand up in court.
Finally, The Bee could not be further off-base when it accused Proposition 196's sponsors of looking for "more toughon-crime political campaign fodder." I am the only sponsor, and I have no intention of running for any office when my
current term ends in 1998. I support the proposition for one reason - to help make California safer.
Sen. Ruben S. Ayala D-Chino Sacramento
Proposition 197
Re "Managing lion population," letter, Feb. 20: The purpose of Proposition 197 is to open a hunting season on
mountain lions again in California. People who say it isn't about hunting are either lying or ignorant. Hunters and
ranchers vowed to keep on fighting to hunt lions after Proposition 117 was passed by California voters in 1990, and
that is just what they did.
As far as not being able to kill lions under Proposition 117, on Feb. 19 a 180-pound male mountain lion was tracked
down in Foresthill near Auburn and killed because people complained about a mountain lion taking their pets in their
neighborhood. After a necropsy of the lion, authorities found goat meat and bones inside the cat's stomach. They had
no problem killing the mountain lion, despite what opponents of Proposition 117 have said. If any lion is a threat to
people or pets, the lion can be tracked down and killed.
People need to realize that if living in an area that is rural and where there are deer, they may also encounter mountain
lions. How many times does the Department of Fish and Game have to warn people to keep their pets inside when
they live in the country? A large raccoon or fox could kill a pet just as easily as a mountain lion.
Janice Clark Sacramento
Mountain lions do not eat nuts, berries, fruit and grass like other big-game animals. They eat meat. Mountain lions are
not scavengers like the bear or coyote. They like fresh meat.
A mountain lion is a killing machine. Its favorite target is deer, but when it can't find a deer it will kill anything.
Since passage of Proposition 117 the lion population has soared. They are killing off our deer and big horn sheep
herds. They are in our yards killing our dogs and cats and stalking our children.
Proposition 197 does not call for the extermination of mountain lions. It simply returns the management of the lion back
the Department of Fish and Game. Proposition 197 calls for a three-year study to be done on mountain lions. The
funding for this study will come from existing funds. There will be no new costs.
The opposition of Proposition 197 will exploit the sport hunting issue. They want people to vote on emotions, not

Exhibit N
Page 1667

common sense.
Use common sense not emotions and vote Yes on Proposition 197.
Jim Epting Palermo
Proposition 198
Proposition 198 is the Emancipation Proclamation for the California electorate.
When "Big Daddy" Jesse Unruh sold the voters of California on the joys and benefits of closed primary elections, he
very effectively handcuffed this state's entire voting public and delivered them in chains into the hands of the politicians
and political parties. The slave voters could then be placed on the auction block by the party leaders and sold to the
highest bidder among the special interest groups.
Before that happened, voters could reasonably control their destinies by crossing party lines and electing exceptionally
well-qualified individuals by popular vote. They could elect candidates, who could and would work for the good of the
people and the state.
Once the public choice was eliminated with the scrapping of the open primary, anyone who did not faithfully echo the
political concepts of the party leader and did not hew faithfully to the party line did not get party support. Without party
support, a candidate is toast. Thus the door was open to political hackery and bossdom. The public lost control of its
destiny.
Howard W . Wood North Highlands
For years there has been a drive to bring back the "open political primary" to foster the nomination of moderate
candidates in all parties. The current situation shows the fallacy of such an idea.
Today, Democrats, faced with the certain nomination of President Clinton, need not vote. However, with an open
primary, they would be smart to vote for a person thought to be unelectable, such as Pat Buchanan, hoping for a
Democratic victory.
Open primaries would encourage this type of "ballot box terrorism," not the nomination of moderates.
Peter Lorenzo Sacramento
Re "Measure allows voters of all stripes in on party," March 10: Bruce Cain, associate director of the Institute of
Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, referred to Tweedledee and Tweedledum candidates. How apt. These two
worthies were fighting over a rattle. I find today's political candidates are battling each other on much the same level.
Moira Neuterman Rancho Cordova
Proposition 199
Proposition 199, called Californians for Mobile-Home Fairness, is a classic in mislabeling a proposition.
It is an end run that would tie the hands of local governments. It is a narrowly crafted initiative that favors only the
mobile-home park owners. It does nothing to make more low-cost housing available to anyone.
As a former mayor of Roseville and a former Placer County supervisor, it is my firm belief that local governments need
flexibility in dealing with issues. Proposition 199 would tie the hands of local governments.
I urge a No vote on Proposition 199.
Phil Ozenick Roseville
The park owners who are sponsoring Proposition 199 are spurred on by greed. They care for nothing other than lining
their pockets.

Exhibit N
Page 1668

We, the mobile-home owners, are the victims. The aim of people in business is to make a profit, and we don't discount
that. But if the proposition passes the owners of these parks will have the power to raise our rents without limits,
whenever they so desire.
It's a costly process to move a mobile home - $10,000 or more. They really are misnamed, since they are not that
mobile. So somewhere along the way, if we couldn't afford the rent or the cost of moving, we would be evicted. Guess
who gets the home - the park owners, of course.
Agnes G. Hahn Citrus Heights
Proposition 200
Re "200, 201, 202: Yes, yes and no," editorial, March 12: Proposition 200 does not benefit all motorists, as suggested
by The Bee's editorial. Motorcycle riders will pay significantly higher premiums because there is no exemption in this
poorly drafted law.
California insurance rates have fallen since 1988, when California voters last rejected no-fault. In the 13 states that
have no-fault, premiums have increased an average of 40 percent since 1969.
The need for mandatory insurance coverage is a separate issue, and could be easily addressed by the Legislature if it
had the will to do so. Giving up the right to seek legal remedy for gross negligence on the part of another driver will
hurt motorists who have no other alternative.
Mark R. Parker Sacramento
The proponents of Proposition 200 cite a Rand study that they say indicates auto insurance rates would go down
under no-fault. However, reality does not support these Rand results at all. In fact, every other state that has no-fault
auto insurance has seen rates go up.
In Hawaii, rates skyrocketed more than 50 percent after becoming a no-fault state. These statistics are based on
recent data provided by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
United Policyholders and more than 75 consumer activists and organizations, including Ralph Nader, and Consumers
Union, oppose Proposition 200. I urge readers to look beyond the flashy TV commercials and see who is opposed to
this no-fault plan.
Ina De Long Sacramento
On July 16, 1995, my son was killed in an accident in Georgia. Georgia is a no-fault state. As of February 1996, there
has been no settlement for expenses incurred. I find it hard to believe that no-fault insurance is the answer to anything.
My family has not only had to endure the hardship of losing a son, but also the financial hardship, the cost of the
funeral, the expense to fly back to Georgia, the loss of a small business and numerous other problems.
We have written letters to the insurance company that has financial responsibility, but its attempt to settle with us has
been an insult. The insurance company didn't even include property as part of the settlement. Where does no-fault
come in to pick up all expenses and pay the property damages?
Terrill L. Sherrer Sacramento
Proposition 202
The editorial urging a No vote on Proposition 202, which would limit attorney fees, states, "[I]t wouldn't require
businesses to abide by the same rules in negotiating with lawyers: The contingency fee cap only applies to individuals
or groups of individuals pursuing tort claims." I believe The Bee is misleading the public.
In reading the text of the proposed law, I find the claimant defined as "any natural person or persons seeking
compensation." This means only corporations would not abide by this law since they are not considered to be a person

Exhibit N
Page 1669

or persons. However, many businesses are a person or persons such as a Realtor, a CPA, a doctor, and a other
business owners who are not incorporated. Even corporate CEOs and directors may have to abide by Proposition 202
when they act as individuals.
John Rusk Carmichael
Proposition 203
It is with horror that I opened the supplemental voting pamphlet and saw Proposition 203. I can't think of a more
disgusting w aste of money.
The senior citizens are already paying huge amounts for education for the so-called young with no classes being
offered to the post-employment citizenry.
The California "kids" can't make it in school because only a small percentage know the American language. I am 68
years of age. When I grew up, my home was fluent in high German but we kids never learned the language because
we had to make it in the then-prevailing language of our schools.
Nothing infuriates me more than expecting the senior citizens to keep paying for the education of those who will not, or
cannot, learn to read, much less anything else. Now, we are being asked to pay for computers so that they, the
so-called students, can go on the Internet. Clinton politics. Forget it.
The parents of those so-called students should shoulder the costs of many of the items the proposed bond issue is
expected to provide.
Evelyn H. Robbins Antelope
As president of the California Chamber of Commerce and as a parent, I support Proposition 203 because it gives our
schools and the economy a shot in the arm that is long overdue. As a father, I support Proposition 203 because
devoting $3 billion to classroom seismic safety and technological improvements is a much-needed improvement. As
voters, we must protect our children and give them the best opportunities to excel in an increasingly competitive world.
As a businessman and taxpayer, I support Proposition 203 because it conforms to both the letter and the spirit of the
state's spending limit laws - without raising taxes.
California needs Proposition 203. If passed, Proposition 203 would help our schools, economy and work force.
Respected organizations such as the California Taxpayers' Association, League of Women Voters, Congress of
California Seniors and California Labor Federation agree. Vote Yes on Proposition 203.
Kirk West, President California Chamber of Commerce Sacramento
Re "Prop. 203: Schools need it badly," editorial, Feb. 26: Years ago when the Air Force set out to construct a new air
field, the first thing it did was build a nice officers' club. Then, when it ran out of money, the Air Force would go back to
Congress for funds to build the runways. We have a similar situation with our present school systems.
The powerful teachers unions, via a series of strikes, have been successful in obtaining salaries ranging from nominally
$20 to $40 per hour, with unexcelled perks. Few engineers and scientists are compensated like that.
As you probably have surmised, I do not agree with The Bee's editorial endorsing Proposition 203 - no runways.
Carl W. Chapman Carmichael
Proposition 203 would help all California students. This vital bond measure would authorize $3 billion to be spent over
the next two years, with roughly two-thirds for elementary and secondary schools, and one-third for colleges and
universities. It could pay for a backlog of repairs and upgrades to existing facilities and to provide some of the new
technologies needed to prepare Californians for the jobs of the very-near future.
With the defeat of two prior bond issues in this decade, school repair backlogs have grown to multibillion-dollar levels.
Further, college-enrollment growth projections state the need to build new facilities to educate the next generation. The
total expenditure needed is $1 billion per year, every year, to maintain and expand what has become a priceless state

Exhibit N
Page 1670

resource: our colleges and universities.
Proposition 203 addresses only part of this problem, but it may be the best, and possibly the last, opportunity to begin
revitalizing California's colleges and universities for the challenges of the coming century.
Warren Halsey Fox, Ph.D. Executive Director California Postsecondary Education Commission Sacramento
I agree there are schools that are in need of repairs. I don't agree we need more schools, at least not until we fully
utilize the existing facilities. Most schools sit idle for three months each year. What's wrong with the year-round
school? I know parents with children in the year-round system. They went in reluctantly but are now strong supporters.
There is nothing wrong with double sessions either. We can do a lot before a $3 billion bond is necessary. I
recommend a No vote on Proposition 203.
Jack Elkin Auburn
Education is an important tool in dealing with the crime problem. Well educated members of society are less likely to
become part of the criminal underclass who are threatening the security and well-being of our great state.
The California State Police Association urges the voters to invest in California's future by approving Proposition 203.
Ron Adamik, President California State Police Assn. Sacramento
Proposition 203, the public education facilities bond act of 1996, is STYLs voided here absolutely ridiculous. Not that
anyone will listen, but why not use some of the "surplus" money from the lottery for this financing? If no one wins the
pot at the end of the week, turn it over to the schools. Another thought to save money is no television advertising.
Vote No on Proposition 203. Let's get the lottery to do what it promised. Kaylaine Robinson Pionee
Edition: METRO FINAL
Section: EDITORIALS
Page: B7
Record Number: 060
Copyright 1996 The Sacramento Bee

Exhibit N
Page 1671