By  Mia Bird, Omair Gill, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Sentence enhancements are used to add time to an individual’s base sentence. California uses over 100 unique enhancements. This report analyzes data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to understand the role of sentence enhancements in California’s corrections system. It finds that enhancements lengthen average sentences and are more likely to impact the sentences of men and Black and American Indian people who are sentenced to prison, application varies by county, and that enhancements contribute to the overall size of the state prison population. KEY FINDINGS • Prevalence: Roughly 40% of individual prison admissions since 2015 have sentences lengthened by a sentence enhancement. Among the currently incarcerated, the prevalence of enhanced sentences is much higher, impacting the sentences of approximately 70% of people incarcerated as of 2022. • Sentence length: Sentence enhancements increase the average sentence by roughly 1.9 years (or 48%) for all admissions. The impact is larger for people receiving longer sentences. • Four enhancement types account for 80% of sentence years added since 2015. Those four enhancements include the state’s Three Strikes law, firearm enhancements, the nickel prior (which adds five years for a prior serious offense), and gang enhancements. • Racial, ethnic, and sex disparities: Sentence enhancements are more likely to be applied to men. Black people and American Indian individuals are the most likely to receive enhanced sentences, followed by Hispanic people, White people, and Asian or Pacific Islander people. • Potential drivers of disparities: Most, but not all, of the inter-racial and inter-sex disparities in the use of enhancements can be explained by group-based differences in case characteristics observable in CDCR data, including the number of prior prison commitments, the number of conviction charges, the most serious conviction offense, and the county of sentencing. • County variation: Enhancements are applied unevenly across California counties, with the lowest application rates in Bay Area counties and Southern California coastal counties, and the highest rates among far Northern counties, the counties in the Central Valley, and Inland Empire counties.   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2023, 57p.

By: Omair Gill, Mia Bird, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Consecutive sentencing is a practice where people serve sentences for separate convictions sequentially rather than concurrently. We analyze the application of consecutive sentences among all people admitted to California’s prisons since 2015, as well as the population of people incarcerated as of March 2023. KEY FINDINGS: • Frequency. Most prison admissions (56%) are ineligible for consecutive sentencing because they do not involve convictions for multiple offenses. Among admissions with multiple convictions, half (51%) receive consecutive sentences. In total, consecutive sentences are applied to less than a quarter of prison admissions in California (22%). • Contribution to sentence length. Overall, the time added by consecutive sentences increases the average prison sentence of the entire prison population by 8.5 months (roughly 13%). ◦ Among those admitted with consecutive sentences, it increases the average sentence by 35%, or three years (from 8.6 to 11.6 years). ◦ Consecutive sentences typically involve either the full sentence for an additional offense tagged on to the primary sentence or an additional sentence equal to one-third the prescribed sentence for the lesser ofense. While only 20% of consecutive sentences are for full additional prison terms (80% are for one-third terms), full-term sentences account for roughly 70% of the additional sentence years added through consecutive sentences since 2015. • Contributing factors. Among cases with multiple convictions, consecutive sentences are more likely to be applied when criminal cases involve offenses that occurred in multiple counties, the offenses are serious or violent, the most serious offense is a crime against a person, or the individual has prior prison admissions for serious or violent crimes. ◦ Multivariate models show that the likelihood of a consecutive sentence increases with the number of prior prison admissions, number of convictions, and age of the person admitted. People admitted with second- and third-strike enhancements are more likely (by roughly 12 to 18 percentage points) to receive consecutive sentences relative to admissions with multiple convictions without these enhancements ◦ Offenses receiving one-third consecutive sentences are more likely to involve property offenses, weapons offenses, as well as offenses like evading a police officer or identity theft. By contrast, the offenses receiving full-term consecutive sentences often involve crimes against a person, child victims, and various sex offenses. • County variation. The use of consecutive sentences varies across the state. Counties in far Northern California, excluding the coast, as well as those in the Central Valley, are more likely to impose consecutive sentences. Bay Area counties and most counties in Southern California are less likely to impose consecutive sentences. ◦ Average differences across counties in the types of cases resulting in a prison admission do not explain cross-county differences in the use of consecutive sentencing. ◦ American Indian/Alaskan Native and White people are more likely to receive consecutive sentences largely because they tend to be convicted in counties that are more likely to use consecutive sentencing. The opposite is true for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people. .   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 39p.

By Elisabeth Semel, Dagen Downard, Emma Tolman, Anne Weis, Danielle Craig, and Chelsea Hanlock

Racial discrimination is an ever-present feature of jury selection in California. This report investigates the history, legacy, and continuing practice of excluding people of color, especially African Americans, from California juries through the exercise of peremptory challenges. Unlike challenges for cause, each party in a trial has the right to excuse a specific number of jurors without stating a reason and without the court’s approval. In California, peremptory challenges are defined by statute. Historically, the main vice of peremptory challenges was that prosecutors wielded them with impunity to remove African Americans from jury service. These strikes were part and parcel of the systematic exclusion of Blacks from civil society. We found that prosecutors continue to exercise peremptory challenges to remove African Americans and Latinx people from California juries for reasons that are explicitly or implicitly related to racial stereotypes. In 1978, in People v. Wheeler, our state supreme court was the first court in the nation to adopt a three-step procedure intended to reduce prosecutors’ discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. Almost a decade later, in Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court approved a similar approach with the goal of ending race-based strikes against African-American prospective jurors. An essential feature of the “Batson/Wheeler procedure” is that it only provides a remedy for intentional discrimination. Thus, at step one, the objecting party must establish a sufficient showing—known as a “prima facie case”—of purposeful discrimination. At step two, if the trial court agrees that the objecting party has made such a showing, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the striking party to give a “race-neutral” reason. At step three, the trial court decides whether the objecting party has established purposeful discrimination. If the court finds that the striking party’s reason was credible, it denies the Batson objection. In his concurring opinion in Batson, Justice Thurgood Marshall warned that Batson’s three-step procedure would fail to end racially discriminatory peremptory strikes. He anticipated that prosecutors would easily be able to produce “race-neutral” reasons at Batson’s second step, and that judges would be ill-equipped to second-guess those reasons. Further, Justice Marshall doubted Batson’s efficacy because the procedure did nothing to curb strikes motivated by unconscious racism—known more often today as implicit bias. Justice Marshall was prescient: 34 years after Batson was decided, prosecutors in California still disproportionately exercise peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans and Latinx people from juries. The Berkeley Law Death Penalty Clinic explored the shortcomings of the Batson procedure. Our report investigates how the California Supreme Court went from a judiciary that championed the eradication of race-based strikes to a court that resists the United States Supreme Court’s limited efforts to enforce Batson. We conclude that Batson is a woefully inadequate tool to end racial discrimination in jury selection.

Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, School of Law, 2020. 166p.