9th Circuit Judge Bucks Three Strikes Rules

Judge Harry Pregerson, a stalwart of the 9th Circuit's liberal wing, is defying U.S. Supreme Court precedent in some of California's three strikes cases. Pregerson has dissented from unpublished affirmances in several appeals of three strikes sentences for non-violent third offenses. Since judges are not normally free to ignore Supreme Court rulings, Pregerson's stare-down with stare decisis is remarkable.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harry Pregerson, the oldest active member of the court and a stalwart of the court’s liberal wing, is defying recent Supreme Court precedent in some of California’s three strikes cases. In several recent appeals of three strikes sentences for nonviolent third offenses, Pregerson has dissented from unpublished affirmances. Since judges are not normally free to ignore Supreme Court rulings, Pregerson’s stare-down with stare decisis is remarkable. “In good conscience, I cannot vote to go along with the sentence imposed in this case,” Pregerson wrote in one typical dissent. “I think the Three Strikes law should only be applied to a defendant whose criminal history, including his last offense, demonstrates that he needs to be taken off the streets because he poses a realistic threat to the health and safety of the community,” Pregerson explained Tuesday. “There are cases where a long term in prison is justified and cases where it is not.” Numerous three strikes appeals are now being disposed of by the 9th Circuit. They had been held up while the Supreme Court decided Lockyer v. Andrade, 03 C.D.O.S. 1970, and Ewing v. California, 03 C.D.O.S. 1959, which tested the constitutionality of California’s three strikes law. After three strikes was upheld, the cases were sent to a three-judge screening panel, which disposes of appeals that seem to be clearly controlled by precedent. The cases are presented to the panel by staff attorneys, but if one judge requests it, a case will be sent to a regular panel. Pregerson sat this month on a screening panel with Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Susan Graber. Reinhardt is also making his distaste for the sentences known, though he is voting to uphold them. Pregerson isn’t. “Why doesn’t he recuse himself?” asked New York University Law School Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics. “That’s the American system. It’s very hierarchical, and the superior court has to be followed. “He should recuse himself and write his angry dissent in the recusal so he gets his voice heard. And it’s an important voice,” Gillers said. One appeal involved a 25-years-to-life sentence for stealing a $130 television from a Lake Elsinore Wal-Mart. Another involved a third strike conviction for passing bad checks. In yet another, the defendant was convicted of receiving a stolen .22-caliber handgun. It is not the first time the 79-year-old judge’s views on precedent have come under scrutiny. In 1992, he was the key figure in the 9th Circuit’s repeated refusals to allow the execution of Robert Alton Harris to proceed. Eventually, the Supreme Court told the 9th Circuit to stop issuing orders in the case. “Judge Pregerson was openly defiant of the Supreme Court, so he’s got a vision of precedent that is slightly different” from most, said Hastings College of the Law Professor Vikram Amar. And during his 1979 confirmation hearing after being nominated by President Jimmy Carter, Pregerson said, “If I had to follow my conscience or the law, I would follow my conscience,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Amar said some may view Pregerson’s stance as intended to create friction in the system to make sure the issue isn’t forgotten. But, Amar said, “Most people would say that’s outweighed by the need for stability in the system.” Gillers agreed with the latter. “It’s not good for the justice system for a judge to disobey the Supreme Court. Even though people may agree with him, we risk legal anarchy if judges refuse to follow Supreme Court precedent,” he said. In 1999, Justice J. Anthony Kline of California’s 1st District Court of Appeal got in trouble for a similar dissent. The Committee on Judicial Performance cleared Kline after an investigation, but his case was slightly different — Kline acknowledged what he was doing and made an argument for why he was doing so. The attorney general’s office, which represents the state in all three-strikes appeals, did not comment extensively on Pregerson’s dissents. “We have seen some cases where those sentiments have been expressed,” said AG spokeswoman Hallye Jordan. “We think the Supreme Court ruling on the California Three Strikes law did address his concerns.” Reinhardt is similarly concerned. His concurrences make clear he agrees with the results “only under compulsion,” and that the sentences are “unconscionable and unconstitutional.” The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that prosecutors across the state are seeking fewer three strikes prosecutions. Los Angeles District Attorney Stephen Cooley has eliminated the prosecution of nonviolent three strikes prosecutions, and San Francisco DA Terence Hallinan is similarly selective. Pregerson is described by many as a compassionate liberal. He has been honored for his extensive work with veterans and the homeless. Pregerson said former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren would always ask one question. “Very simple — ‘Is it fair?’” Pregerson said. “That’s it. Our system has to be grounded in fairness.”

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.