The People vs. Dillon
The People vs. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d.441,447 is a case that comes up again and again in reference to Brandon Hein. His trial attorney, Jill Lansing, appealed to Judge Lawrence J. Mira to use the precedent of Dillon to give Brandon a lesser sentence. Mira refused.
The California court in something called "In Re Lynch" (1972) 98 Cal.3d 410 declared that the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applied not only if the punishment were inflected by a cruel or unusual method, but also if it was grossly disproportionate to the offense for which it is imposed. The Lynch court took a different attitude than Judge Mira. In Lynch the court said, "The state, even as it punishes, must treat its members with respect for their intrinsic worth as human beings." It went on to add that excessive penalties "are unconstitutional even though popular sentiment may favor them."
In Dillon, Norman Dillon, a 17-year-old, and two of his friends went to a farm where marijuana was grown to steal some pot. They were confronted by the owner, brandishing a gun, and ordered at gun point to leave. Several weeks later Dillon and his brother go back to the pot farm, hear a shot gun blast and flee. They get six other boys, map out the area, load up with a semi-automatic rifle and hand guns, and go to steal pot. They wait and watch for two hours. Two of the boys accidentally discharge their guns and the pot grower, Dennis Johnson, emerges from the bushes a Dillon pumps nine rounds into Johnson killing him.
Dillon is convicted of felony murder, but because of his youth and immaturity, because he is in school and doesn't have a criminal history, because of the role of drugs and alcohol, Dillon, although the murderer and the ringleader, is given a lesser sentence.
Under Dillon Judge Mira had the right, and some would argue the responsibility, to exercise his judicial discretion and impose a lesser sentence.
Jill Lansing, Brandon's trial attorney:
"I have practiced criminal law for 20 years, and I've represented people who have done far more serious things than this and have received punishments that were either no punishment or far less. I have never in my career seen a case as unjust as this one. The idea that Brandon Hein is in prison at all at this point in time I find disturbing. The fact that he is facing life in prison with out the possibility of parole I find absurd, and incredibly cruel and unjust. And the judge had the power under Dillon, that's what Dillon is all about.
"So I think that there were a number of things that happened in that courtroom that all came together to create what is the most unjust result that I have personally ever seen or even heard about. That is a jury that lives in a world that is unrealistic . . . has a level of fear that had spilled over. The prosecution who I think were unethical, and dishonest in their presentation of the case and played to those fears. A judge, who I assume for honest reasons, saw these kids in a way that shocks me. I think he honestly saw them as a danger to the community. Which is surprising to me: I never expected that. And then there is the fact that the boy who died had a police officer for a father. So all that came together to create a result.
"The only thing I can hope is that it doesn't stand. I can't believe that Brandon is going to spend the rest of his life in prison."
[Interview with Scott Goldie in "Actions of Consequence: Murder in Agoura Hills]
Robert Pugsley, Professor of Criminal Law, Procedure and Legal Ethics at Southwestern School of Law, Los Angeles:
"The Dillon case upheld the validity and constitutionality of the felony murder rule in California. But that's not the end of the story. We need to look at the particular circumstances of the crime and the particular features of the criminal in order to decide what is proportionate punishment. So what the justices of the California Supreme Court did in 1983 in Dillon was say that the felony murder rule operates to convict, but it is not exempt from punishment proportionality review. And that's what they did in the Dillon case. They looked at the relative immaturity of the defendant that rashly did the killing, the fact that he was in a panic, he had fear for his own life, that his psychological background was very skewered. Now, granted, he was committing a criminal trespass and burglary onto the property. He was intending to steel and already contemplating violence. If the court in that case, on those facts, could drop it from first degree murder to second and thus reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to 15 years to life, it seems to me that on the facts of the Agoura Hills case, which were far less heinous, the argument stands from Dillon that this is not a felony murder case.
[Interview with Scott Goldie in "Actions of Consequence: Murder in Agoura Hills]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
