Proposition 9: We Told You It Was a Horrible Idea. Let the Lawsuits Begin.

We told you that Prop. 9 was a horrible idea and would be overturned by the courts,  but voters went ahead and passed it anyway.  Here’s what today’s LA Times editorial page has to say about it:

By layering new requirements on prosecutors to notify the families of crime victims at every stage of proceedings, (Prop. 9) may create huge new public liability. It replaces a system run by impartial prosecutors, judges and juries with a system that places those with a desire for vengeance in the position of dispensing justice.

Resources better spent on prosecuting criminals will instead be devoted to challenging and defending these newly created rights, many of which prosecutors and defense lawyers predict will be found unconstitutional or at least unenforceable in any meaningful way. In an internal report, the Los Angeles district attorney’s office predicts “significant litigation on virtually every aspect of this initiative being filed.”

Prop. 9 actually goes further than just ‘notifying” crime victims at every stage of the proceeding, prosecutors are no required to notify and consult with crime victims at every stage of the proceeding.  Under Prop. 9, prosecutors no longer represent the people, they represent the crime victim.

The prosecutor representing the victim will get really interesting in domestic violence cases.  Ya see, in domestic violence cases, the victim more often than not wants to drop the charges, that’s part of the cycle of domestic violence — “he didn’t mean it”, “it was an accident”, “things just got out of hand”, that sort of thing.

Of course, prosecutors do not drop the charges just because the victim asks them to, if they did, no domestic violence cases would ever be prosecuted.  Under Prop. 9, it looks like a prosecutor must drop the case.   Oops.

Also since the Prosecution now represents the victim and not the “People of the State of California”, does this mean that the prosecutor must declare a conflict of interest on every case?

Oh and then there’s the provision in Prop. 9 which says that the victim is not required to talk to or turn over evidence to the defense attorney and there is no exception for exculpatory evidence.   This means that under Prop 9 a victim is not required to turn over evidence that could exonerate the defendant. The trouble is the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case called Brady v. Maryland, the Court ruled that evidence which may prove the innocence of the accused must be turned over to the defense. It’s not like this is a new case either, it’s been on the books since 1963.  You’d think that whoever wrote Prop. 9 would figure that out.

The irony is that until it’s overturned, Prop. 9 could cause so many problems for prosecutors and be so time consuming that they may end up accepting deals they wouldn’t normally accept and dismiss cases they wouldn’t normally dismiss.  Oh wait, they can’t unless the victim says it’s OK.   Hmmm…Prop. 9 could bring the creaky overloaded criminal justice system to a grinding halt.  Oh well, as long  as voters feel good about themselves after they leave the polls, that’s all that matters, right?

Ah, the wisdom of letting “the people” decide complicated, nuanced criminal justice and constitutional issues.