A new investigation from CalMatters examines how the law is playing out in courtrooms and jails across the state, and finds that even supporters of the measure acknowledge significant gaps in the system meant to help people struggling with addiction.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who backed the proposition, said the state has yet to deliver on its end of the deal. “People are waiting and dying on the streets for lack of a proper treatment system,” Mahan said. “The fundamental problem remains, which is that the state has refused to take ownership of building a robust treatment system that is going to serve the needs of people.”

Under Proposition 36, certain drug possession and theft offenses that were previously misdemeanors can now be charged as a “treatment-mandated felony.” Defendants facing those charges are given a choice: enter treatment or face prison time. But the law leaves it up to individual counties to decide how long that treatment period should last, and the resulting patchwork varies wildly. In Ventura County, treatment programs run about three months. In San Luis Obispo County, participants may be required to stay in the system for up to two years before their charges are dismissed.

That inconsistency can have real consequences for people trying to rebuild their lives. Aaron Kasper, who completed a three-month residential treatment program in Sonoma County after being accused of possessing fentanyl, expected his case to be resolved once he finished. Instead, he spent the rest of a court-mandated year undergoing random drug tests, attending court hearings, outpatient sessions and self-help meetings.

Because Kasper had entered a plea deal, he knew a felony on his record would make finding a job difficult. He lived off his savings and held off on his job search until just two weeks before his yearlong obligation ended.

“I tried to make the best of a horrible situation,” Kasper said.

The findings raise fresh questions about whether California’s approach to addressing addiction through the criminal justice system is delivering the outcomes voters were promised, or simply shifting the burden onto defendants navigating an inconsistent and, at times, unforgiving process.

CalMatters is partnering with the University of California, Riverside’s School of Public Policy for a public conversation on Sept. 24 in Riverside about the news organization’s investigation into the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s seizure of mail ballots and what it could mean for future elections. Details and registration are available through CalMatters’ events page.

In other statewide news, a once-reliably conservative congressional district in Northern California has become one of the most closely watched U.S. House races in the country, with healthcare policy taking center stage. Dr. Richard Pan, a pediatrician and former state senator known for his advocacy of childhood vaccines, is challenging Rep. Kevin Kiley, a two-term incumbent who left the Republican Party to run as an independent. Pan supports universal health coverage and argues that changes to Medicaid under the Trump administration are driving up costs for Californians. Kiley opposes vaccine mandates and single-payer healthcare, placing blame instead on state lawmakers in Sacramento for the high cost of living.

The district, which covers portions of Yolo, Sacramento and Placer counties, has drawn heightened attention after redistricting split Placer County into three left-leaning districts. Julann Brown, chair of the Placer County Democratic Party, said the change has reenergized local political engagement. “Now we have three winnable Democratic seats,” she said. “We’ve become relevant in a way that we didn’t expect.”

Meanwhile, legislation banning child marriage in California is now sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk after nearly ten years of failed attempts to pass similar measures. Under current law, anyone under 18 can marry with parental and judicial consent, and roughly 9,000 minors are married in California each year, the vast majority of them girls marrying adult men. Critics argue the practice effectively legalizes relationships that would otherwise be considered statutory rape. Previous bills stalled amid opposition from groups such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which have said marriage can provide minors with legal protections, including paths to emancipation. Supporters of this year’s bill believe political shifts, including federal funding cuts targeting organizations like Planned Parenthood, may reduce resistance to the measure.

In immigration news, a federal judge has ruled that immigration enforcement agents likely violated the Constitution by making warrantless arrests without first assessing whether individuals posed a flight risk. The decision marks a victory for immigration advocates suing to halt the practice.

In commentary, CalMatters columnist Dan Walters criticizes state leaders for withholding billions in education funding while continuing to spend heavily on pet projects and travel. Contributor Jim Newton argues that Los Angeles mayoral candidates are too focused on whether to fire the police chief, rather than examining how to properly evaluate the department’s performance. And author Kevin Waite reflects on the legacy of Biddy Mason, the formerly enslaved woman who built a real estate empire and helped shape Los Angeles into the city it is today.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Tough New Crime Law Cracks Down on Offenders — But Drug Treatment Funding Is Nowhere to Be Found appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Commissioners Patricia Cassady and Teal Kozel, who had served on the board for nine and three years respectively, were not reappointed after Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón declined to bring their nominations forward for a vote. The decision came after both women signed off on the release of men who had committed sexual crimes against children in the Sacramento area during the 1990s — David Funston and Gregory Vogelsang, both of whom were serving life sentences.

Local law enforcement in Sacramento strongly opposed the releases and urged residents to speak out at subsequent hearings. The backlash also reached the state Capitol, where Republican lawmakers in both the Assembly and Senate introduced legislation seeking greater transparency in parole board decisions and reforms to California’s elderly parole program, which allows certain inmates over 50 to petition for release.

Rather than subject Cassady and Kozel to a public confirmation vote, Limón — who chairs the Senate Rules Committee — chose to bypass their nominations altogether when the committee reviewed appointments for five other, less contentious commissioners. Sens. Caroline Menjivar and John Laird confirmed the maneuver to CalMatters.

The approach spared Democratic senators from having to cast politically risky votes on the two commissioners in public, while also denying Republicans an opening to use the controversy for political gain — a tactic the GOP has employed on similar issues in recent years.

California’s parole board, made up of 21 members appointed by the governor to three-year terms, is tasked with determining whether incarcerated individuals are ready to safely return to their communities under state supervision.

Cassady has since retired from state service, while Kozel has returned to her previous role as a senior psychologist supervisor within the department. Both told CalMatters they believed they deserved the same public hearing process afforded to the five commissioners who were ultimately confirmed.

“At least we would have been able to answer their questions and get some of our part out there,” Cassady said in a phone interview.

Cassady spent 31 years with the agency in various capacities. She was first appointed to the board by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2016 and was reappointed multiple times since. Kozel, who spent 16 years working in prison psychology before joining the board, declined to elaborate further when reached by phone.

Gov. Gavin Newsom had reappointed both women, along with five colleagues, to new terms in August 2025 — before the controversial decisions were made. Because their reappointments required Senate confirmation within a year, Cassady said she learned from the governor’s office in June that the Rules Committee had opted not to take up her case.

By choosing not to act, Senate Democrats effectively let the two commissioners’ appointments lapse without ever holding a public vote.

Limón’s office did not respond to a request for comment. However, during the Rules Committee hearing where the other five commissioners were confirmed, she alluded to the controversy, referencing “high-profile cases” that had drawn public attention.

“I think we all can agree that we share the goal of reassuring the public while respecting the constitutional and civil rights of everyone during these difficult decisions,” Limón said at the hearing.

Keith Wattley, executive director of the advocacy group UnCommon Law, said parole commissioners are supposed to base their rulings on public safety and legal standards — not political pressure.

“It communicates to parole commissioners and other decisionmakers that if you do something that is not popular, even if it’s the right decision, even if it’s consistent with the law, even if it protects public safety, then there are costs to you in your career,” Wattley said.

Heidi Rummel, a University of Southern California law professor and director of the Post-Conviction Justice Project, echoed those concerns.

“I predict that we will lose many of our most experienced and conscientious commissioners to the politicization of the process, at the expense of public safety,” she said in a written statement.

Although Newsom did not move to withdraw Cassady’s and Kozel’s nominations himself, Wattley said it would be surprising if lawmakers acted without at least tacit approval from the governor’s office. Newsom had publicly disagreed with the board’s decision to release Funston back in February, sending the case back for further review. The board ultimately upheld its original ruling, though both Funston and Vogelsang remain in custody. The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment from CalMatters.

Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat, defended Limón’s handling of the situation, saying it eased tensions within the caucus.

“I think she was trying to balance a lot of concern in the caucus with the actual situation, and it was a very tough balance. And I think she did her best in that circumstance,” he said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Parole Board Removes Two Members Following Outcry Over Sex Offender Release Votes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Newsom made headlines in 2019 when he ordered a moratorium on executions, calling the state’s capital punishment system a failure. The gas chamber chair and lethal injection gurney were hauled out of San Quentin State Prison in a moment that seemed to signal the death penalty’s demise in California. But the reality is far messier. Some 546 men and 18 women remain under death sentences, and a handful of counties — Riverside chief among them — have continued to pursue capital cases even after the moratorium took effect.

Advocacy groups, including international human rights organizations, are now urging Newsom to commute all of those sentences before he leaves office, converting them to life without parole. Such a move would be unprecedented in scale, reducing the nationwide death row population by roughly a quarter and dwarfing similar clemency actions, including President Joe Biden’s decision to commute 37 federal death sentences before leaving the White House.

Unlike Biden, however, Newsom cannot act unilaterally. More than half of the state’s death penalty cases involve defendants with multiple felony convictions, meaning the California Supreme Court would need to sign off on any commutations. And looming over the entire decision is Newsom’s widely anticipated run for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination — a political reality that complicates any move he might make.

Asked directly about the possibility of mass commutations, Newsom’s office declined to answer. Spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said only that the governor “has been clear about his position on the death penalty since his first year in office” and “believes the intentional killing of another person is wrong.”

A joint investigation by The Marshall Project and CalMatters, examining roughly 9,000 death sentences handed down nationwide, found troubling patterns in California stretching back half a century — many of the same issues Newsom himself has publicly criticized. Compared with other states, California courts have overturned or reduced far fewer death sentences. Black and Latino defendants are disproportionately represented on death row, and prosecutorial decisions by individual district attorneys — rather than the severity of the crime itself — appear to play an outsized role in who receives a death sentence.

Before taking office, Newsom told CalMatters he had asked then-Gov. Jerry Brown to “solve” the death penalty issue. Brown never did, and now the same unresolved dilemma has landed on Newsom’s desk as his time in Sacramento winds down.

A Troubled System’s Deep Roots

No California governor has granted clemency to someone on death row since Ronald Reagan did so in 1967. After the U.S. Supreme Court forced states nationwide to overhaul their capital punishment laws in the 1970s, California reinstated the death penalty in 1977. In the decades since, state prosecutors have sent more than 1,000 people to death row, yet only 13 executions have actually been carried out — the last in 2006.

The disconnect stems largely from California’s political geography. Conservative-leaning counties elect district attorneys who aggressively pursue capital cases, while the power to authorize executions rests with governors elected by a far more liberal statewide electorate. Even with legal challenges piling up and Newsom’s moratorium in place, more than 200 death sentences have been issued in California since executions last occurred nearly two decades ago.

Voters have twice rejected ballot measures to abolish the death penalty outright, in 2012 and 2016. A separate 2016 measure aimed at speeding up executions by streamlining appeals failed to provide adequate funding for defense attorneys, worsening an already massive backlog. The result is a system that satisfies almost no one: California spends roughly $200 million annually on capital case litigation, according to a 2025 report from the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, even though most death row inmates are still waiting to be assigned an attorney. Fully staffing every capital case with legal representation could cost more than half a billion dollars.

Because so few sentences are ever carried out or overturned, California’s share of the nation’s death row population has swelled dramatically over the decades — the state now holds more death sentences than any other in the country.

Racial Disparities and Riverside County’s Outsized Role

Newsom has long pointed to racial bias as one of his central objections to capital punishment. In 2022, he signed legislation making it easier for inmates to challenge sentences tainted by racial discrimination. He has previously stated that “California’s capital punishment scheme is now, and always has been, infected by racism.”

That claim gained further weight through a sweeping investigation by the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, which examined capital cases dating to the 1980s and found that prosecutors had systematically excluded Black and Jewish jurors believed to oppose the death penalty. Twenty defendants from those cases have since been resentenced, and at least two are now pursuing multimillion-dollar civil lawsuits.

Separately, a coalition of civil rights organizations has sued the state, arguing that racial disparities in capital sentencing violate the California Constitution. Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court directed a Sacramento trial court to review the claims, which cite research showing Black defendants are up to 8.7 times more likely than others to receive a death sentence for similar crimes, and Latino defendants up to 6.2 times more likely.

Geography plays an equally significant role. A Marshall Project and CalMatters analysis of homicide data since 1987 found that someone who commits a homicide in Riverside County is four times more likely to be sentenced to death than someone who commits a similar crime in neighboring Los Angeles County.

Since Newsom’s 2019 moratorium, at least 25 new death sentences have been handed down statewide — 11 of them in Riverside County alone. District attorneys remain free to pursue capital cases unless voters vote to repeal the death penalty altogether.

Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin did not respond to requests for comment for this story, but he has previously defended local prosecutorial discretion. “Criminal justice policy should as much as possible reflect the community, because it’s a personal thing,” he told The Sacramento Bee in 2016. Hestrin, a Republican, has also criticized Newsom’s moratorium as an action that “subverted the express will of the people” and reopened wounds for victims’ families.

A Political Minefield

Hestrin’s pushback offers a glimpse of the backlash Newsom could face if he moves to commute large numbers of death sentences — particularly as he eyes a national political future. Some cases could become powerful ammunition for critics, including that of Richard Allen Davis, convicted of murdering 12-year-old Polly Klaas in 1993. Klaas’ father, Marc, has been an outspoken opponent of Newsom’s death penalty moratorium.

“He does, I think, have to consider how it would look in other parts of the country were he to grant clemency,” said Garry South, a veteran California political strategist who worked on Newsom’s first gubernatorial campaign in 2008. “He doesn’t want to create an issue, even a phony issue, where his opponents leading up to 2028 could demagogue in the rest of the country and claim he let killers out on the streets of his own home state.” It’s worth noting that commutation would not release anyone from prison — those affected would instead serve life sentences without the possibility of parole.

At the same time, Newsom could face pressure to grant relief to inmates whose innocence claims have drawn national attention, such as Kevin Cooper, sentenced to death for a 1983 quadruple homicide in Chino Hills. High-profile figures including Kim Kardashian and columnist Nicholas Kristof have championed Cooper’s claims that he was framed by San Bernardino County investigators — allegations local law enforcement has repeatedly denied. Newsom ordered additional DNA testing in the case, but the results did not conclusively resolve the matter, and a subsequent outside review reaffirming Cooper’s guilt has itself drawn criticism over its objectivity.

Legal experts say Newsom likely lacks the time to review each of the roughly 560 cases individually, meaning any clemency decision would probably apply broadly rather than case by case — a stark contrast to Biden’s more selective approach.

Some death penalty opponents argue that a sweeping commutation could actually boost Newsom’s standing in a competitive Democratic presidential primary. “The voters he needs to appeal to for a Democratic primary would see this as a bold, positive move, and they want people to act based on their values, who don’t seem like politicians,” said Natasha Minsker, a former ACLU attorney who now lobbies against capital punishment in California.

Should Newsom decline to act, the decision would fall to his successor. Democratic frontrunner Xavier Becerra, who supported the death penalty during his time as state attorney general, has indicated he would continue the moratorium if elected governor. His Republican opponent, Steve Hilton, has said he would lift the moratorium despite personally opposing capital punishment — leaving the future of executions in California very much uncertain.

Whatever Newsom decides, hundreds of death penalty cases will likely remain unresolved, leaving both supporters and opponents of capital punishment dissatisfied with a system that, for now, shows no clear path forward.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Holds a Quarter of the Nation’s Death Row Cases. Could Newsom Commute Them All? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Last week, the state Legislature approved a bill that would bar law enforcement agencies from using so-called Perkins operations against certain defendants under age 26 who were minors at the time of their alleged offense. The tactic involves undercover officers posing as fellow inmates to draw confessions or incriminating statements out of people in custody, without ever reading them their Miranda rights.

Assembly Bill 1905, introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Burbank Democrat and former prosecutor, would prohibit these operations for people who allegedly committed crimes at 17 or younger, with an exception for cases where investigators believe someone’s safety is at immediate risk. The bill now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature; he has until Sept. 30 to act.

The push for change follows a CalMatters investigation published in July that examined how widely Perkins operations are used throughout California, including in Riverside County. Court records reviewed as part of that reporting showed undercover operatives — sometimes paid as much as $3,000 a day — using elaborate ruses, hidden recording equipment in jail cells, and false claims of gang credentials to pressure suspects into talking. In some instances, as many as five undercover agents were placed in a cell with a single detainee.

Those agents were often described in legal filings as considerably older and more physically imposing than the people they were sent to question.

“I believe that Perkins agents are proven to be problematic,” Schultz said. “At the end of the day, we’re not trying to impede the ability of law enforcement to do their job. But nonetheless, we have to ensure that we are not having coerced statements admitted as evidence and securing convictions that may not be supported by the evidence.”

Supporters of the bill argue that young people in custody are especially susceptible to being manipulated into false or unreliable statements. California has moved incrementally over the past decade to shield minors from deceptive interrogation practices. In 2017, the state required that children under 16 consult with an attorney before waiving their Miranda rights. That protection was extended to 17-year-olds in 2020, and in 2022, lawmakers banned police from using deceptive tactics on anyone under 18 during formal interrogations.

Perkins operations, however, have remained largely outside those restrictions because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that undercover jailhouse conversations don’t legally count as custodial interrogations. Defense attorneys say that loophole has allowed some agencies to push well past ethical and constitutional boundaries.

“The Perkins agents are much more than passive listeners. In many cases, at least to me, they cross a constitutional line,” said Jessica Melikian, a public defender who has represented clients targeted by these operations. She said she has seen cases in which undercover agents urged young defendants to waive their rights, warned them that requesting a lawyer would backfire, or told them they would be harmed or killed in prison unless they confessed.

“These Perkins agents are doing things that law enforcement would never be allowed to do in a custodial interrogation,” Melikian said, adding that AB 1905 would help close that legal gap by formally classifying the operations as a form of deception under state law.

Not everyone supports the change. The California State Sheriffs’ Association and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office both opposed the bill, arguing it strips investigators of an important tool. The measure passed largely along party lines, with most Democrats in favor and Republicans, along with two Democratic senators, voting against it.

“The first concern is the limitation,” said Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association. “The second concern is this notion that it’s for ‘young people’ as the bill’s materials address, when — in fact — it is not limited to minors or persons under the age of 18.”

Salzillo said cases involving suspects under 18 in Perkins operations are uncommon and insisted existing law already offers minors adequate protection from psychological pressure and deception.

The debate carries particular weight in the Inland Empire. In February, the 4th District Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of a Riverside County man who has long maintained his innocence, ruling that investigators violated his rights during a Perkins operation. That case is among roughly ten now pending before the California Supreme Court involving defendants — four Hispanic, four Black and two white — who argue they were manipulated or coerced by undercover agents while in custody. The youngest was just 18 at the time.

“These cases are going to the Supreme Court because it’s an issue that is paramount to understanding how far law enforcement can go in these operations,” said Scott Sanders, a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney. “These are the lines that you would think are too far.”

Even some prosecutors acknowledge the tactic needs boundaries. El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson, who defends the value of Perkins operations for his own office, warned that law enforcement agencies risk losing control of the issue if they don’t set their own limits.

“If law enforcement does not put appropriate limits and guardrails on this type of a powerful tool, then the Legislature and the courts will do it for us,” Pierson said. “And their restrictions will probably be far more than what we think is reasonable.”

With the bill now before Newsom, its fate could shape how far California police can go in extracting confessions from young suspects — and whether cases built on those tactics, including ones from right here in Riverside County, will withstand judicial scrutiny in the months ahead.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Weigh New Limits on Undercover Police Stings Involving Minors appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The move comes after prosecutors in the small Sierra Nevada foothill county, east of Sacramento, repeatedly used generative AI tools last fall in ways that introduced factual mistakes into court documents. District Attorney Jesse Wilson’s office has already acknowledged that four felony cases were affected.

The appointment follows a sworn declaration filed earlier this month by Madison Maxwell, a former Nevada County deputy district attorney who authored several of the flawed filings. Maxwell claimed that when she tried to come forward and correct the mistakes, her supervisor blocked her from immediately notifying the court, defense attorneys and the defendants involved.

Maxwell’s statement was submitted as part of her defense against potential sanctions, which could include monetary penalties or a referral to the State Bar of California for possible misconduct.

Three of the four cases in question were supervised by Maxwell, including one involving a habeas corpus petition seeking release of a man from county jail. All four involved AI-generated content — either drafted or edited using the technology — that introduced falsehoods into official court records.

The newly appointed judge’s review stems from a directive issued by the California Supreme Court in January. The high court asked the appellate court to examine more closely how far-reaching the AI-related errors were and whether they tainted the outcomes of criminal cases. In doing so, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that would have shielded Wilson’s office from any sanctions.

Legal experts say the Nevada County episode is notable because it represents one of the first documented instances nationwide in which government prosecutors — who are typically held to a stricter ethical standard than private attorneys — have been accused of presenting AI-generated falsehoods to a court.

The Nevada County District Attorney’s Office did not respond to a request for comment on Maxwell’s allegations or the appellate court’s decision.

In her declaration, Maxwell said her direct supervisor, Assistant District Attorney Lydia Stuart, had encouraged the use of AI tools in the office without establishing any formal policy or training on how to use them responsibly. She said the office had a culture in which young attorneys were frequently left with little oversight from senior staff.

Maxwell also cited personal health struggles, saying she experienced cognitive difficulties tied to poorly managed diabetes during the period in question. She said a reorganization within the district attorney’s office around that time led to the departure of several experienced attorneys, leaving her with a heavier caseload and fewer mentors to consult.

“Even today, Ms. Maxwell cannot say with certainty which errors were caused by her own drafting errors, as opposed to AI, as opposed to the brain fog and other neurological symptoms brought on by her then-unmanageable diabetes,” her declaration states.

Maxwell also said she was unaware, at the time, that AI programs could generate citations to court cases that do not actually exist. She joined the district attorney’s office in July 2024 — her first job out of law school — and resigned this past May. She now works for the Sutter County District Attorney’s Office.

Wilson and Stuart previously confirmed that four felony cases contained errors consistent with AI use. They said an audit covering roughly 18 months of case filings turned up no broader pattern of AI-related mistakes beyond those four cases, which came to light in February. It remains unclear whether that internal audit has been made public.

More than 20 artificial intelligence experts have urged the California Courts of Appeal to order a more thorough investigation into what happened in Nevada County. Civil Rights Corps, a nonprofit legal organization that assisted the county’s public defender’s office in filing habeas corpus petitions and requests for sanctions, said Maxwell’s declaration only reinforces the need for independent scrutiny.

“An independent investigation is needed to understand the scope of what really happened here and how many people and cases have been impacted,” said Peter Santina, an attorney with Civil Rights Corps, speaking to CalMatters shortly before the appellate court’s ruling.

The California Public Defenders Association also weighed in, filing a brief in support of sanctions. The group argued that prosecutorial misuse of AI is especially concerning because such errors are less likely to be discovered than similar mistakes in civil litigation. Kate Chatfield, the association’s executive director, said the stakes are especially high when a prosecutor cites a nonexistent case to justify keeping someone behind bars.

“That has serious implications for that defendant and their family,” Chatfield said.

The Nevada County case is part of a broader pattern of AI-related problems surfacing in courtrooms across California and the country. Independent researcher Damien Charlotin has tracked more than 130 instances nationwide in which the use of generative AI led to court filings containing fabricated information, including fictitious case citations. His database includes a recent lawsuit involving State Farm over a fire-related insurance dispute.

Last year, a panel of judges issued a $10,000 fine against a Los Angeles-area attorney who used ChatGPT to draft a filing containing more than 20 fabricated quotations — a sanction widely viewed as a warning to attorneys across the state. Since then, according to Charlotin’s tracking, 19 attorneys and self-represented litigants in California have faced monetary sanctions tied to AI-related errors in their filings.

Even as courts crack down on AI misuse by attorneys, judges and court staff themselves have begun experimenting with the technology. Pilot programs testing AI tools are already underway in Los Angeles and Riverside counties, drawing scrutiny from legal observers. Separately, federal courts have also seen instances of judges’ rulings containing AI-related errors.

Technology experts at UCLA School of Law have told CalMatters that overworked attorneys, judges and court staff are often the ones most likely to turn to AI tools for help — and the least likely to have the time to verify that the technology hasn’t fabricated facts or invented case law along the way.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Nevada County DA Faces Possible Sanctions Over AI-Related Errors in Criminal Cases appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

According to a new report from The Wren Collective, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization, one attorney in Kings County handled nearly 600 criminal cases involving indigent clients in 2025 alone — a workload that stands among the heaviest recorded anywhere in the country. That total doesn’t even account for the same lawyer’s private personal injury practice on the side.

The findings build on an investigation CalMatters published last year that scrutinized California’s reliance on flat-fee arrangements to provide legal counsel to defendants who cannot afford their own attorneys. Under these contracts, used by roughly two dozen counties statewide, private law firms are paid a set amount regardless of how much time or effort a case actually requires. Critics say the structure creates a built-in incentive for attorneys to move cases quickly rather than investigate them thoroughly — a practice that has been outlawed elsewhere in the United States.

“Flat fees place a financial conflict of interest in between the lawyer and the client,” said Josh Schwartz, an attorney with The Wren Collective who helped author the report. “The fee is always going to be less profitable the more time and attention is spent on each case.”

Even under the most lenient professional guidelines, public defenders are not supposed to handle more than 150 felony cases or 400 misdemeanor cases annually. Yet the new report, which draws on data from nine California counties, found that some attorneys working under flat-fee deals are carrying caseloads more than triple that recommended limit.

Much of the scrutiny has centered on Fitzgerald, Alvarez and Ciummo, a law firm that holds public defense contracts in five California counties and has earned a reputation in legal circles as something of a discount chain for indigent defense. CalMatters’ earlier reporting found that attorneys with the firm were notably less likely than other public defenders to conduct independent investigations, file legal challenges against law enforcement evidence, or take cases to trial. Numerous defendants interviewed as part of that investigation said they felt rushed into accepting plea deals and that their attorneys showed little interest in fighting for them in court.

The fallout from that reporting has already reshaped the conversation in Madera County, where the firm has held the public defense contract for nearly four decades. Community groups and residents mobilized after the story ran, pressing county leaders to reconsider how legal services for low-income defendants are handled locally. In June, the Madera County Board of Supervisors opted to extend the firm’s contract for only six months, rather than approving a full four-year renewal, giving officials time to explore possible reforms.

Linette Lomeli, executive director of the Madera Coalition for Community Justice, helped lead that push alongside the local NAACP chapter.

“I was in complete shock,” Lomeli said, recalling her reaction upon learning just how overloaded the county’s public defense contractor had become. “It’s super hard to ignore once you see the data.”

California remains one of only two states in the nation that provides no dedicated state funding for indigent criminal defense, leaving each county to design its own system with little oversight. For cash-strapped local governments, flat-fee contracts are often far less expensive than maintaining a traditional public defender’s office staffed with government attorneys — making the model attractive to county leaders even as its consequences mount.

Those consequences appear to extend well beyond the courtroom. According to the report, seven of the eight California counties with the highest rates of jail and prison incarceration rely on flat-fee public defense contracts. Kings County, which the report identifies as having the heaviest attorney caseloads documented anywhere in the state, also holds the distinction of having California’s highest incarceration rate.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Report: California’s Privatized Public Defense System Leaves Attorneys With Caseloads Triple Recommended Limits appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

This isn’t a statistical fluke. It reflects a long-standing pattern of racial disparity embedded in how California applies its harshest punishment — one that advocates argue courts can no longer afford to sidestep.

Two years ago, the Office of the State Public Defender, along with several civil rights groups, took an unusual legal path: filing what functions as a civil rights lawsuit directly with the California Supreme Court. The move came after decades in which lower courts repeatedly failed to meaningfully engage with claims of racial bias in capital sentencing.

The petition leans on more than a dozen empirical studies, arguing that the way California carries out capital punishment runs afoul of equal protection guarantees written into the state Constitution. In May, the state Supreme Court agreed the case had merit enough to proceed, sending it to Sacramento Superior Court for further review.

The research cited spans four decades and paints a troubling picture. Black defendants are up to eight times more likely, and Latino defendants up to six times more likely, to be sentenced to death compared with other defendants. Cases involving white victims are also more likely to end in a death sentence than those involving Black or Latino victims.

That bias doesn’t just shape outcomes — it raises the stakes for wrongful convictions. Since 1981, eight people have been exonerated and released from California’s death row. All eight were men of color.

Concerns over this kind of bias were central to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to halt executions in the state. His 2019 executive order establishing the moratorium specifically noted that death sentences have been “unevenly and unfairly applied to people of color.” The data since then hasn’t offered much reassurance: Of the 29 people sentenced to death since the moratorium began, 25 are people of color.

A governor’s moratorium, however, is not permanent — a future administration could reverse it at any time. That’s part of why advocates say a definitive court ruling is essential. Only the courts can settle whether the deep racial disparities baked into the state’s capital punishment system make it unconstitutional.

For years, defendants and their attorneys tried to get courts to seriously examine these disparities, only to be met with procedural gridlock. Troy Ashmus’ case illustrates the problem. Sentenced to death in 1986, Ashmus filed a federal habeas petition in 1998 challenging California’s death penalty system under the Eighth Amendment, backed by substantial evidence of racial bias.

What followed were more than two decades of delays. It wasn’t until 2020 — 22 years after he first raised the issue — that Ashmus finally appeared before a superior court judge. But before a ruling could be issued, he died of COVID-19, and his case was dismissed without ever being decided.

Even Ashmus’ case, frustrating as it was, represented a best-case scenario in some ways: he at least had legal representation and resources behind his appeal. That’s not the norm. Of the roughly 550 people currently on California’s death row, about 70% lack an attorney or the funding needed to pursue appeals or petitions. Even when a defendant manages to raise state constitutional claims, getting the California Supreme Court to weigh in can take more than a decade.

Part of the holdup stems from a shrinking, aging pool of attorneys qualified to handle capital appeals, compounded by chronic underfunding of the system. It can take years just to get appellate counsel appointed. Meanwhile, more than 130 fully briefed capital appeals are already sitting before the state Supreme Court, with dozens more working their way through earlier stages — a backlog that all but guarantees years of additional delay.

The financial toll has been staggering as well. Since 1978, California has spent roughly $6 billion maintaining its death penalty system, while carrying out only 13 executions. The most recent one took place on Jan. 17, 2006 — nearly two decades ago.

Given all of this, the constitutional questions raised in the pending civil rights petition demand timely answers, not another decade of delay. Every year the case remains unresolved, the evidence of racial disparity in California’s death penalty system continues to grow — and so does the human cost of waiting.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Courts Must Confront Racial Bias in Death Penalty Sentencing appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The practice, named after a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, has helped prosecutors close hundreds of murder cases across the state. But defense attorneys, civil rights groups and a growing number of appellate judges argue the tactic has been stretched well beyond its original intent — particularly in cases where suspects had already invoked their right to remain silent.

A months-long investigation by CalMatters, drawing on more than 5,000 pages of court records and over 40 interviews with attorneys, scholars, lawmakers and people who were subject to the operations, offers the most detailed public accounting yet of how these stings work and who they target. Here’s what the review found.

A murky legal standing

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that statements suspects make to undercover jailhouse operatives are considered voluntary, meaning police aren’t required to read Miranda warnings before deploying an agent. But that decision left unresolved a key question now working through California’s courts: whether investigators can keep running these operations after a suspect has already asserted their Miranda rights during an earlier interrogation.

The state’s high court declined to take up a related case in 2019 involving a Kern County man who was targeted by an undercover operative just one day after invoking his rights. Even so, Justice Goodwin Liu wrote a pointed dissent, warning that deceptive tactics used to bypass Miranda protections had become widespread across California law enforcement. “How is it possible,” he asked, “that the protections of Miranda are so easily evaded?”

How the operations unfold

According to court records reviewed by CalMatters, the undercover operatives — often called Perkins agents — are typically older and more physically imposing than the suspects they’re paired with. Many pose as seasoned, high-ranking gang members with violent reputations. In some documented cases, jail officials placed as many as five agents in a cell with a single target.

Martín Flores, a gang expert who has studied these operations extensively, said the goal for many detainees becomes proving themselves to the undercover agent, largely out of self-preservation. “If you look weak and vulnerable, you’re going to become the prey,” he said.

Records show jail cells wired with hidden recording equipment, substantial payments made to operatives, and staged evidence designed to prompt suspects into talking.

Scrutiny across Southern California

CalMatters identified Perkins operations conducted in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, Orange, Santa Barbara and Santa Clara counties. Riverside County’s first documented operation dates to 2014, and records show its law enforcement agencies now run several such stings weekly — roughly half of them on behalf of outside agencies whose identities were not disclosed.

Earlier this year, the 4th District Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of a Riverside County man, who has consistently maintained his innocence, after finding investigators violated his rights by continuing an operation after he had invoked his right to counsel. The court ruled that once a suspect invokes and does not waive that right, continued efforts by law enforcement to “stimulate” conversation through an operation amount to an unlawful custodial interrogation — making any resulting statements inadmissible.

Questions of racial bias

Of the cases now before the California Supreme Court, four defendants are Hispanic, four are Black and two are white; the youngest was just 18 at the time of the operation.

The California Public Defenders Association and the ACLU have urged the court to examine whether the practice disproportionately affects people of color. They point to an analysis by the Riverside County Public Defender’s Office of roughly 880 murder cases from January 2015 through June 2023, which found Black defendants were targeted in Perkins operations at more than four times the rate of white defendants, while Latino defendants were targeted at twice the rate.

In San Diego County, public defenders have filed the state’s first Racial Justice Act petition connected to a Perkins operation, a law that allows defendants to challenge convictions they believe were tainted by racial bias. Their review of roughly 40 operations found agents repeatedly used racial slurs and leaned on cultural stereotypes to build false trust with suspects.

San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan pushed back on those findings, telling CalMatters that the operations are used consistently “wherever it appears that a heartless murder can benefit,” regardless of a suspect’s race, gender or background.

A veil of secrecy

Law enforcement agencies have been notably resistant to releasing information about how Perkins operations are funded, staffed and trained. CalMatters filed nearly two dozen public records requests with agencies in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino, Orange and Santa Clara counties — almost all of which were denied.

It wasn’t until attorneys from the law firm Covington & Burling, working with the First Amendment Coalition, pressed the issue over several months that a limited set of records was ultimately released, offering a rare glimpse into a practice that has otherwise remained largely hidden from public view.

Original source: CalMatters

The post 5 Things to Know About Undercover Police Stings Inside California Jails appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Known as a Perkins operation, the technique involves an undercover officer or informant posing as a fellow inmate to draw out incriminating statements from someone in custody. The tactic often relies on staged evidence, cash incentives for cooperating informants, and jail cells wired for sound. Prosecutors across California, including in the Inland Empire, have long defended the practice as a legitimate and effective way to close difficult cases.

But defense attorneys argue these sting operations amount to psychological manipulation that can push innocent people to confess out of fear rather than guilt.

“It’s psychological warfare,” said Michelle Luna Reynoso, a criminal defense attorney. “How is this not considered cruel and unusual punishment?”

The debate has intensified as multiple cases challenging convictions tied to Perkins operations have reached the state’s highest court this year. Some defendants say undercover operatives manipulated them into waiving their Miranda rights before ever speaking with police. Others claim they were pressured into incriminating themselves even after formally invoking those rights.

Jason Zapata’s case illustrates the concern. Arrested in Riverside County in 2015 at age 24, Zapata was placed in a holding cell with two men who claimed to be gang members facing murder charges. As the men recounted violent pasts and pressed him for details about his own case, Zapata said he grew convinced his safety was at risk — and ultimately told them what they wanted to hear.

“Your life is in their hands,” Zapata said. “Anything could happen to you in that type of environment. Not everybody makes it out. You’ve got to do what you need to do to survive in this place.”

An investigation by CalMatters, which included dozens of public records requests and legal assistance to obtain documents some agencies initially withheld, examined how widely these operations are used across California and the questions they raise about coerced confessions and disproportionate impact on Black and Latino defendants.

In other statewide news, California is suing to block the proposed $110 billion merger between Warner Bros. and Paramount, arguing the deal would create a media giant powerful enough to stifle competition. Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined by 11 other state attorneys general, filed the lawsuit in federal court in Northern California this week.

Bonta warned the merger would give the combined company control over nearly a third of theatrical releases and basic cable programming — including 50 of the most-watched cable channels — leading to higher ticket prices, fewer choices and lower-quality programming for consumers.

“History has shown that consolidation in markets at the center of American economic life does not serve our economy, our consumers or competition,” Bonta said.

Paramount CEO David Ellison, an ally of President Donald Trump, saw the deal receive federal approval in June, when the Justice Department concluded it was unlikely to harm competition or consumers.

Meanwhile, California’s largest public pension fund is closing out a strong financial year. CalPERS reported Monday that its investment portfolio grew nearly 15% during the 2025-26 fiscal year, pushing its total value to $637.1 billion — marking the second consecutive year of double-digit returns and the third straight year the fund exceeded its 6.8% target.

While CalPERS remains underfunded overall, officials say the gains reflect continued recovery from losses tied to the Great Recession, with assets now covering about 85% of what the fund owes retirees. The strong performance comes as police and firefighter unions push state lawmakers to expand retirement benefits for public safety workers, a case that could be bolstered by the fund’s latest results.

“Our team has maintained a disciplined approach to building the health of the pension system,” said CalPERS CEO Marcie Frost. “This effort is paying off for our 2.4 million members.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Supreme Court to Weigh In: Are Jailhouse Informant Stings Crossing the Line? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The case centers on David Allen, who was arrested on suspicion of murder in 2016 at age 28. After his arrest, Allen invoked his right to remain silent four separate times. Despite that, investigators turned to a tactic known as a “Perkins operation,” in which a police officer or a civilian informant poses as a fellow inmate to draw out incriminating statements from a suspect who believes he’s simply talking to another person behind bars.

According to court records, statements Allen made during that operation became “the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case” against him. He was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 45 years to life in prison. He has since petitioned the California Supreme Court, arguing that the tactic violated his Fifth Amendment rights and his federal due process protections, and is seeking to have his conviction overturned.

The case caught the attention of CalMatters criminal justice reporter Cayla Mihalovich last fall, after a tip led her to dig deeper into Allen’s petition. What she found was striking: the state’s highest court has been accepting a growing number of similar cases, all involving defendants who say undercover operatives coerced them into incriminating themselves after they had already invoked their Miranda rights, or convinced them to waive those rights altogether before formal interrogation. At least nine more Perkins-related cases have been accepted by the court since Allen’s.

That discovery prompted a much broader investigation. Mihalovich and her editors set out to answer a series of fundamental questions that, it turned out, law enforcement agencies were reluctant to address: How exactly do these operations work? How do they manage to operate around Miranda protections? What do they cost taxpayers? How are the undercover operatives — often incarcerated people themselves — recruited and trained? And who, demographically, tends to be targeted?

Getting those answers proved far more difficult than expected. Despite reviewing thousands of pages of court documents, reporters found that law enforcement agencies and district attorneys’ offices treat details of these operations as closely guarded secrets.

CalMatters filed nearly two dozen public records requests with law enforcement agencies across Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino, Orange and Santa Clara counties. Nearly all of them were denied. After consulting with the First Amendment Coalition, CalMatters brought in attorneys from the law firm Covington & Burling to push back against the denials and advocate for greater transparency. That effort, spanning several months, eventually produced a handful of previously unreleased law enforcement records. The attorneys are continuing to pursue additional documents even as this story goes to print.

The result is what CalMatters describes as the most thorough examination to date of Perkins operations in California. Mihalovich reviewed more than 5,000 pages of court records and conducted over 40 interviews with legal scholars, public defenders, prosecutors, district attorneys, state lawmakers, criminal justice advocates and people who have been incarcerated.

“It’s psychological war,” San Diego criminal defense attorney Michelle Luna Reynoso told CalMatters. “How is this not considered cruel and unusual punishment?”

Readers with information about Perkins operations in their own communities are encouraged to contact reporter Cayla Mihalovich at cayla@calmatters.org.

This reporting project was supported by a grant from Columbia University’s Ira A. Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights, in partnership with Arnold Ventures.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Inside the Investigation: Uncovering Undercover Police Tactics in California Jails appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.