CASE Files Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Raising Members' Salaries


On March 30, 2017, CASE filed a legal argument with the California Supreme Court asserting that Proposition 66 requires that CASE members' salaries be raised.

Proposition 66, as approved by California voters last November, seeks to shorten the time taken for legal challenges to death sentences. However, opponents challenged Proposition 66 on several grounds and the California Supreme Court has stayed the new law while it resolves these legal challenges. (Briggs v. Brown, No. S238309.)

CASE's argument--which was raised as an Amicus Curiae (friend to the Court) in the Briggs case is, "Somewhat unusual because it supports neither side," said CASE President Peter Flores, Jr, "CASE does not argue for or against Proposition 66 because CASE members seek justice in death-penalty cases from both sides of the legal aisle."

Out of the more than 90 different state agencies and departments that employ CASE members, Flores said at least two--the Office of the State Public Defender and the Department of Justice--work on the death-penalty cases that could be directly affected by Proposition 66. Flores added, "Our public defenders seek to protect the legal rights and lives of the inmates, while our prosecutors enforce the laws while speaking for the victims of the most serious crimes."

If and when the California Supreme Court determines that Proposition 66 is lawful, the new legal mandates would require that the CASE members who work on death-penalty cases receive a salary boost of 15% to 20%, depending on experience level, according to CASE General Counsel Patrick J. Whalen. "Once in effect, the increased duties and shorter deadlines created by Proposition 66 mean that it would be necessary to raise the salaries of the CASE members working on these sensitive cases," Whalen said. "Otherwise, there would be fewer attorneys willing to perform the work, which would be completely counterproductive and contrary to the express goals of Proposition 66."

CASE's brief also argued that the pay of all Unit 2 lawyers must be raised to equal the increase given to CASE members under Proposition 66 because of state laws that equalize pay for those with comparable duties and responsibilities.

Information regarding Briggs v. Brown may be found here: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2169445&doc_no=S238309

#Amicus #Brief #Raise #Salary #Prop66

75 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Statewide Telework Policy

October 7, 2021 Dear Bargaining Unit 2 Member: CASE is pleased to announce that we have executed a new agreement with the State regarding telework, which includes a modest stipend to help offset the c

CASE 2021 Elections

September 1, 2021 Pursuant to Section 3.14 of the CASE Bylaws, the list of candidates for the 2021 CASE Board of Directors election has been certified by the CASE Elections Committee. In alphabetical

CASE 2021 Board of Directors Election

July 15, 2021 Dear Bargaining Unit 2 Member: CASE will be conducting its annual election for the Board of Directors this fall. Four (4) Officer and four (4) “odd-year” Director-at-Large positions wil