Newsom death penalty move ‘impossible to view outside a political lens’: Geragos

California criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos said California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) move to commute all death-row sentences in his state was political.

Geragos joined NewsNation’s Jesse Weber on Thursday and said the California governor’s move to commute the sentences of 548 inmates facing execution could be viewed as a political move despite Newsom’s history of trying to do “the right thing.” Newsom, in his final months as governor, said the death penalty was contrary to California’s values.

“It’s hard to view Gavin without viewing it through a political lens,” Geragos said.

Having represented high-profile clients such as Hunter Biden, Colin Kaepernick and the Menendez brothers, Geragos is a mainstay in California criminal law. He said while about 70 percent of the commutations will have to be reviewed by the state Supreme Court, Newsom was fully within his rights as governor to grant these commutations. Geragos said any argument otherwise isn’t legally sound.

Nathan Hochman, the former Republican-turned-nonpartisan district attorney for Los Angeles, criticized the move in a statement Thursday, saying Newsom did not have the right to “abolish” the death penalty in the state. Asked whether this was a valid legal argument, Geragos said it was not.

“He’s not eliminating the death penalty, but what he is doing is what’s within his constitutional powers,” Geragos said. “If you want to ask who’s being political, clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, it’s Nate Hochman.”

Under the California Constitution, a commutation must be reviewed by the state’s Supreme Court if the recipient has been convicted of two or more felonies. Geragos said Newsom’s successor, Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra, could hypothetically reverse the governor’s decision if the cases are not ruled on by the court.

“It’s an interesting question, legally. If the 70 percent were not ruled on by the California Supreme Court, I think there would be an argument,” he said. “The ones that have already been ruled on, I would argue, if I was representing them, that that is a fait accompli and there’s nothing you can do to reverse it.”