Sophia Bollage reported last week in the Sacramento Bee about the petition for review in Johnson v. Superior Court, which argues that there should be no death penalty trials while Governor Gavin Newsom’s moratorium on executions is in force. [I’m mentioned in the article.] According to the article, the petition contends that, “[t]o return a fair decision, . . . jurors have to believe their choice could result in the defendant being put to death.”
Arlene Tchekmedyian reported Sunday in the Los Angeles Times about a similar petition in Harris v. Superior Court.
The Supreme Court in both cases has asked for answers to the petitions and has stayed superior court proceedings in Harris’s case.
The requests for responses and the stay order don’t mean a lot. Such requests and/or stays are frequently followed by summary denials of petitions for review. (See, e.g., here.) In fact, the court asked for responses regarding two previous petitions for review that Johnson himself filed, and then denied both petitions. (Here and here.) It’s sort of like when the court extends its time to rule on a petition for review, which Horvitz & Levy founder Ellis Horvitz would tell clients “is better than a denial, but not as good as a grant.”
