DOCSLIB.ORG

Improving the Pardon and Commutation Process Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Improving the Pardon and Commutation Process Policy Improving the Pardon and Commutation Process Policy Recommendations for Governor Gavin Newsom MARCH 2019 About Asian Americans Advancing • Immigrant Legal Resource Center Justice - Asian Law Caucus • Legal Services for Prisoners with Founded in 1972, Asian Americans Children Advancing Justice – Asian Law • PICO California Caucus (Advancing Justice - ALC) is the nation’s first legal and civil rights • Southeast Asia Resource Action organization serving the low-income Center Asian Pacific American communities. Advancing Justice – ALC focuses • Root and Rebound on criminal justice reform, housing • Youth Justice Coalition rights, immigration and immigrants’ rights, labor and employment issues, This memo was authored by: immigrant youth advocacy (ASPIRE), voting rights, and national security • Ny Nourn - Yuri Kochiyama and civil rights. Fellow, Advancing Justice - ALC Since the vast majority of Asians and Pacific Islanders in America are • Sarah Lee - Community Advocate, immigrants and refugees, Advancing Advancing Justice - ALC Justice – ALC strives to create informed and educated communities • Angela Chan - Policy Director and empowered to assert their rights Senior Staff Attorney, Advancing and to participate actively in Justice - ALC American society. This perspective is reflected in our broad strategy which Thank you to the following editors: integrates the provision of legal services, educational programs, • Carol Strickman - Senior Staff community organizing initiatives and Attorney, Legal Services for advocacy. Prisoners with Children Prepared by Asian Americans • Colby Lenz - Community Organizer, California Coalition Advancing Justice - Asian Law For Women Prisoners Caucus on behalf of the Pardon and Commutation Reform Coalition: • Eva DeLair - Associate Director, Northern CA Programs & Policy • Asian Americans Advancing Reform, Root and Rebound Justice – California • Emily Harris - Senior Campaigner, • Asian Prisoner Support Ella Baker Center for Human Committee Rights • California Coalition for Women • Saira Hussain - Staff Attorney, Prisoners Asian Americans Advancing Justice - ALC • Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights • Rose Cahn - Criminal and Immigrant Justice Attorney, • Council on American - Islamic Immigrant Legal Resource Center Relations 3 applicants and drawing from our experiences serving directly- impacted community members seeking pardons and commutations, we provide recommendations for building on these initial reforms to further improve California’s pardon and commutation process. In this memo we provide background information on the pardon and commutation process, a summary of AB 2845, and an analysis of major trends in the survey results. We also provide the following recommendations for this new administration to consider adopting: Executive Summary After passing AB 2845 in September 1. Add a section in the pardon and 2018, the state of California adopted commutation applications that its first progressive pardon and allows the applicant to explain commutation reform since 1943. if there are urgent issues This year the Governor’s Office and involved, such as deportation the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) orders, and require that BPH have the important responsibility expedite these applications. of implementing this new law and The Governor’s Office should ask can choose to take additional BPH to expedite their investigation steps to significantly improve the of these applications within transparency and accessibility of the three months of receipt from the pardon and commutation process. “As nonprofit Governor’s Office, with the flexibility of acting sooner for emergency organizations As nonprofit organizations working alongside directly-impacted situations. working alongside community members to advance directly-impacted criminal justice reform, we write 2. Issue a decision regarding this report to share our policy community pardon and commutation recommendations for implementing members to applications within one year AB 2845. While implementing AB of receipt of the application, advance criminal 2845 is an important first step or sooner if the application to improving the pardon and justice reform, we involves an urgent issue. write this report to commutation process, further reform is needed to ensure that these vital share our policy The Governor’s Office should avenues for relief are truly accessible provide a clear time frame for when recommendations and transparent. Based on gathering a decision will be issued to increase for implementing and analyzing 100 survey results transparency for applicants and their from pardon and commutation AB 2845.” families. 4 3. Create a notification process 6. Ask CDCR to approve trainings for applicants and their in a timely manner regarding supporters that includes the pardon and commutation providing notification of receipt process from community of the application, a filing groups. number, status updates, and guidelines for supplementing or It can be challenging for community resubmitting an application. groups to get access to a state prison to provide trainings. This A key request from survey process should be streamlined, participants was that the Governor’s especially for trainings on applying Office provide notification at for clemency and commutations. each step of the clemency and commutation application process to increase transparency so 7. Advocate for elimination of that applicants are not waiting California Supreme Court indefinitely for a response. This Review for clemency applicants reform could be implemented twice convicted of a felony, and through updating the Governor’s resubmit applications recently website to allow applicants to rejected by the Supreme Court. submit an application through an The Supreme Court’s recent online portal and for supporters and decisions in December 2018 applicants to check the status of an blocking the Governor from granting application. clemency for ten individuals while providing no explanation for 4. Allow support letters to be their decision raises concerns of electronically submitted using transparency and interference with the applicant’s filing number. the Governor’s clemency powers. We recommend that the application We recommend that the Governor’s instructions inform applicants that Office promptly resubmit these they may submit support letters applications, and ask for an from organizations or programs, as administrative order from the well as from their family, friends, and California Supreme Court that community members. explains their prior rare decision to reject grants for these applications. We also recommend that the 5. Designate a point person as Governor support a ballot measure a resource for applicants and to amend the California Constitution their supporters. to remove this requirement of Supreme Court review. Survey participants expressed that it’s often unclear who they should contact in the Governor’s Office with questions or to ask for updates. This can be addressed through designating a clear point person. 5 8. Adopt a policy of presumptively the constitutional standard of care granting pardon applications for the prison population and ruled supported by a Certificate of for the state to comply by reducing Rehabilitation (COR). its prison population from 181 percent to 137.5 percent of design Individuals who are able to obtain capacity within two years.1 a COR from a court must go through a rigorous review process. As of December 2017, of the 130,263 Applications for a pardon supported people incarcerated in state prisons, by a COR should be granted by 5,119 are sentenced to Life Without the Governor without a second the Possibility of Parole (LWOP) and investigation by the Board of Parole 27,431 are sentenced to Life.2 People Hearings. serving LWOP and Life sentences spend decades in prison, and after exhausting all state appeals, rely 9. Establish an Independent on clemency as their main form of Pardon and Commutation relief. Pardons and commutations Commission. are key avenues for the Governor of California to recognize the harm An independent panel should be caused by the mass incarceration established to ensure that pardon crisis and to underscore the value of and commutation applications are redemption and rehabilitation. prioritized and investigated. Pardon and commutation applications In California, individuals who were are important decisions for the convicted of a crime and can show Governor’s Office to make as they they have rehabilitated may apply affect whether people will be for a gubernatorial commutation or deported, can obtain employment, pardon. A commutation reduces a can vote if they live in another state, sentence post-conviction. A pardon and can remove other barriers restores specified rights, such as to reintegration. Pardons and the ability to obtain a professional commutations deserve a designated license. A pardon may also allow commission. for an immigrant to reopen their deportation case if the order was based on the state criminal Background on pardons conviction. and commutations in California Currently, the Governor may forward applications for pardons and From the 1980’s to the 2000’s, commutations to the Board of Parole misguided “tough on crime” policies Hearings (BPH) to review and make spurred a prison boom in California recommendations. The Governor that led to an almost tripling of the retains exclusive authority to grant number of state prisons from 12 pardons and commutations; and to 33. California’s prisons became the Legislature can
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Joshua Groban NEWEST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE of the SUPREME COURT of CALIFORNIA
    California Supreme Court Historical Society newsletter · spring/summer 2019 Joshua Groban NEWEST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA On Page 2: Insights from a Former Colleague By Justice Gabriel Sanchez The Supreme Court of California: Associate Justices Leondra Kruger, Ming Chin, and Goodwin Liu, Chief Justice of California Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Associate Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Carol Corrigan and Joshua Groban. Photos: Judicial Council of California Introducing Justice Joshua Groban by Justice Gabriel Sanchez* hen Joshua Paul Groban took the oath of A native of San Diego, Groban received his Bach- office as an associate justice of the California elor of Arts degree from Stanford University, major- WSupreme Court on January 3, 2019, he was in ing in modern thought and literature and graduating one sense a familiar face to attorneys and judges through- with honors and distinction. He earned his J.D. from out the state. As a senior advisor to Governor Edmund G. Harvard Law School where he graduated cum laude Brown Jr., Justice Groban screened and interviewed more and then clerked for the Honorable William C. Con- than a thousand candidates for judicial office. Over an ner in the Southern District of New York. He was an eight-year span, the governor, with Groban’s assistance accomplished litigator at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Whar- and advice, appointed 644 judges, including four of the ton & Garrison from 1999 to 2005 and Munger, Tolles seven current justices on the California Supreme Court & Olson in Los Angeles from 2005 to 2010, where he and 52 justices on the California Courts of Appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Detention
    NYSBA REPORT ON EXECUTIVE DETENTION, HABEAS CORPUS AND THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION’S COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS MAY 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.............................................................................. 1 A. The Guantanamo Detainees....................................................................... 2 B. Report Summary ........................................................................................ 7 I. HISTORY OF HABEAS CORPUS..................................................................... 12 A. The Origins of Habeas Corpus: England ................................................. 12 B. Extra-Territorial Application of Habeas Corpus at Common Law.......... 15 C. Early American Habeas Law ................................................................... 17 D. Early American Extension of Habeas Corpus to Aliens and Alien Enemy Combatants .................................................................................. 20 E. American Suspension of Habeas Corpus................................................. 23 F. World War II and the Extension of Habeas Corpus to Enemy Aliens ....................................................................................................... 28 G. Relevant Post-World War II Habeas Developments ............................... 33 H. Adequate and Effective Habeas Substitute.............................................. 37 II. LAWS OF WAR REGARDING ENEMY COMBATANTS PRE- SEPTEMBER 11TH ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cruel State Punishments
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 98 Number 6 Article 2 9-1-2020 Cruel State Punishments William W. Berry III Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William W. Berry III, Cruel State Punishments, 98 N.C. L. REV. 1201 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol98/iss6/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 98 N.C. L. REV. 1201 (2020) CRUEL STATE PUNISHMENTS* WILLIAM W. BERRY III** The Supreme Court has almost systematically expanded Eighth Amendment protections over the past decade and a half, adopting categorical limitations to the death penalty and juvenile life without parole. With Justice Kennedy’s recent retirement, this expansion seems like it might be ending. As this door is closing, however, another door may be opening for restricting excessive punishments—state constitutional analogues to the Eighth Amendment. A close examination of such provisions reveals that some of the provisions use “or” instead of “and,” a linguistic difference that suggests many state constitutions might be broader than the Eighth Amendment. This Article explores the consequences of linguistic differences between the Eighth Amendment and its state constitutional analogues, focusing in particular on the effect of disjunctive state constitutional provisions. Specifically, the Article argues that these linguistic differences open the door to broader application of state Eighth Amendment analogues to rein in excessive punishment practices of state governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Daily Journal . . . Daily Journal
    Daily Journal . Daily Journal . Daily Journal . The Recorder Joshua Groban, Brown's Fourth Nominee, Confirmed to California's High Court Governor Jerry Brown’s fourth and final nominee for the California Supreme Court, Joshua Groban, has been confirmed by the state’s judicial appointments commission. The commission—Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and First District Court of Appeal Justice Anthony Kline—voted unanimously to confirm Groban early Friday afternoon. Groban plans to take his oath of office from the governor Jan. 3, in time to be seated for the court’s January calendar. Groban has worked for Brown since 2010 when he started as chief legal adviser to the governor’s campaign. Within the Brown administration, Groban has had a lead role in recruiting and vetting about 600 trial court and appellate court nominees. At the confirmation hearing that preceded the commission’s vote, witnesses highlighted Groban’s efforts at recruiting and nominating judges to reflect the state’s diverse population. First District Court of Appeal Associate Justice Therese Stewart, who was appointed to the bench during Brown’s tenure, said Groban “proactively reached out” to bar groups representing women, Asian-Americans, African-Americans and LGBTQ lawyers. “He was not content to just review applications of the people who applied to the bench in the hopes that there would be an adequately diverse body of candidates,” Stewart said. “He took the mystery for them out of that black box” of the judicial nomination process.Groban will join three other Brown appointees he helped bring to the bench—Associate Justices Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar and Leondra Kruger—meaning Brown’s appointees will constitute a majority of the seven-justice bench.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentence and Release Options for High-Risk Sexual Offenders
    Report prepared for the ACT Government on Sentence and Release Options for High-Risk Sexual Offenders by Professor David Biles OAM Consultant Criminologist and Professorial Associate, Charles Sturt University September 2005 1 Australian Capital Territory, Canberra 2005 Department of Justice and Community Safety GPO Box 158 Canberra ACT 2601 For an electronic version of this guide visit the publications area in the JACS website, at www.jcs.act.gov.au For telephone enquiries about this guide, please call: (02) 6207 0595 or 6207 0520 2 Contents Page 1. Executive Summary......................................................................................................... 4 2. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 7 3. Terms of Reference.......................................................................................................... 9 4. Acknowledgements........................................................................................................ 11 5. Australian Law and Practice .......................................................................................... 12 5.1 New South Wales................................................................................................... 12 5.2. Victoria ..................................................................................................................15 5.3. Queensland............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ARTICLES the OBJECTS of the CONSTITUTION Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz*
    ROSENKRANZ-63 STAN. L. REV. 1005 (DO NOT DELETE) 5/8/201110:58 PM ARTICLES THE OBJECTS OF THE CONSTITUTION Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz* INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1006 I. THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF THE WHO QUESTION ............................................. 1008 A. Barron v. Baltimore .................................................................................. 1010 B. Beyond Barron .......................................................................................... 1015 1. Federal subjects ................................................................................ 1016 a. The objects of Article I, Section 8 ................................................ 1016 b. The objects of Article I, Section 9 ................................................ 1018 2. State subjects ..................................................................................... 1024 II. THE OBJECTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ............................................................ 1028 A. The Subject of the First Amendment ......................................................... 1028 B. The Object of the Third Amendment ......................................................... 1028 C. The Objects of the Fourth Amendment ..................................................... 1033 1. The object of searches and seizures .................................................. 1034 2. The object of warrants .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arguments for the Continued Detention of Dangerous Sex Offenders
    POSITION PAPER Balancing Rights: Arguments for the continued detention of dangerous sex offenders Originally published: 2013 Last updated: November 2017 About the Authors Carol Ronken worked as a researcher and Associate Lecturer at Griffith University in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice before joining Bravehearts in May 2003. With a BA(Psych) and Masters Applied Sociology(Social Research), Carol is the Director of Research for Bravehearts and is passionate about ensuring the organisation’s active involvement in research, policy and legislative development that aims to prevent, respond to, and ultimately reduce the incidence of child sexual assault in the community. In 2011 she received an award from the Queensland Police Service Child Protection and Investigation Unit for her contribution to child protection. Carol has also co-authored The Bravehearts Toolbox for Practitioners working with Child Sexual Assault (Australian Academic Press, 2011). Carol is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology, the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, and the Child Protection Practitioners Association of Queensland. She sits on the Federal e-Safety Commissioner’s Online Safety Consultative Working Group, the Queensland Victim Services Interagency Organisation Network, the Queensland Child Protection Advocates Group and Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council. In January 2017, Carol accepted a 3 year position as a Visiting Fellow in the School of Justice, Faculty of Law, at Queensland University of Technology. Bravehearts Foundation Limited ABN: 41 496 913 890 ACN: 607 315 917 PO Box 575, Arundel BC, Qld 4214 Phone 07 5552 3000 Email [email protected] Information & Support Line 1800 272 831 bravehearts.org.au © 2017 Bravehearts Foundation Ltd 2 About Bravehearts Bravehearts has been actively contributing to the provision of child sexual assault services throughout Australia since 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • The Price of Freedom RIGHTS Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City WATCH
    United States HUMAN The Price of Freedom RIGHTS Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City WATCH The Price of Freedom Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City Copyright © 2010 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-718-3 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org December 2010 ISBN: 1-56432-718-3 The Price of Freedom Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 7 I. The Bail Process ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division
    Case: 1:16-cv-11471 Document #: 132 Filed: 03/31/19 Page 1 of 61 PageID #:1506 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) PAUL MURHY et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) No. 16 C 11471 ) v. ) Judge Virginia M. Kendall ∗ ) KWAME RAOUL et al., ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Paul Murphy is indigent and homeless. He was convicted of possession of child pornography in 2012 and received a sentence of three years’ probation. Five years after his release date, and nearly twice the number of years of his sentence, he re- mains incarcerated because the Department of Corrections cannot find an appropri- ate place for him live. Illinois, like many states, requires sentencing courts to follow a term of impris- onment with a term of mandatory supervised release. Supervised release is a form of post-confinement monitoring intended to assist individuals in their transition from prison to liberty. Most supervised release terms are determinate, but some—includ- ing those that apply to several sex offenses—are indeterminate, meaning they range from three years to natural life. The clock on these terms does not start ticking until ∗ Because Kwame Raoul became the Attorney General of Illinois on January 14, 2019, he automatically substitutes in as a defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Page 1 of 61 Case: 1:16-cv-11471 Document #: 132 Filed: 03/31/19 Page 2 of 61 PageID #:1507 sex offenders are out of prison, but some never make it that far because they are indigent and the State demands that they first secure a qualifying host site before it will release them.
    [Show full text]
  • Due Process in Civil Contempt Proceedings: a Comparison with Juvenile and Mental Incompetency Requirements
    Fordham Law Review Volume 44 Issue 5 Article 7 1976 Due Process in Civil Contempt Proceedings: A Comparison with Juvenile and Mental Incompetency Requirements William A. Austin Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William A. Austin, Due Process in Civil Contempt Proceedings: A Comparison with Juvenile and Mental Incompetency Requirements, 44 Fordham L. Rev. 1029 (1976). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol44/iss5/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DUE PROCESS IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS: A COMPARISON WITH JUVENILE AND MENTAL INCOMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS A New York father and his mistress were jailed for almost two years for refusing to produce his child at a custody proceeding.' A law that would have limited imprisonment for civil contempt to one year, proposed as a result of this case, was vetoed by the Governor of New York. 2 On the other hand, an alleged member of organized crime was released by the New Jersey Supreme Court after being incarcerated for almost five years for refusing to testify before the State Commission of Investigation. 3 These events indicate a need to reevaluate the due process afforded a civil contemnor, for just as the controversy over a jury trial for criminal contemnors4 raged for years, 5 the question of coercive imprisonment may have reached the boiling point.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of California Statement on Equality and Inclusion June 11, 2020
    Supreme Court of California Statement on Equality and Inclusion June 11, 2020 The Supreme Court of the State of California "In view of recent events in our communities and through the nation, we are at an inflection point in our history. It is all too clear that the legacy of past injustices inflicted on African Americans persists powerfully and tragically to this day. Each of us has a duty to recognize there is much unfinished and essential work that must be done to make equality and inclusion an everyday reality for all. We must, as a society, honestly recognize our unacceptable failings and continue to build on our shared strengths. We must acknowledge that, in addition to overt bigotry, inattention and complacency have allowed tacit toleration of the intolerable. These are burdens particularly borne by African Americans as well as Indigenous Peoples singled out for disparate treatment in the United States Constitution when it was ratified. We have an opportunity, in this moment, to overcome division, accept responsibility for our troubled past, and forge a unified future for all who share devotion to this country and its ideals. We state clearly and without equivocation that we condemn racism in all its forms: conscious, unconscious, institutional, structural, historic, and continuing. We say this as persons who believe all members of humanity deserve equal respect and dignity; as citizens committed to building a more perfect Union; and as leaders of an institution whose fundamental mission is to ensure equal justice under the law for every single person. In our profession and in our daily lives, we must confront the injustices that have led millions to call for a justice system that works fairly for everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • Commission on Judicial Appointments to Consider Appointment of Mr
    Met News Brown Elevates Two to First District Court of Appeal Gov. Jerry Brown announced Wednesday his elevation of Alameda Superior Court Judge Ioana Petrou and San Francisco Superior Court Judge Tracie L. Brown to the First District Court of Appeal. Both are Democrats. Petrou, if confirmed, will take a seat in Div. Three, replacing Justice Stewart R. Pollak who was appointed as presiding justice of the First District’s Div. Four. Petrou has been a judge since 2010. She was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of California from 2004 to the time of her first judicial appointment, before which she worked both in private practice and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York. Her law degree is from Berkeley. Brown, who has held her current position since 2013, is slated to take a seat on Div. Four, replacing Justice Timothy A. Reardon after his retirement. Prior to taking the bench she was an assistant U.S. attorney, also in the Northern District of California, beginning in 2002. Before that, Brown was in private practice for five years. Her J.D. is from Berkeley. Both appointments are subject to confirmation from the Commission on Judicial Appointments, made up of Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil- Sakauye, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and the district’s senior presiding justice, J. Anthony Kline. Pollak is currently awaiting confirmation to his presiding justice position by the same commission. That panel will act on the appointment of gubernatorial advisor Joshua P. Groban to the Supreme Court on Dec.
    [Show full text]