Death Penalty Writ -- 2021.03.03 1 pm 4816-8043-9519 v.2

The interference by the DAs also threatens the legitimate legal interests of the parties who negotiated an arms-length agreement resolving the Lethal Injection Litigation by dismissing the case and instituting procedures for litigation if the State resumes the execution process. [...] The DAs have sought to intervene in the Lethal Injection Litigation on the ground that five of the then-plaintiffs in the Lethal Injection Litigation received death verdicts from their offices, and the Attorney General was allegedly not adequately representing the DAs’ interests or the interests of “the People.” Now, even after a district court denied their motion to intervene and the parties to t. [...] 676.) The court found that the DAs’ stated interest did not support intervention as of right because the State’s interest in seeing a criminal sentence implemented does not solely belong to the DAs, because the DAs’ interest was subordinate to the Attorney General’s and the Governor’s, and because the Attorney General adequately represented the DAs’ interest in the resolution of criminal sentences. [...] 6–9.) The court further rejected permissive intervention by the DAs, “whose interest is marginal to the subject matter of the complaint,” as such intervention “would be unwieldy and prejudicial”; and because the case concerns the limited issue of the “method and implementation of the death penalty.” (Id. [...] Defendants in turn described the issue of whether the Attorney General had the authority to stop the intervention of the DAs under state law as a “delicate matter of the Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, or Other Appropriate Relief 09993.162 4816-8043-9519.6 18 .