Last Best Chance

Dear Governor news Public. In season one of Dear Governor, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the death sentence of Jarvis Masters, despite the fact that his defense team presented credible new evidence that he was not a party to the conspiracy that took the life of Corrections Officer Howell Birchfield thirty five years ago. You have yet to do so, we encourage you to listen to season one from the beginning to get to know Jarvis and the heartbreaking but life

affirming story that has gotten him to this point. Since his final state appeal, a stellar new team of attorneys has assembled around Jarvis and pledged to represent him through the federal appeals process. In season two, we will meet some of those attorneys and followed them as they work to help Jarvis find freedom after forty years of incarceration, and we will dig deeper into facets of Jarvis's life

as well as the deeply flawed criminal justice system. Jarvis has asked that we devote this season to the life and recent passing of Michael Satris, a personal friend of Jarvis and one of the criminal defense attorneys who represented him in the murder trial in which Jarvis was sentenced to death. Michael devoted forty four years of practice advocating

for people involved in the criminal justice system. In in in nineteen seventy six, he co founded the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit that achieved historic legal victories for prisoners in California. Me and Michael had very, very fond memories, and we laughed in court, and we was shocked by certain things. Jarvis masters on his friendship with the late Michael Satriss. I sat next to Michael for four or five years. I remember one time I thought the man was going

to go to jail. I mean, he he wouldn't sit down, judge him, sit down, sit down. The Missatress and Michael would not. The judge didn't understand what his argument was, and he just kept saying denied. I'm denying your motion. I'm denying. And then the judge said something like I'm done with it. Sit down, Mrssatress and Mike. I looked up at Mike, and Mike says, well, you know, before I do that, I want to make a record of and I thought for me was going to jail, really,

you know. So that was one time when I had to tell Mike, you don't have to slow your role, man, because you didn't know where I'm at. One thing about Mike Fatress. Even though he left my case after the case was leftful, we stayed in contact with each other. He also did a lot of work when he didn't have to get me out of solitary confinement. It was

nothing that you know, anyone paid him for. It was him knowing that I had been in solitary confinement for twenty something years, and he really really, you know, said, you know what, drivers, even though you lost this case and we did our best and justice failed you and all that, he said, I'm gonna try my best to get you out of solitary confinement and he spent a lot of time, did a lot of work on doing that. So I definitely want to give him shouts out for that.

You know, my name is Bonnie Jones and I was married to Michael for forty three years. The funny story this is right at the beginning of the representation, and this was back January and our second daughter was overdue and I said to Michael, had a doctor's appointment and she was five days overdue. And I said, I think the doctor is going to induce the baby. And he said, well, gee, can he do it in the afternoon because I have

a hearing for Jarvis in the morning. And I said, I think the doctor will induce the baby when the baby needs to be induced. And I drove myself to the doctor's appointment, and in fact, they broke my water and the baby was in distress, and I went into labor and drove myself to the hospital and labor and Michael showed up that after the hearing. But it speaks to my dedication to his clients. Yeah, Michael was very focused and dedicated on on Jarvis and was just devastated

when he received the deft sentence. But one thing about Michael that he accepted people of who they were, and I think that's because he accepted himself. He wasn't foolish, but he just met people and saw the best in them. To get us up to date with Jarvis's appeals process and to better understand what we can anticipate and where we go from here, we invited back Stanford Professor of law Lawrence Marshall, who was instrumental in helping to attract

Kirkland and Ellis to represent Jarvis. In criminal cases, and particularly so in capital cases. If you have been convicted in the state courts and in the capital cases, if your sentence has been upheld as a capital sentence, you have the right to seek review in federal court, and that's typically known as habeas corpus federal habeas corpus. And what you're doing is you're going into federal court and saying that I am being held or my sentence is

being imposed in violation of the United States Constitution. So you're really only going in on federal constitutional claims, because when it comes to issues of state law, you know some evidence ruling under state law, the federal court is in no position to second guess that, so you go in and you say and this is called it's often known as the Great Writ because of the power that

it has to ensure fidelity to the Constitution. And historically there have been times when state courts and I'm not saying California is like this, but historically there have been times when state courts have been unwilling to follow the dictates of the Constitution. Think about cases in the South in the nineteen thirties and forties, where you know, the bias was so extreme and the pressure on judges was so extreme that we couldn't have great confidence that constitutional

rights were being respected. And based on that, the Supreme Court of the United States and Congress expanded expanded Habeas corpus to create a remedy where you would have an independent federal judge who was immune from any sort of pressure deciding whether or not the case comported with constitutional requirements.

Why are they immune from from pressure? The unique part of the federal judiciary is once you are appointed, regardless of who appointed you, you have salary and tenure protections you serve for the rest of your life unless you've done something completely hard, I mean some sort of felony or something, not a situation where we're going to second

guess what you did on on the bench. We have that down here in Santa Clara County where a judge was recalled thrown off the bench because people were unhappy with a sentency imposed in a sexual assault case. In the federal court that could never happen. Judges are inn from that and are are able, therefore, with great job security, to call them as they see them. Jarvis is in the Northern District of California. That is where he's being held, of course, San Quentin, but it's also by the same

token where the crime actually occurred. Uh, and then the county in which he was convicted and sentenced. And that's what we'll determine which federal court you're going to be in. Does his his team will they be hiring like investigators looking at the kron thirty years ago, or is this purely just talking about constitutional issues so they're dealing with

what's on the table right now. I can tell you that generally in these circumstances, the crux of what you'll be doing is looking at what was presented in state court and showing that they were constitutional violations, but by the same token, investigations will continue, and if new evidence does emerge, then efforts will be made to have the federal court considered that new evidence. And there are a lot of various doctrines that can allow that to happen.

So the answer is it's really dual track. In a case of this magnitude, no one's going to stop investigating ever, and the same token, the major focus of the habeas petition is going to be what actually happened in the state courts. Jarvis's team filed in November of two thousand twenty. These things take considerable time, and obviously the idea that all this is happening literally thirty five years, thirty six years, thirty six years after the murder is just really mind bugging.

And Jarvis, have you been in custody for all but a tiny period of of that span is just is just really mind boggling. I asked Professor Marshall to help us better understand the size and scope of the team that's currently representing Jarvis. You know, Kirkland and ELA's is a very serious law firm. Um, it's I should Although I'm not one of the lawyers on the team, I do have infiliation with the firm, doing some work with them, and they're considered to be among the you know, the

great firms of the world. The lawyers that they've put on the case include lawyers with some very significant pro bonal experience in death penalty cases, successful in some instances. Uh. And then there's an army of associates, junior partners and associates who are eagerly engaging with the project. So there are a lot of lawyers, a lot of really really

smart and really dedicated lawyers. And you know, the number fluctuates depending when people coming and leaving the firm or having to leave the case because there you know, otherwise occupied. But it's two senior partners, one junior partner, I believe, and I'd say four or five associates. When Kirkland and Ellis agreed to represent Jarvis, he was elated. I would imagine that a lot of the folks come to them

in asking them for pro bono services. Was there something about Jervis's case that they found particularly compelling that pushed them to take this under their wing? Be sure? You know, I think when you put together two components of the case, it becomes almost irresistible for a lawyer who is committed

to fighting, you know, for justice. And one of those components is the nature of the evidence and how terribly, terribly weak and problematic it was in the first instance, even back at trial, but then how extraordinarily empty it became once the state's witnesses, one by one each completely recanted his testimony in front of a judge under oath and said, you know, I lied when I said that

Jarvis Masters was involved. So we're left with a case right now where it stands thoroughly on the testimony of people who have since recanted that testimony. Now, so that's one part of it. The other part of it is Jarvis, Jarvis says, anybody who's been paying attention to the case knows,

is an extraordinary human being. Ah. He has emerged from a background of just really unthinkable ugliness in terms of his childhood and rearing and circumstances he found himself in as a as a teenager, and he's become a thoughtful, sensitive, caring man um And that's a very unique transformation. And it is it's not that we couldn't have a system where that's the norm. I think we could I think people generally do tend to age out of a lot

of their criminality. So the idea that he's become a straight if you will, uh, while abiding, because he's not getting he's not up there getting violations and getting involved in things in the prisons. Um. The idea that he's done that shouldn't be too unusual, but it given the circumstances on death row, it it is at some level

given you horrifying. Those circumstances are. So when you put together just he the weakness of the case, and the quality of the individual, and the leadership and inspiration he provides for others, it really does become, as I say, pretty irresistible. Could Jervis's case ever end up at the

Supreme court level? I mean, Jarvis has some issues in the case, some federal constitutional issues that are very significant, and you know, I am very hopeful that he will secure relief in the trial court and if the state chooses to appeal that that the Ninth Circuit would agree uh and affirm is being given that relief. In the event that those things didn't happen, I think Jarvis would have, you know, a very strong chance of securing what's called

curtiary from the U. S. Supreme Court. That's when the Supreme Court decides to hear a case. Doesn't do that very often at all. It doesn't around eighty times for the whole country for the whole year, but it doesn't in and usually it wants certain kinds of cases that

have split the lower courts. But I think there are aspects of Jarvis's case that are so compelling that I would hope that they would be a strong candidate for for certain As they said, so when you say relief at the lower level, does that mean like, could he be exonerated or what is the best case scenario for

his situation? The best case scenario given the claims that are being advanced, and this is what's typically the case, is that the federal court would say the conviction and sentence are vacated and the case is remanded to state court with the instruction to either let him go or to retry him within X number of days. And that is the most generally that a federal court can do.

There are rare instances where a federal court can go beyond that and say that the evidence, even at the time it was presented, was so insufficient and no reasonable jury could convict. But that's an extremely rare thing to have happened. Usually you're talking about a remand to the state court for the state to make a decision on how to proceed. My name is Jeffrey wrote Wine, and I'm an attorney. I've been practicing for about forty five years.

I met Michael Satris in the late nineteen eighties. He was an attorney on a capital case involving a killing of a guard at San Quentin Prison in Burn County, and they needed a second attorney and I was appointed to work with him and to represent our our client, Jarvis Masters. We represented Jarvis through the preliminary hearing into the trial, all the way through the guilt trial into the penalty phase of the trial as well. In so,

I am really, really really gonna miss Michael. I already have I talked talking to my wife this morning about it. I can't believe Michael's gone. He had a great reputation, a really sterling reputation in the legal community, with the judges, with the courts. His closing argument in the penalty phase with Jarvis was just brilliant. It was so meaningful and warm and personal and frankly, I got tears in my eyes. I mean, it was just it was It was not

it was not legal. It was very humanistic about Jarvis and about life and about life and who he was. But who Jarvis was, it was incredibly moving. Following, Attorney Rick Targo volunteered to read excerpts of Michael Satras's final plea in the penalty phase of Jarvis's capital case. Rick had been appointed by the California Supreme Court to Associate Council in the appeal of Jarvis's conviction and sentence, and through the years he got to know and appreciate Michael

Satris and his stellar reputation. Michael Satris's closing arguments in defense of Jarvis j Masters, July three. Some are born to sweet delight. Some are born to endless night. We know well from the evidence in this case, ladies and gentlemen, the Jarvis Masters was not born into a life of sweet delight. And we know just as certainly from the verdicts that you have already rendered in these proceedings, that he will live a life of endless night in state prison.

You can see his future that awaits him. It is a very dark one. There's barely a light at the end of that time, but there is a little bit of light. There is a light of life. And the question that faces you now is whether that little bit of light is too much to give to Jarvis Masters. The question is, is the life that Jarvis Masters has led so far, that life you've heard so much about, not a very happy one, not one that we would wish on anybody. Is that life too good for him?

So that right now it must be put an immediate end to Right now, as soon as legally possible, direct the state of California to place Jarvis Masters in the gas chamber a few miles away from here. I think there's one overall principle that the law is going to give you. Remember this is Latin in favorum vite, in favor of life. That's a principle that the law has used to decide questions where they are complex and where

they are profound, where there's no ready answer. And what the law does in this case is decide in favor of life. And I think as you see the instructions, you will see they tend to make it very easy for you to return a verdict in favor of life. And they make it very hard for you to return a verdict in favor of death. The law is wise, It knows its own limits. It knows it can't tell you ever to impose death. At the most, what it can do is leave you alone and let you make

that decision on your own personal moral judgment. The death is required. If Mr Masters is put to death at the direction of you by the state, that is something you can not call back any more than any of us can call back Sergeant Birchfield, which everyone in this room I know would wish so fervently that we could. You're in a hard position. It's not a happy position. You have to decide between life and death. You found guilt, which meant a life without possibility of parole. But choose

to believe, Choose to believe, do something that's positive. I'm positive. Let's be positive. Let's hope that institutions can change and take care of the situations. Let's hope that people can change. Let's help them, let's encourage them. In this case, there was talk about state raised and Jarvis is the paradigm of being state raised. The state took charge of him when he was six years old and he's been under that care of the state in one form or another

since the state has been his parent. And now you're supposed to be in the position of acting the state to kill him. The state wants to kill him. Would you kill your own child. It's not normal. You don't. You don't you understand him. You do what you can, and you don't give up. You don't just say he hasn't done this thing. I haven't done mine. I failed, he's failed. Let's just kill him. You don't do that to your own children, and the state should not do

that in this case. As Mike was winding down, he asked the judge how much time he had left, and she said two minutes. Mike said, I want you to think of Jarvis. Think of him as Jay. Remember Jay. Remember him being kept in the dark of his house, hiding out in the dark, jumping out of the window at age four or five or whatever to scrounge food. Remember Jay. Remember JJ who developed the relationship with his sister, who had uncles who were in prison, supposedly taking care

of him in and out of prison. The violence in that ghetto, the violence that started in the womb for Jarvis. Remember in the end the person of Jarvis Masters, who is here and now before you, and who you have heard from personally and heard so much about. When you decide whether it is really necessary, he'd be put to death.

Immediately Following Michael Satras's final argument, the court reaffirmed the fact that the defendant has been found guilty of murder in the first degree, and the special circumstances charge here was also found to be true. They continued, the law of this state is that penalty for a defendant found guilty of murder in the first degree, where a special circumstance has been found, he shall be put to death or confinement in state prison for life without the possibility

of parole. Under the law of this state. You must now considder which of these two penalties shall be imposed on the defendant. You shall determine which of these two penalties is appropriate. Of the three defendants and the murder trial of Sergeant Birchfield. While Jarvis was easily and obviously the least culpable, he was nevertheless arbitrarily sentenced to death. And here he is, thirty years later, fighting for justice.

Next week on Dear Governor, A close personal friend of Jarvis David Chef, author of the Buddhist on Death Row, How One Man Found Light in the Darkest Place. This episode was written and produced by Donni Fazzari and myself Corny Cole. Our theme song sentenced is compliments of the band Stick Figure from their album Set in Stone. Stu Sternbach composed the original music. Nate Dufort did the sound design.

For more information on Jarvis and to find out how you can follow his case and support his cause, please visit free Jarvis dot org. For more podcasts or my heart radio, visit the I heart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. H