Opinion ID: 2515770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: Political Influences on California Appellate Review Process

Text: Defendant contends that the process for appellate review of death judgments in California is dominated by political considerations and for this reason violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of the state and federal Constitutions. He notes that between 1979 and 1986, this court reversed 95 percent of the death judgments it reviewed. In 1986, there was a strenuous and well publicized campaign to unseat [three members of this court] at the impending retention election. ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 696, 280 Cal. Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351.) This campaign coalesced around the high percentage of death penalty reversals. (Ibid.) The campaign was successful, and the Chief Justice and two associate justices were removed from office and replaced by new appointees. Between July 1987 and December 1994, this court affirmed 84 percent of death penalty cases, and between 1990 and 1994 the affirmance rate was 94 percent. Under the due process clause of the federal Constitution, defendant is entitled to an impartial trial judge ( Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 309, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302; People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th 322, 332, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 710, 862 P.2d 710), and we assume that defendant is also entitled to have his automatic appeal decided by appellate justices who are impartial. He is not, however, entitled to have his appeal decided by justices who have never formed or expressed opinions or thoughts on general topics such as the propriety of the death penalty. `Bias in the sense of crystallized point of view about issues of law or policy is almost universally deemed no ground for disqualification.' ( Andrews v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 781, 790, 171 Cal.Rptr. 590, 623 P.2d 151, quoting 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (1st ed.1958) p. 131; see also Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie (1986) 475 U.S. 813, 821, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823; U.S. v. Payne (9th Cir.1991) 944 F.2d 1458,1476-1477.) Defendant argues, however, that the members of this court each have an actual conflict of interest because, as defendant puts it, for a justice of this Court to keep his or her job, death sentences must be affirmed. Even if we assume for argument's sake that there is some relationship between affirmance of death sentences and retention in office, defendant fails to demonstrate that a justice of this court must affirm every death sentence or any particular death sentence, much less defendant's own sentence. Thus, defendant does not persuade us that members of this court have a disabling conflict of interest in determining this appeal. Even if such a conflict of interest existed, moreover, it would apply equally to all California judges and, under the common law rule of necessity, the justices of this court would not be disqualified. ( Olson v. Cory (1980) 27 Cal.3d 532, 537, 178 Cal.Rptr. 568, 636 P.2d 532.)