'Andy' Williams' attorneys contend it is unconstitutional

March 31, 2001

Attorneys for Charles "Andy" Williams filed their challenge yesterday to the state law requiring the 15-year-old student to be tried as an adult in the Santana High shootings.

The lawyers said the law is unconstitutional because it covers too many subjects, gives too much power to prosecutors, and violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In legal papers filed in El Cajon Superior Court, the attorneys argue that the complaint against Williams, facing two counts of murder and 26 other charges including attempted murder, should be dismissed.

Eastin wants law that covers students who remain mum after hearing threats Full coverage of the Santana High School shooting

Williams was charged under Proposition 21, a sweeping crime measure approved by voters in March 2000.

One provision of the law requires youths to be tried in adult court if they are charged with some forcible sex crimes or a murder with a special-circumstance allegations. In Williams' case, the special circumstance allegation is lying in wait to commit murder.

He is accused of opening fire inside a boys' bathroom at Santana High School on March 5. Two students, 14-year-old Bryan Zuckor and 17-year-old Randy Gordon, were killed.

Thirteen other people, including 11 students, were injured.

Attorneys Jo Pastore and Randy Mize argue in their papers that Proposition 21 violates the state constitution's single subject rule, which holds that initiatives submitted to voters cannot embrace more than one subject.

The attorneys contend that Proposition 21 has "no common theme or purpose." They say it covers not just juvenile justice matters, but also laws covering street gang activity by adults as well as juveniles. They argue that it also amends the state's three-strikes law passed several years ago.

They also contend that the provision of the law requiring certain cases to be tried in adult court violates the constitutional separation of powers doctrine by handing too much power to prosecutors.

Proposition 21 created two ways for youths to be tried as adults.

One provision gave prosecutors the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether a youth would be tried as a juvenile or adult. Previously, that determination was made by a judge following a court hearing.

That provision has been struck down by a San Diego appeals court ruling in the case of eight Rancho Peñasquitos teen-agers charged in the beating of migrant workers.

The appeals court ruled that handing prosecutors the power to determine where a juvenile's case would be heard violated the separation of powers doctrine.

The District Attorney's Office has asked the state Supreme Court to review that ruling.

A second provision of the law required youths charged with certain crimes to automatically be tried as adults. That is the provision Williams is charged under.

Williams faces two very different futures if he is convicted as an adult or a juvenile. Under the juvenile system, he could be released at age 25. In adult court, he faces 500 years to life in prison.

Allowing prosecutors to determine whether a special-circumstance charge will be attached to a murder charge, the attorneys argue, effectively allows a prosecutor to determine if a youth will be sentenced as an adult or a juvenile.

They say that sentencing determination is a power reserved for judges.

Proposition 21 also requires youths 16 and older to be housed in state prisons -- and not the California Youth Authority.

Williams' lawyers say that subjecting youths to "the harsh reality of an adult prison" amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

The District Attorney's Office has two weeks to respond to the filing, and a hearing on the matter is set for April 20 in front of Superior Court Judge Herbert Exarhos. Prosecutors declined to comment on the filing yesterday.

While Proposition 21 has been challenged across the state, legal experts contacted said this case is the first to attack the mandatory filing provision of the law.