Esteban Núñez – son of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez – is a criminal who was sentenced by an experienced and well-respected Superior Court Judge. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reduced the sentence by over half to help his political crony’s son. In doing so, he undermined the judicial system and has jeopardized public safety.
This homicide occurred in the City of San Diego. I speak for the overwhelming majority of San Diegans in stating that we are appalled and angry over Mr. Schwarzenegger’s conduct. It reflects poorly on him, personally, and on his legacy as governor.
Jan Goldsmith
San Diego City Attorney
###
Also, see Hank Schrader’s biting post from yesterday regarding the legacy of the now former Governor, Leniency for a Killer.
Comments 10
Thank you Mr. Goldsmith for speaking up. What Arnold did was absolutely shameful, and I hope he never sets foot in our city again.
That’s pretty horrible. Well put Mr. Goldsmith.
Flashreport tweeted the following which I felt was appropriate: “Apparently AB 32 reduces both man-made greenhouse gas emissions, and manslaughter conviction sentences.”
What makes this decision even more disturbing is the fact that this was a plea bargain where both parties agreed to a sentence range! Both the prosecutor and Nunez assessed the risks of going to trial where a conviction would have undoubtedly resulted in an even greater sentence and agreed to a sentence range that was approved by a judge.
Here is a theory that ought to be explored by the DA: By seeking a reduced sentence from the Governor, arguably the terms of the plea bargain have been violated and therefore the agreement is null and void and the DA can proceed to trial. (I haven’t done any legal reseach on the jurisdictional and double jeopardy issues, but somebody ought to….)
Paul Cooper
Counsel to the Chief of Police (SDPD)
City Attorney Goldsmith is right in saying he speaks for the people. This is an insult to the judicial system and to law abiding Californians. Worse still, it puts the victims’ family through a public spectacle all over again.
Can the victim’s family sue Nunez in civil court?
Although the action does reveal political skumduggery, I disagree that “he undermined the judicial system,” or that the action is “an insult to the judicial system,” because the governor’s commutation power is an express part of the criminal justice machinery of this state, created by the same Constitution that created the judiciary. Art. V, section 8(a), California Constitution.
But let’s not split hairs. No one is arguing the Governor doesn’t have the constitutional right to commute sentences. In this case, he used that constitutional right to undermine the judicial process. It is an insult to that process. Is it constitutional? Yes. But, that doesn’t make it anything but an insult.
It is interesting, though, the distinction between pardoning and commuting, because his power is subject to statutory procedures [it is not plenary, like the president’s is], and PC 4804 requires notice to the DA 10 days in advance for a pardon, but it does not appear to require any notice for commuting. Too bad he did not pardon him, because I think that could be set aside, since the DA was not served with notice!
Arguably the Govenor DID violate the California Constitution, specifically Article 1, Sec 28(a)7 (Marsy’s Law) which states:
“Victims of crime are entitled to FINALITY in their criminal
cases. Lengthy appeals and other post-judgment proceedings that
challenge criminal convictions, frequent and difficult parole
hearings that threaten to release criminal offenders, and the ongoing
threat that the sentences of criminal wrongdoers will be reduced,
prolong the suffering of crime victims for many years after the
crimes themselves have been perpetrated. This prolonged suffering of
crime victims and their families must come to an end.”
And consider Article 1 Sec 28(b)7 and 8 which states:
“In order to preserve and protect a victim’s rights to justice
and due process, a victim shall be entitled to the following rights:
(7) To reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including
delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the
prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other
post-conviction release proceedings, and to be present at all such
proceedings.
(8) To be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, including any
delinquency proceeding, involving a post-arrest release decision,
plea, sentencing, post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of the victim is at issue.”
Was this “process” that the Govenor went through included in the above sections?