JUDGE CALLS NO ON 66 BALLOT ARGUMENT
“PATENTLY FALSE”

The following are comments of Judge Raymond Cadei, Sacramento County Superior Court, on August 6, 2004, in a hearing on the Proposition 66 ballot arguments and rebuttals, in which opponents falsely claimed that Proposition 66 would result in the release of 26,000 felons. The judge called that claim “patently false.”

Judge Cadei also ruled that since the California District Attorneys Association had in fact made the false statement not as a fact, but as an “estimate” in their opinion, opponents could cite it only if they called it an estimate and attributed it to CDAA.

Source: Reporter’s transcript of proceedings.

“Let me tell you the one I do have a problem with is the rebuttal argument, which is the next exhibit, where I think it makes in the very first paragraph a patently false statement. It says if it passes, and then it makes reference to this young man who you discuss will be released, along with 26,000 other convicted criminals. Now, I look at the statistics and the numbers. It looks like that’s mathematically impossible.”

“The problem I have is that it doesn’t appear from any of the information that’s been submitted that there is evidence anywhere near 26,000 or 21,000 second strikers are currently serving life sentences, which is a precondition according to the face of the initiative for applying for re-sentencing. So it seems as phrased to be false to me. It isn’t false to say that the District Attorney’s Association has made that estimate or that as many as 26,000 may apply for resentencing. I think stating that as a fact, it says if it passes, his son will be released early along with 26,000 other convicted criminals. That’s at a minimum misleading.”

“This says as a fact that 26,000 convicted criminals are going to be released. It doesn’t say that they may be released subject to the Court’s supervision and re-sentencing considerations. What you’re making is a flat assertion of fact, which seems to be at best gross speculation and at worst probably mischaracterizing the operation of the law.”

“I don’t know how you want to phrase it, but that statement seems to be inaccurate and misleading.”