NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
At least a dozen California district attorneys are publicly condemning Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to commute all 548 death sentences in the state, arguing the sweeping move overrides juries, disregards victims’ families and defies the will of state voters.
Newsom announced the plan Thursday, saying state-sanctioned killing is incompatible with California’s values. The move would convert the sentences to life without parole, though 382 cases still require approval from at least four California Supreme Court justices, according to the Associated Press.
In response, prosecuting attorneys across California have raised concerns about victims’ rights, the governor’s constitutional authority and the role of the California Supreme Court in reviewing hundreds of the commutations.
“Justice requires case-by-case consideration, not one-size-fits-all decisions,” Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho said in response to Newsom’s action.
THREE STATES CARRY OUT EXECUTIONS ON SAME DAY AMID RENEWED DEATH PENALTY DEBATE
A table fitted with restraints holds down death row prisoners while they are given a lethal injection at Huntsville Unit (Walls Unit) in Huntsville, Texas. (Greg Smith/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)
Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer described the move as “mercy for the wolves” that inflicts “the ultimate act of cruelty on the sheep.”
Spitzer noted that regulations implemented by California’s Board of Parole Hearings on Oct. 1 allow thousands of prisoners serving life without parole to become eligible for parole, arguing that Newsom’s latest death row commutations could put these inmates “one step closer” to release. Newsom’s office says, however, that the affected prisoners will remain in prison and are not eligible for release.
“The Governor is attempting to appear courageous with this decision. He is not courageous. His commutations are solely based upon power and political aspirations,” added San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson, who accused Newsom of caring more about politics than people. “Courage would require speaking with crime victims and the surviving family members of the people murdered by these death row inmates.”
CALIFORNIA SUED OVER POLICY THAT COULD FREE SERIAL KILLERS AS LACI PETERSON’S FRIEND SOUNDS ALARM
Anderson cited the case of Kevin Cooper, a California death-row inmate convicted of killing Josh Ryen’s parents and sister, along with Ryen’s friend, Chris Hughes, and leaving Ryen for dead.
Anderson said Newsom had not contacted Ryen or Hughes’ mother, Mary Ann Hughes, to ask their views on a possible commutation — and that Ryen has never received a call from the governor.
“Courage would require the Governor to follow Marsy’s Law, California’s constitutional rights belonging to victims of crime,” Anderson continued. “He has not. I am not aware of any victims’ family members receiving notice of these commutations from the Governor.”
Meanwhile, Anderson and several other California prosecutors who spoke out against Newsom’s death row commutations also framed the dispute as a challenge to the jury system and an override of the will of California voters. They said jurors in each case heard the evidence, weighed all the necessary factors and decided whether death was warranted, with judges and appellate courts later reviewing those verdicts. Newsom’s blanket action, they argue, substitutes one statewide decision for hundreds of individualized judgments.
NEW YORK BILLS COULD ABOLISH LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR SERIAL KILLERS AND COP KILLERS, CRITICS WARN
San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson answers questions during a news conference outside the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department in Rancho Cucamonga on Friday, April 10, 2026. (Anjali Sharif-Paul, The Sun/SCNG)
“A single order commuting all of them would set aside hundreds of individualized judgments without examining the facts of even one,” San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow said.
“It invalidates the exhausting, emotionally wrenching work of our citizens who sat on juries, weighed horrific evidence, and delivered lawful verdicts. Most unforgivably, it is a slap in the face to victims and their families,” said San Joaquin District Attorney Ron Freitas. “This decision does not bind wounds; it tears them wide open, all over again.”
The prosecutors pointed out that California voters rejected death-penalty repeal initiatives in 2012 and 2016 while approving Proposition 66 in 2016, which changed procedures for challenging death sentences and was promoted by supporters as a way to speed up the process. The district attorneys argued Newsom’s blanket action overrides those ballot-box decisions without repealing the law.
“A blanket commutation is a mass erasure of justice. It overrides the will of California voters who have repeatedly defended capital punishment at the ballot box,” Freitas added in his response to Newsom’s action.
A correctional facility is shown in an undated file photo as California district attorneys condemn Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to commute all 548 state death sentences. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Some California prosecutors who spoke out against Newsom’s controversial move signaled that the dispute may not end with public statements. San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan said her office was “researching any lawful remedies” that would allow victims’ voices to be heard and considered, while Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer was more direct, saying, “This assault on justice will be challenged.”
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman acknowledged that commuting existing sentences falls within the governor’s constitutional authority, but said, “That power does not extend to eliminating the death penalty. Only the Legislature or the voters can do that.” Newsom’s clemency announcement clarifies that it “does not repeal the death penalty” and is limited to commuting California’s current death sentences.
Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom’s office for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.
