a lawyer for eight inmates who challenged the law said Tuesday that evidence newly obtained from the state undermines the ruling. The inmates will ask a federal judge in Sacramento on Dec. 20 to halt enforcement of the measure statewide, said Monica Knox, an assistant federal public defender.
* * *
Prop. 9 increased the time between hearings to 15 years. It allowed the inmate to get the interval reduced to as little as three years by proving that the board was likely to grant an earlier release date.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in February that the inmates were likely to prove that the 15-year waiting period and other changes increased punishment for prisoners who committed their crimes before November 2008, violating the constitutional ban on retroactive criminal penalties. He barred enforcement of Prop. 9 against the eight inmates and was considering a statewide ban when the appeals court overruled him Monday.
In a 3-0 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco cited U.S. Supreme Court decisions allowing states to delay parole hearings unless the longer interval would lead to longer sentences.
Prop. 9 passes that test, the court said, because of a provision allowing the parole board to schedule an early hearing, in less than three years, if the inmate has new information increasing the likelihood of release.
But Knox said the court wasn't aware of new evidence from the state showing the supposed protection was largely an illusion: Of 61 requests for early hearings since Prop. 9 took effect, she said, the board granted two and rejected 59.