Question about CA Death Penalty case

You may have to bump this tomorrow but I'm interested to see what the answer is

I do know he used the cruel and unusual punishment clause (4th amendment?) as the reason.

Said that bc he was sentenced over 20 years ago it was cruel and unusual to give him the DP now, which to me is ridiculous as the inmate is the one who has delayed it this long through appeals in the first place

quote:

---

Said that bc he was sentenced over 20 years ago it was cruel and unusual to give him the DP now, which to me is ridiculous as the inmate is the one who has delayed it this long through appeals in the first place

---

I think it's more nuanced than that. The decision appears to NOT declare capital punishment unconstitutional under the Eighth (not Fourth) Amendment. Instead, it says that CA's current system is so unusual that the current system violates the Eighth. CA currently has a moratorium on the death penalty but those whose received a death penalty sentence prior to the moratorium are sitting limbo. They will not be executed so long as the moratorium is in place but are in jeopardy of execution if the moratorium is lifted. The judge declared that arbitrary nature of the CA's legislature ability to lift the moratorium is so unusual compared to the rest of the country that it violates the Eighth. Long story, short, it means that all inmates who have received capital punishment prior to the moratorium will no longer have the threat execution. It does not stop CA from lifting the moratorium and handing out the death penalty it new cases.

ETA: the decision had nothing to do with delays due to the appeals process

quote:

---

You don't need a precedent to issue a ruling. CA's jacked up moratorium kept him in limbo, which is violative of the 8th amendment, according to his judgment.

---

Which is still a fricking stupid judgment IMHO.

The moratorium is effectively an indefinite stay on the sentence, just as if a judge decided that various aspects of his case needed to be re-heard.

All it does is ensure that he won't be executed until it is lifted and, frankly, I don't see Moonbeam or the CA legislature having the balls to lift it given how unpopular the death penalty is with their base.

Thank you for answering. I just am still somewhat puzzled as to why this ruling was made

Who will be the party to appeal to the USSC?

quote:

---

Who will be the party to appeal to the USSC?

---

I'm not an attorney so I don't know but maybe one of the attorneys on this board can tell you.

All I know is that the media here in CA is saying "the State" is considering whether to appeal.