U.S. appeals panel backs California Prop. 9 parole revocation rule

Sacramento Bee ^ | 3/26/10 | Bee Capitol Bureau

[SmithL]

A three-judge federal appellate panel on Thursday overturned Sacramento federal Judge Lawrence Karlton and reinstated the tough parole revocation procedures adopted by California voters two years ago in Proposition 9.

The measure, sponsored by state Sen. George Runner and a coalition of tough-on-crime groups, had been challenged by criminal defense groups, saying it "purports to eliminate nearly all due process rights of parolees and directly conflicts with the protections put in place by the injunction and established constitutional law."

Karlton declared that Proposition 9 conflicted with a permanent injunction agreed to by the state as part of a 15-year-old class action lawsuit on behalf of parolees and issued an injunction against the measure's application of the tougher procedures.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, now a Democratic candidate for governor, appealed Karlton's ruling with support from Proposition 9's backers, particularly the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision Thursday by Judges Michael Hawkins and Milan Smith Jr., with partial dissent from Judge John Noonan, said Karlton erred.

[SmithL]

Karlton, Lawrence K.

Born 1935 in Brooklyn, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.

Education:
Columbia Law School, J.D., 1958

Professional Career:
U.S. Army, 1958-1960
Civilian legal officer, Sacramento Army Depot, 1960-1962
Private practice, Sacramento, California, 1962-1976
Judge, Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, 1976-1979

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

[Oldexpat]

Criminal defense lawyers trying to keep a bigger piece of the pie while re-defending parole violators. There should not be a new trial for every parole violation. Violate..back in the slammer. It would have saved some lives here in San Diego.

[Persevero]

It seems the 9th circuit got this one right.

Still waiting for the SF judge’s ruling on Prop 8. Will the people’s vote be honored by him?