we work not in an emotional see outside, and you can see the world, hopefully. we are working with a more front gates of the prison, so on clinical assessment of evidence execution nights, you can see and whether we had a case. the people outside protesting. that created the atmosphere that frankly, again, just taking a we needed to pray for the people step back, why am i here today? that were saying "kill, kill." it is because i am convinced that there are many things we can do differently in reforming that was everlasting on me. our system. for instance, we have not it made me really come home and work for the resource center created a uniform intake process in our office. right away. it is in the process of being i understood that these people developed, but one of the things i want to eliminate is the or human as well. we are all human. process that occurs throughout we might have made mistakes in prosecutorial agencies around life, but they are human. the country, the overcharging of how many of us made mistakes? i had a few guys that were in cases in order to engage in plea-bargain later on. iraq, that were fighting for our i personally disagree with that. country and came home and [applause] reenlisted back in the army to we have to reform the system, go back over there. and it has to be across the board. whether you are a prosecutor or police officer or member of the they went to a bar, got into a public, you need to be held accountable to the same rules. fight that led to the killing. when someone in a position of authority violates a rule, the the military -- they break them. implications of that are greater, and we need to take a closer look. there are some real good people i have caused more police on death row that were not the officers to be terminated from employment than probably anyone in this room. people that came to death row i have had police officers that that committed the crime or did have been prosecuted for criminal conduct. not commit the crime. i'm not here to say who did or i have been in this business a did not do something, but to see that side that people do not get long time. i have no patience for bad to hear about. official conduct. they do not get to hear that these guys pray to god, that when i came to the sfpd, one of they pray for the victims' families out there, no matter who they are. the first things we did was it was something everybody did create an internal affairs unit on death row. with the criminal section. it was a rule of law. when is the time of execution, i recognize quickly the no one eats. sometimes criminal misconduct it was a compassionate part of internally was not being handled appropriately. i am not an apologist. you remembering you were human, you remember that these people when i tell you that there are are hurting out side, and you -- people in positions of authority that do not abuse their and trying to ask god to heal authority, there are. them of their hurt -- remember when people in positions of authority abuse their authority, you have to make sure that you that these people are hurting have the fortitude to make sure outside, and you reaching and the right things occur. >> what do the polls say about an initiative repealing the trying to ask god to heal them of their heart. death penalty? you kind of address that a little bit, but i think you to me, i can only speak for address it in -- addressed it in louisiana, and they did reach to god. they did fast. >> if i could add on to what you that it was based on financing just stated, i worked at san quentin for 27 years, and i feel and cost. the other question -- can you like i grew up with a lot of the talk about what would happen logistically if all sentences inmates that were there, just coming out of college, so i saw were commuted to life without possibility of parole? a lot of them change, including >> the most recent poll i inmates who had been on death mentioned was on the question of row prior to the supreme court the governor converting all the death sentences to life without overturning capital punishment. parole and the potential cost many of them were off of death savings of $1 billion, which row and sentenced to seven to shows 63% support. polls consistently show that life, and some of those individuals were paroled and when california voters are offered the choice between the have done very well out in death penalty and the option of society. i remember one who worked with life without possibility of parole, voters prefer the option the catholic church and worked through the restorative justice of life without parole. program to meet with surviving a poll was done in 2009 by a family members. it was actually televised. professor at uc santa cruz where that is how much that he asked about replacing the death penalty with a sentence of individual changed. then he went on to have a very life without parole with work successful career and retired on and restitution, whether it is a golf course in florida, as a people -- with the people matter of fact. sentenced to life without parole they were debating the death would be required to work and some of the restitution would go penalty at the country club one to victims, and 2/3 of day, and he said in two weeks, he would bring its former death californians chose the option of row inmate. two weeks later, he walked in life without parole and preferred that alternative. there is very strong support the room. among voters for replacing the he said that he immediately death penalty. in terms of how it would work, the governor has absolute changed the minds of those authority to change any criminal sentence he wants, and that arguing for the death penalty. that is just one powerful case, includes a death sentence, which but there are many stories like he has the power to convert with that. -- convert to life without i know that was not my question, possibility of parole. but -- [laughter] >> your question was how could the governor would take that you bear to preside over an action, most cases would execution. how did you handle it? completely end with him. he could change those sentences >> i would tell myself that it himself. fork cases where the person has was my role to lead, and leading two prior convictions, they that many things to me. that meant leaving my staff for would go to the california supreme court for further the process. review, and four justices on the it meant leaving the inmates at california supreme court would the facility through the need to approve the governor's process. it meant reaching out to the action in that case. the california supreme court family members of both the spends over 1/3 of their time working on death penalty cases, victim and the inmate. and they are under enormous pressure financially. i just focused on what my the entire judicial system is. responsibility was and my efforts to conduct this event as while we do not know what the supreme court would do, it would certainly be a huge relief to professionally and humanely as them to have these death penalty possible. cases go away. in hindsight, i look back at after the death sentences had that and realize that it had been converted to life without parole, it would be a question much more of an impact on me of reclassifying the inmates and than i knew at the time. moving them into other high- security prisons across i knew when i carried out the california. then, the question of where they last execution that i would not were in the appellate process do it again. i got very sick after that would have to be addressed by execution, but that is what it the courts. in fact, both people -- most was like for me. i practiced what i call servant leadership. people on death row are still i would get home at about 2:00 waiting for attorneys to be in the morning and find it appointed, so in most cases, difficult to do anything but their appeals have not even begun. pace in my house with everybody not most, 45%. else is asleep and return to the prison as early as 6:30 or 7:00 they do not have habeas counsel, the next morning to check on everyone, and that is how i and many do not even have their handled it -- pace in my house first appellate attorney. with everybody asleep. a lot of this cases would simply >> describe a situation where be treated as life without you would bring felony charges against a prosecutor for job- parole appeals. for the cases that are later in related conduct. >> if we had evidence that a the states, courts would have to address whether the appeals prosecutor has engaged in continue or whether or not their felonious conduct, we would sentence had been changed to evaluate the evidence. life without parole simply resolve all the issues in their case and ended the appeals it is what we would do in any process. other case. we determine the level of the >> we've got less than five conduct, the quality of the evidence, whether the evidence minutes, so i want to invite the will be admissible in court in panelists each to say something order to meet our burden of proof, which is the element of in closing. maybe you could each take a reasonable doubt. minute, whoever would like to go first. then we would probably prosecute >> we can go this way, so i will a prosecutor or a police officer for his conduct. start. it is a great pleasure to be here. it is a wonderful crowd today, and this is a wonderful panel to be here with. each of these individuals have enormous life experience that is so much more important than anything i could say, and i have learned a lot being on this panel which east of them -- with each of them, and i appreciate them taking the time to share their views and being so honest and forthcoming. these are exactly the voices we need to end the death penalty in california and across the country, and i hope all of you will get involved and go to the website -- deathpenalty.org -- and you will find many ways to get involved. particularly right now, telling the governor to cut the death penalty, to convert all death sentences. if each of you were to go home and take that action, to send an e-mail message or hand write a letter to the governor, that would make a huge difference. together, we can end the death penalty in california. [applause] >> thank you for having me here today. i would like to close by saying i have had the opportunity to view this issue from every point of view, having been the warden at san quentin state prison. i am absolutely impassioned about the fact that it is time to end the death penalty in this state. life without possibility of parole is the real sentence. hold people accountable and gives them the opportunity to change within the prison system, and they can give back by working within the prison system, giving restitution to family members and working on behalf of the state of california on a variety of projects that go on inside prisons. i also want to echo what the process said -- please join, please help -- i also want to echo what natasha said. talk to 10 of your friends, send e-mails, send letters. thank you. [applause] >> 1985, when i was sentenced to death for a crime i did not commit, i thought right away that this would be rectified. i was convicted of two different crimes. it took 18 years. it took me seven execution dates. i watched 12 then be executed while i was there -- i watched 12 and then be executed while i was there. i'm not in a position to say whether either of them -- whether any of them were guilty or innocent. mr. d.a., i am asking you, truly consider leaving the death penalty along. let that be in god's hands, what that person goes through or deals with. there are too many flaws in our system that we cannot control and we cannot trust a man. i am asking you to consider that, to take the consideration of that. the question we did not answer was it one of these guys were in this and that was executed by a prosecutor that had evidence that was clearly convincing that that person was innocent, what would you do? that was a simple question to me. that was not a tricky question. it was a straight up question dealing with innocence and the prosecutor doing something that was considered murder or attempted murder. you could answer that. you faded around that question, and to me, that is enough to make me think you should consider not dealing with the death penalty and joining in the fight to abolish the death penalty. we went to illinois, and i was with another group. we would go from state to state that have the death penalty and go to legislators and everyone asking them to abolish the death penalty. in the last two years, we have been successful. it appears like we are going to have to put california on our list. but that is all i wanted to say. that is something that once you take a life, you cannot bring it back. accountability needs to be on your part, too, on the district attorney's part, so if he knew a man was innocent and still prosecuted him, that a straight up murder -- that is straight up murder. that is not malfeasance. [applause] >> i want to thank the public defender's office for putting this panel together. i understand there was a good panel this morning. these are issues that are conflicts, and they require continuing dialogue. the law is not perfect. the law is always evolving. it was an honor also to be with the other panelists here. i think that the issue of the death penalty is one that obviously is right -- ripe for us to bring this back to the voters. i think there is a great deal of evidence today that speaks to the problems of wrongful convictions. i think we all understand what the factors are. we know there is a problem with wrongful convictions -- convictions. there is certainly a problem with prisoner treatment, and there is a problem with closure to the victims as well as the financial costs. it is up to all of us collectively to talk about how we deal with this and create a more profitable policy around dealing with very serious crimes, and i welcome the opportunity for having been here today. thank you very much. [applause] >> jeff adacci has a few closing remarks. >> i am a public defender. >> good afternoon. i am with the d a's office. >> in closing today's program, we want to first of all thank all of you for being here and being part of this discussion. no doubt, we achieved a great deal. this was not just another talking head conference where people were just here to give a speech. you really heard engaged discussion from this morning all the way up until now. we thank our panelists because they came here with an open heart and an open mind. we are going to talk in a minute about how we are going to move things forward. i want to thank the staff of the public defender's office and the many volunteers who made this possible. we thank the library staff as well as sfgovtv for their good work here. john came here because we invited him and because he knew that he is making a difference and will continue to make a difference. after serving 14 years on death row and spending 18 years of his life fighting the case, he continued to fight for justice, and he brought his case to the united states supreme court. he received a $40 million jury verdict, and in april, the united states supreme court overturned that, even though in this case, there were three prosecutors who have -- who were found to have intentionally withheld evidence that would have exonerated him. plus, and this is a great lesson for all of us, it was a prosecutor who was the hero. he stood up and came forward and told everybody what the other two prosecutors did. when he did that, his efforts were rebuked by the district attorney. as a result, he left his job. it tells you that there are heroes everywhere. people are standing up for justice everywhere. we have to reach everyone everywhere every place in order to solve this problem. we do have a plaque to presented -- present to j.t > as a result of everything he has been through, but more importantly, to help him in the future -- present to j.t. as a result of everything he has been through, but more importantly, for everything he will do in the future. you can support the work he does with a reentry program for persons coming back from prison. so if we could present this to you. [applause] moving forward, our work cannot stop here. i would like to have christine talk about what we are going to be doing moving forward. we have had meetings with district attorney george gascono about doing things differently. within the police chief, a new district attorney, we have that opportunity -- with a new police chief, a new district attorney, we have that opportunity. i would also like to acknowledge supervisor ross mirkarimi to come up here just for a moment and say hello, and let me have christine close the program. >> good afternoon, everybody. it was a pleasure to listen to the last panel this afternoon. i am the chief of staff for mr. gascon, and i joined him when he moved over to the d.a.'s office. joining the office on his request, because i think we really have a unique perspective, having worked on the defense side and on policy issues, and i can attest that he is undertaking a wholehearted effort to really bring some reform to the criminal justice system on many fronts, this being one of them that we are evaluating. i hope that you as city and county residents will see in our work that we really take some efforts that will reform. anybody that has participated in the criminal justice system for any length of time knows that it does not work from whatever and will you are looking at it, so the question is how do we make it better? we hope to engage all of you in that. we are starting neighborhood courts, and a lot of efforts that we hope to engage the city and county in supporting us and looking at ways to move away from the over incarceration of people and look at ways to reform their behavior. the efforts we have undertaken when george was appointed to the position -- jeff asked him to come to the public defender's office to have a question and answer session, which he did, and i attended with him. we are told that was the first time that had ever happened, and we reciprocated by asking jeff to meet with the district attorneys in our office. we have begun a dialogue that both sides think is very healthy. we have identified a number of issues that we think require further exploration, so we are creating working group's staff by the people from the d.a.'s office and the public defender's office to look at improving things like discovery, which is an important issue, making sure that we have reciprocal discovery and that it is transparent and complete. looking at workers from collaborative courts, looking at solutions besides incarceration, dealing with mental health and behavioral health issues, rather than using the jails as a solution to that, and we are also working around juvenile issues to make sure we are doing all we can for those under the age of 18 in our community. those are the efforts we are undertaking. jeff and matt have been a fantastic partners in this. as far as we know, it is a new day in these efforts and really trying to work collaboratively and we hope to have all your support in doing that. [applause] >> of course, that is not to say that we are not going to fight it out in court because, of course, that is what we do. i would like to briefly introduce ross mirkarimi, who is a supervisor here in the city, and he has been a champion of many criminal justice issues, including prisoner reentry. i also want to thank and acknowledge debra atherton. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: it is nice to see everybody. jeff is generous. i was not expecting to be up here. i know you have had a productive day. i think that the public defender's summit is something not to be missed and a template for the rest of california and probably the nation to follow. i am proud of our public defender. i am proud of our criminal justice partners because over the last four years, we have seen a great amount of innovation. jeff and i started the city's first reentry council, and it might be bewildering to you, but before we started it, believe it or not, those stakeholders in the criminal-justice system really very irregularly rarely would come together and talk about ways that we might mitigate, reduce our recidivism rate. great progress has been made, but san francisco still needs to step up its game. i was delighted to hear the conversation that took place here, but no the statistic that for every four people that sanford's is the police department arrests and the da prosecutes, nearly three are repeat offenders -- for every four people that san francisco police department arrests and the da prosecutes -- the d.a. prosecutes. there is evidence to show that doing everything we can to try to divert some of his life from repeating their offense, but we will have to really vigorously enhance our approach. one way to do that obviously is the collaboration being fostered and demonstrated here today, but it is more than just today. it will have to be every single day, or else california will continue to be building more prisons, and san francisco may not be far behind. thanks. [applause] >> once again, thanks for the flag. [laughter] have a good time. have a good evening. thank you very much. [applause]