Summary of Argument

The Prosecutors Alliance of California is an organization of prosecutors who take seriously their responsibilities to victims, their communities at large, and the defendants whose rights they are bound to respect under the rule of law. We file this brief principally to discuss the proper role of prosecutorial discretion within the youth offender parole system.The Legislature created a youth offender parole system centered on the “hallmark features of youth” and extended this prospect of parole to people who committed their offenses before the age of 26. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subds. (a)(1), (f )(1).) But the statute also shuts a select group of young adult offenders—those, like Mr. Hardin, who are already serving life without parole (LWOP) sentences—out of the youth offender parole system. (§ 3051, subd. (h).)The Court of Appeal held that this carveout violated the Equal Protection Clause as applied to Mr. Hardin, who was convicted of murder with a special circumstance of robbery more than three decades ago. Subdivision (h) treats young adult offenders convicted of special-circumstance murder differently from those convicted of first-degree murder. As the Court of Appeal observed, the overlap between these crimes is so great that prosecutors have discretion to charge a special circumstance for 95% of first-degree murders.

The key question on appeal is whether the Legislature could rationally use this charging decision between special- circumstance murder and first-degree murder as the sole determinant of eligibility for youth offender parole. In our view, this question should be answered in light of the typical considerations that both inform prosecutorial discretion and bear on a young adult offender’s culpability and capacity for rehabilitation. We also take this opportunity to identify racial, geographic, and temporal disparities in the youth offender parole system that the Attorney General’s position would perpetuate.Although we do not take a position on the ultimate disposition of this case, we do urge this Court to consider the varied (and sometimes unexpected) ways that prosecutorial discretion interacts with the youth offender parole system.

Summary of Argument

The Prosecutors Alliance of California emphasizes the significance of prosecutorial discretion in the youth offender parole system. The legislative framework for this system acknowledges the distinctive characteristics of youthful offenders and offers parole eligibility to individuals who committed offenses before age 26. However, certain young adult offenders, such as those serving LWOP sentences, are excluded from this system under Penal Code Section 3051(h).

In the case of Mr. Hardin, the Court of Appeal deemed this exclusion a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court noted the substantial overlap between special-circumstance murder and first-degree murder, granting prosecutors the discretion to pursue special circumstance charges in most first-degree murder cases.

The central issue is whether the legislature's decision to base eligibility for youth offender parole solely on the prosecutor's charging decision is rational. The Prosecutors Alliance argues that this determination should consider the factors that typically influence prosecutorial discretion and relate to a young adult offender's culpability and rehabilitative potential.

Furthermore, the Alliance highlights racial, geographical, and temporal disparities within the youth offender parole system that would be perpetuated by the Attorney General's stance. While the Alliance refrains from advocating for a specific outcome in Mr. Hardin's case, it urges the Court to acknowledge the multifaceted interactions between prosecutorial discretion and the youth offender parole system.

Summary of Argument

Prosecutors in California are responsible for protecting victims, communities, and defendants' rights. They are arguing about the role of prosecutors in the parole system for young offenders.

The California legislature created a parole system for young offenders that recognizes the unique characteristics of youth. This system allows for parole for people who committed crimes before the age of 26. However, some young adult offenders, such as those serving life sentences without parole, are excluded from this system.

The Court of Appeal ruled that excluding these offenders violates the Equal Protection Clause. This is because there is a significant overlap between the crimes of murder with a special circumstance of robbery (which excludes offenders from parole) and first-degree murder (which does not). Prosecutors often have the choice of which charge to file.

The Prosecutors Alliance argues that prosecutors should consider factors such as the offender's culpability and potential for rehabilitation when making these charging decisions. They also point out that the current system perpetuates racial, geographic, and temporal disparities.

The Alliance does not support either side in this particular case but encourages the court to consider the impact of prosecutorial discretion on the youth offender parole system. This discretion can have unexpected and varied effects, potentially leading to unfair outcomes for some young offenders.

Summary of Argument

The Prosecutors Alliance of California is a group of prosecutors who want to help victims, communities, and even the people they prosecute. They're talking about how prosecutors use their power to make decisions in the youth parole system.

The youth parole system is designed for young offenders who are under 26 years old. But there's a rule that says young people who are already serving life in prison without parole can't get youth parole.

A court said that this rule is unfair to people like Mr. Hardin, who was convicted of murder and robbery a long time ago. The court said that prosecutors have the power to choose between charging someone with murder with robbery (which would make them ineligible for youth parole) or just murder (which would make them eligible).

The prosecutors' group says that prosecutors should consider things like how responsible the young person was for the crime and if they can be rehabilitated when they make these decisions. They also point out that there are differences in how youth parole is used based on race, location, and time.

The prosecutors aren't saying whether Mr. Hardin should get parole or not. But they want people to think about how prosecutors use their power and how it affects the youth parole system.

Summary of Argument

Prosecutors are lawyers who work for the government. They decide who should be charged with crimes. There is a group of prosecutors in California who are concerned about young people in prison.

The law in California says that young people who commit crimes before they are 26 years old can have a chance to get out of prison on parole. Parole is when a prisoner is released early but still has to follow certain rules. But there is an exception to this rule: young people who are sentenced to life in prison without parole cannot get youth offender parole.

One young man named Mr. Hardin was sentenced to life without parole when he was young. The court said that it was unfair to treat him differently from other young people who committed similar crimes but were not sentenced to life without parole.

The prosecutors believe that it is important to consider how prosecutors make decisions when deciding who should be eligible for youth offender parole. They also think it is important to look at the fact that young people of color and from certain areas are more likely to be excluded from youth offender parole.

The prosecutors are not saying whether Mr. Hardin should get out of prison. They just want to make sure that the courts consider all the facts when making decisions about young people in prison.