The chief backers of a bill that limits Oregon’s aggravated murder statute disagree on how to move forward, with one pushing the governor to hold a special session to fix what he called a “mistake” and the other saying the law should stand as written.
Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said Friday he’s still pushing for a special legislative session next month to make sure the new law doesn’t apply to death penalty cases sent back to lower courts for new sentencing hearings.
Former House Majority Leader Rep. Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, said she doesn’t support Prozanski’s call for a special session because she always intended for Senate Bill 1013 to apply to previous death penalty cases sent back for both sentencing hearings as well as new trials.
Meanwhile, Gov. Kate Brown’s spokeswoman declined to comment on Prozanski’s request or the controversy that’s blown up over one of the most significant measures to come out of this year’s session.
The new law narrows the definition of aggravated murder, which is the only crime in Oregon eligible for a death sentence. Aggravated murder is now limited to defendants who kill two or more people as an act of organized terrorism; kill a child younger than 14 intentionally and with premeditation; kill another person while locked in jail or prison for a previous murder; or kill a police, correctional or probation officer.
The renewed debate centers on the law’s implications for the 31 inmates currently on Oregon’s death row. Appeals and court reviews of death penalty convictions grind on for years and even decades. It’s not unusual for aggravated murder convictions or death sentences to be overturned. In the past 2-1/2 years, seven cases have been reversed. None of the people on Oregon’s death row have exhausted their court challenges.
A recent opinion by the Oregon Department of Justice concluded that the new law applies to death penalty convictions and sentences that have been overturned, as well as pending cases. That matters because most of those defendants’ crimes no longer fall within the new aggravated murder definition, so if they’re retried or resentenced, they would no longer be eligible for the death penalty.
What’s more, the new statute calls for a sentence of life in prison with a minimum of 30 years for murder convictions unless a judge determines the defendant should serve true life. After 30 years, the person would be eligible to apply for a parole hearing.
“What it does that is very significant is it gives people who have been sentenced to death a very real hope that they could not only not have to face execution, however unlikely that is, but in the case of many of the inmates who have served long periods of time, that there is probably a 50 percent chance that they could be released within the next few years from prison entirely,” said Josh Marquis, a former district attorney in Clatsop County and death penalty proponent.
“That is a huge change,” he said. “That was inconceivable before this bill passed.”
On Tuesday, one day after The Oregonian/OregonLive reported on the Department of Justice opinion, Williamson and Prozanski issued a joint statement, saying the bill needed a fix due to “an unfortunate technical drafting error.”
“We will work to fix this issue as soon as possible,” the statement said.
Prozanski on Friday said this week was the first time the two lawmakers, both lawyers, discussed “that nuance” of the bill.
But by Thursday, Williamson had reversed course and offered a robust defense of the law, saying it honored her intentions.
“We have a different opinion that is coming to light,” Prozanski said.
Asked to explain the shift in Williamson’s position between Tuesday and Thursday, Aaron Fiedler, interim chief of staff and communications director for the House Majority Office, said Williamson “sought out additional information” about the Department of Justice opinion from lawyers with the agency as well as from the Office of Legislative Counsel.
On Friday afternoon, Williamson sent a memo to lawmakers explaining the law and its application and blaming the Oregon District Attorneys Association for sowing confusion.
Prosecutors, she said, “used this same coordinated strategy to oppose limitations to the death penalty during session and continue to oppose this new law after its passage.”
Aliza Kaplan, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School who testified before the Legislature in favor of the bill, said she was shocked by the recent dustup because the law is clear on how it should be applied.
She said it doesn’t automatically upend the convictions and sentences of people on death row. She agrees with Williamson that the law applies to death row cases that are overturned on appeal, both convictions and sentences.
“There is a really big difference between retroactivity and resentencing,” she said. “If we got those cases right the first time, then they would be settled and done but they are not because of unconstitutional behavior. Putting those cases in the same place as settled cases is incorrect.”
-- Noelle Crombie
503-276-7184
Visit subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters to get Oregonian/OregonLive journalism delivered to your email inbox.