Newsom's death row commutations face threatened legal challenge

Gov. Gavin Newsom's announcement Thursday that he intends to commute every death sentence in California drew sharply contrasting reactions from prosecutors, defense attorneys and legal scholars, with opponents threatening litigation and constitutional experts debating the California Supreme Court's role in reviewing the unprecedented action.

Newsom announced plans to convert the sentences of all 548 condemned prisoners to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, arguing that capital punishment is incompatible with California's values and that the state's death penalty system is irreparably flawed.

The governor has asked the California Supreme Court to issue recommendations for 382 prisoners with multiple felony convictions, as required by Article V, Section 8 of the state Constitution. Newsom requested a decision before his term expires, setting up a potentially consequential legal dispute over the scope of executive clemency.

Elisabeth Semel, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law and co-director of its Death Penalty Clinic, said the governor's constitutional authority is exceptionally broad.

"The governor absolutely has the power to do this under the California Constitution, Article V, Section 8," Semel said in an interview on Thursday. "Absolutely, unequivocally, the governor's power of commutation under the Constitution is broad."

Semel said the Supreme Court's review is limited to determining whether the governor abused that authority, rather than reconsidering the merits of each death sentence. She pointed to the court's 2018 decision establishing clemency review procedures, which described the justices' role as a safeguard against abuses of executive power.

"The court does not review any case individually on the merits," Semel said. "It doesn't review the merits of the collective recommendation."

David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at UC Berkeley School of Law, similarly identified few constitutional obstacles to the governor's proposal.

Carrillo said the Constitution imposes only two express limitations on clemency: it cannot apply to impeachment, and commutations for people convicted of multiple felonies require concurrence from four Supreme Court justices.

"Objectors likely will claim this is abuse of executive power, but lacking any evidence that it was done corruptly there's no clear legal argument against a righteous act of mercy, however broadly applied," Carrillo said in written comments.

But Anne Marie Schubert, a former Sacramento County district attorney who now leads victims' rights legal organization Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said she anticipates challenging the commutations.

"We definitely believe there's grounds to challenge it, and that's what we're looking at now, and we anticipate filing that challenge," Schubert said.

Schubert argued that the Supreme Court has historically conducted individualized reviews of clemency requests involving people convicted of multiple felonies, rather than approving categorical commutations.

"The practice of the California Supreme Court has been to do individualized reviews," she said. "The governor has dumped a massive amount of effort onto the California Supreme Court and put them in a position that they've never been put in."

The California District Attorneys Association also condemned the decision, accusing Newsom of disregarding jury verdicts and the wishes of victims' families.

"Clemency is an extraordinary power intended to provide relief when the facts and circumstances of an individual case justify it," said association CEO Greg Totten. "It was never intended to serve as a substitute for the legislative process."

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman acknowledged Newsom's constitutional authority to commute sentences but emphasized that the death penalty remains legally available.

"That power does not extend to eliminating the death penalty," Hochman said. "Only the Legislature or the voters can do that."

Hochman said his office would continue evaluating death-eligible cases individually.

Defense attorneys and civil liberties organizations welcomed the announcement, while acknowledging that it would not abolish capital punishment.

Chief Deputy State Public Defender Christina A. Spaulding said 71 capital cases remain pending in trial courts across 12 counties, nearly 90% involving defendants of color.

The office said it would continue pursuing its constitutional challenge to California's death penalty system, which alleges racial discrimination in the administration of capital punishment.

Los Angeles County Public Defender Ricardo D. García praised the commutations as a response to systemic injustice.

"Clemency is not leniency," García said. "This decision moves California closer to a justice system that values human dignity."

The immediate legal question is whether the Supreme Court can complete its review before Newsom leaves office.

Carrillo said the justices have broad discretion over their procedures and suggested that a successor could potentially change course if the court has not acted.

Semel, however, said she believes the court can act within the remaining time because its review concerns potential abuse of power, not the underlying merits of hundreds of individual cases.

Newsom's proposal would leave convictions and restitution orders intact. His office said victims would receive notification and support through the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The commutations would also leave California's death penalty statute untouched, allowing prosecutors to continue seeking death sentences even as the state prepares to eliminate every existing one.