Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

Cite as:  563 U. S. ____ (2011) 

39 

Opinion of the Court 

may  “actually  improve  on  public  safety  because  they  ad-
dress the problems that brought people to jail.”  Tr. 1552– 
1553. 

Expert  witnesses  produced  statistical  evidence  that 
prison  populations  had  been  lowered  without  adversely 
affecting public safety in a number of jurisdictions, includ-
ing  certain  counties  in  California,  as  well  as  Wisconsin,
Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Montana, Michigan, Florida, and 
Canada.  Juris. App. 245a.11  Washington’s former secretary
of  corrections  testified  that  his  State  had  implemented
population  reduction  methods,  including  parole  reform 
and expansion of good time credits, without any “deleteri-
ous  effect  on  crime.”  Tr.  2008–2009.  In  light  of  this  evi-
dence,  the  three-judge  court  concluded  that  any  negative
impact on public safety would be “substantially offset, and 
perhaps entirely eliminated, by the public safety benefits” 

—————— 

11 Philadelphia’s  experience  in  the  early  1990’s  with  a  federal  court 
order mandating reductions in the prison population was less positive, 
and that history illustrates the undoubted need for caution in this area.
One  congressional  witness  testified  that  released  prisoners  committed
79  murders  and  multiple  other  offenses.    See  Hearing  on  S.  3  et al. 
before  the  Senate  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  104th  Cong.,  1st  Sess., 
45 (1995) (statement of Lynne Abraham, District Attorney of Philadel-
phia).    Lead  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  class  in  that  case  responded  that
“[t]his  inflammatory  assertion  has  never  been  documented.”    Id.,  at 
212  (statement  of  David  Richman).    The  Philadelphia  decree  was  also
different  from  the  order  entered  in  this  case.    Among  other  things,  it 
“prohibited  the  City  from  admitting  to  its  prisons  any  additional
inmates,  except  for  persons  charged  with,  or  convicted  of,  murder, 
forcible  rape,  or  a  crime  involving  the  use  of  a  gun  or  knife  in  the
commission of an aggravated assault or robbery.”  Harris v. Reeves, 761 
F. Supp.  382,  384–385  (ED  Pa.  1991);  see  also  Crime  and  Justice
Research Institute, J. Goldkamp & M. White, Restoring Accountability
in  Pretrial  Release:  The  Philadelphia  Pretrial  Release  Supervision 
Experiments  6–8  (1998).    The  difficulty  of  determining  the  precise 
relevance  of  Philadelphia’s  experience  illustrates  why  appellate  courts
defer to the trier of fact.  The three-judge court had the opportunity to 
hear testimony on population reduction measures in other jurisdictions
and to ask relevant questions of informed expert witnesses.