Speaker 1: Dear Governor is a production of I Heart Media and
Speaker 1: three Months Media. If you are moved by Jarvis Masters
Speaker 1: and his thirty years struggle on San Quentin's death throw,
Speaker 1: and you'd like to support his cause, please consider signing
Speaker 1: a petition on his behalf. Visit Free Jarvis dot org
Speaker 1: slash podcast to sign your name to an open letter
Speaker 1: to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Dear Governor Newsom, Dear Mr
Speaker 1: Governor Newsom. This is an open letter to Governor Gavin Newsom,
Speaker 1: Dear Governor news Public. In season one of Dear Governor,
Speaker 1: the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the death sentence of Jarvis Masters,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that his defense team presented credible new
Speaker 1: evidence that he was not a party to the conspiracy
Speaker 1: that took the life of Corrections Officer Howell Birchfield thirty
Speaker 1: five years ago. You have yet to do so, we
Speaker 1: encourage you to listen to season one from the beginning
Speaker 1: to get to know Jarvis and the heartbreaking but life
Speaker 1: affirming story that has gotten him to this point. Since
Speaker 1: his final state appeal, a stellar new team of attorneys
Speaker 1: has assembled around Jarvis and pledged to represent him through
Speaker 1: the federal appeals process. In season two, we will meet
Speaker 1: some of those attorneys and followed them as they work
Speaker 1: to help Jarvis find freedom after forty years of incarceration,
Speaker 1: and we will dig deeper into facets of Jarvis's life
Speaker 1: as well as the deeply flawed criminal justice system. Jarvis
Speaker 1: has asked that we devote this season to the life
Speaker 1: and recent passing of Michael Satris, a personal friend of
Speaker 1: Jarvis and one of the criminal defense attorneys who represented
Speaker 1: him in the murder trial in which Jarvis was sentenced
Speaker 1: to death. Michael devoted forty four years of practice advocating
Speaker 1: for people involved in the criminal justice system. In in in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy six, he co founded the Prison Law Office,
Speaker 1: a nonprofit that achieved historic legal victories for prisoners in California.
Speaker 1: Me and Michael had very, very fond memories, and we
Speaker 1: laughed in court, and we was shocked by certain things.
Speaker 1: Jarvis masters on his friendship with the late Michael Satriss.
Speaker 1: I sat next to Michael for four or five years.
Speaker 1: I remember one time I thought the man was going
Speaker 1: to go to jail. I mean, he he wouldn't sit down,
Speaker 1: judge him, sit down, sit down. The Missatress and Michael
Speaker 1: would not. The judge didn't understand what his argument was,
Speaker 1: and he just kept saying denied. I'm denying your motion.
Speaker 1: I'm denying. And then the judge said something like I'm
Speaker 1: done with it. Sit down, Mrssatress and Mike. I looked
Speaker 1: up at Mike, and Mike says, well, you know, before
Speaker 1: I do that, I want to make a record of
Speaker 1: and I thought for me was going to jail, really,
Speaker 1: you know. So that was one time when I had
Speaker 1: to tell Mike, you don't have to slow your role, man,
Speaker 1: because you didn't know where I'm at. One thing about
Speaker 1: Mike Fatress. Even though he left my case after the
Speaker 1: case was leftful, we stayed in contact with each other.
Speaker 1: He also did a lot of work when he didn't
Speaker 1: have to get me out of solitary confinement. It was
Speaker 1: nothing that you know, anyone paid him for. It was
Speaker 1: him knowing that I had been in solitary confinement for
Speaker 1: twenty something years, and he really really, you know, said,
Speaker 1: you know what, drivers, even though you lost this case
Speaker 1: and we did our best and justice failed you and
Speaker 1: all that, he said, I'm gonna try my best to
Speaker 1: get you out of solitary confinement and he spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time, did a lot of work on doing that.
Speaker 1: So I definitely want to give him shouts out for that.
Speaker 1: You know, my name is Bonnie Jones and I was
Speaker 1: married to Michael for forty three years. The funny story
Speaker 1: this is right at the beginning of the representation, and
Speaker 1: this was back January and our second daughter was overdue
Speaker 1: and I said to Michael, had a doctor's appointment and
Speaker 1: she was five days overdue. And I said, I think
Speaker 1: the doctor is going to induce the baby. And he said, well, gee,
Speaker 1: can he do it in the afternoon because I have
Speaker 1: a hearing for Jarvis in the morning. And I said,
Speaker 1: I think the doctor will induce the baby when the
Speaker 1: baby needs to be induced. And I drove myself to
Speaker 1: the doctor's appointment, and in fact, they broke my water
Speaker 1: and the baby was in distress, and I went into
Speaker 1: labor and drove myself to the hospital and labor and
Speaker 1: Michael showed up that after the hearing. But it speaks
Speaker 1: to my dedication to his clients. Yeah, Michael was very
Speaker 1: focused and dedicated on on Jarvis and was just devastated
Speaker 1: when he received the deft sentence. But one thing about
Speaker 1: Michael that he accepted people of who they were, and
Speaker 1: I think that's because he accepted himself. He wasn't foolish,
Speaker 1: but he just met people and saw the best in them.
Speaker 1: To get us up to date with Jarvis's appeals process
Speaker 1: and to better understand what we can anticipate and where
Speaker 1: we go from here, we invited back Stanford Professor of
Speaker 1: law Lawrence Marshall, who was instrumental in helping to attract
Speaker 1: Kirkland and Ellis to represent Jarvis. In criminal cases, and
Speaker 1: particularly so in capital cases. If you have been convicted
Speaker 1: in the state courts and in the capital cases, if
Speaker 1: your sentence has been upheld as a capital sentence, you
Speaker 1: have the right to seek review in federal court, and
Speaker 1: that's typically known as habeas corpus federal habeas corpus. And
Speaker 1: what you're doing is you're going into federal court and
Speaker 1: saying that I am being held or my sentence is
Speaker 1: being imposed in violation of the United States Constitution. So
Speaker 1: you're really only going in on federal constitutional claims, because
Speaker 1: when it comes to issues of state law, you know
Speaker 1: some evidence ruling under state law, the federal court is
Speaker 1: in no position to second guess that, so you go
Speaker 1: in and you say and this is called it's often
Speaker 1: known as the Great Writ because of the power that
Speaker 1: it has to ensure fidelity to the Constitution. And historically
Speaker 1: there have been times when state courts and I'm not
Speaker 1: saying California is like this, but historically there have been
Speaker 1: times when state courts have been unwilling to follow the
Speaker 1: dictates of the Constitution. Think about cases in the South
Speaker 1: in the nineteen thirties and forties, where you know, the
Speaker 1: bias was so extreme and the pressure on judges was
Speaker 1: so extreme that we couldn't have great confidence that constitutional
Speaker 1: rights were being respected. And based on that, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court of the United States and Congress expanded expanded Habeas
Speaker 1: corpus to create a remedy where you would have an
Speaker 1: independent federal judge who was immune from any sort of
Speaker 1: pressure deciding whether or not the case comported with constitutional requirements.
Speaker 1: Why are they immune from from pressure? The unique part
Speaker 1: of the federal judiciary is once you are appointed, regardless
Speaker 1: of who appointed you, you have salary and tenure protections
Speaker 1: you serve for the rest of your life unless you've
Speaker 1: done something completely hard, I mean some sort of felony
Speaker 1: or something, not a situation where we're going to second
Speaker 1: guess what you did on on the bench. We have
Speaker 1: that down here in Santa Clara County where a judge
Speaker 1: was recalled thrown off the bench because people were unhappy
Speaker 1: with a sentency imposed in a sexual assault case. In
Speaker 1: the federal court that could never happen. Judges are inn
Speaker 1: from that and are are able, therefore, with great job security,
Speaker 1: to call them as they see them. Jarvis is in
Speaker 1: the Northern District of California. That is where he's being held,
Speaker 1: of course, San Quentin, but it's also by the same
Speaker 1: token where the crime actually occurred. Uh, and then the
Speaker 1: county in which he was convicted and sentenced. And that's
Speaker 1: what we'll determine which federal court you're going to be in.
Speaker 1: Does his his team will they be hiring like investigators
Speaker 1: looking at the kron thirty years ago, or is this
Speaker 1: purely just talking about constitutional issues so they're dealing with
Speaker 1: what's on the table right now. I can tell you
Speaker 1: that generally in these circumstances, the crux of what you'll
Speaker 1: be doing is looking at what was presented in state
Speaker 1: court and showing that they were constitutional violations, but by
Speaker 1: the same token, investigations will continue, and if new evidence
Speaker 1: does emerge, then efforts will be made to have the
Speaker 1: federal court considered that new evidence. And there are a
Speaker 1: lot of various doctrines that can allow that to happen.
Speaker 1: So the answer is it's really dual track. In a
Speaker 1: case of this magnitude, no one's going to stop investigating ever,
Speaker 1: and the same token, the major focus of the habeas
Speaker 1: petition is going to be what actually happened in the
Speaker 1: state courts. Jarvis's team filed in November of two thousand twenty.
Speaker 1: These things take considerable time, and obviously the idea that
Speaker 1: all this is happening literally thirty five years, thirty six years,
Speaker 1: thirty six years after the murder is just really mind bugging.
Speaker 1: And Jarvis, have you been in custody for all but
Speaker 1: a tiny period of of that span is just is
Speaker 1: just really mind boggling. I asked Professor Marshall to help
Speaker 1: us better understand the size and scope of the team
Speaker 1: that's currently representing Jarvis. You know, Kirkland and ELA's is
Speaker 1: a very serious law firm. Um, it's I should Although
Speaker 1: I'm not one of the lawyers on the team, I
Speaker 1: do have infiliation with the firm, doing some work with them,
Speaker 1: and they're considered to be among the you know, the
Speaker 1: great firms of the world. The lawyers that they've put
Speaker 1: on the case include lawyers with some very significant pro
Speaker 1: bonal experience in death penalty cases, successful in some instances. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then there's an army of associates, junior partners and
Speaker 1: associates who are eagerly engaging with the project. So there
Speaker 1: are a lot of lawyers, a lot of really really
Speaker 1: smart and really dedicated lawyers. And you know, the number
Speaker 1: fluctuates depending when people coming and leaving the firm or
Speaker 1: having to leave the case because there you know, otherwise occupied.
Speaker 1: But it's two senior partners, one junior partner, I believe,
Speaker 1: and I'd say four or five associates. When Kirkland and
Speaker 1: Ellis agreed to represent Jarvis, he was elated. I would
Speaker 1: imagine that a lot of the folks come to them
Speaker 1: in asking them for pro bono services. Was there something
Speaker 1: about Jervis's case that they found particularly compelling that pushed
Speaker 1: them to take this under their wing? Be sure? You know,
Speaker 1: I think when you put together two components of the case,
Speaker 1: it becomes almost irresistible for a lawyer who is committed
Speaker 1: to fighting, you know, for justice. And one of those
Speaker 1: components is the nature of the evidence and how terribly,
Speaker 1: terribly weak and problematic it was in the first instance,
Speaker 1: even back at trial, but then how extraordinarily empty it
Speaker 1: became once the state's witnesses, one by one each completely
Speaker 1: recanted his testimony in front of a judge under oath
Speaker 1: and said, you know, I lied when I said that
Speaker 1: Jarvis Masters was involved. So we're left with a case
Speaker 1: right now where it stands thoroughly on the testimony of
Speaker 1: people who have since recanted that testimony. Now, so that's
Speaker 1: one part of it. The other part of it is Jarvis,
Speaker 1: Jarvis says, anybody who's been paying attention to the case knows,
Speaker 1: is an extraordinary human being. Ah. He has emerged from
Speaker 1: a background of just really unthinkable ugliness in terms of
Speaker 1: his childhood and rearing and circumstances he found himself in
Speaker 1: as a as a teenager, and he's become a thoughtful, sensitive,
Speaker 1: caring man um And that's a very unique transformation. And
Speaker 1: it is it's not that we couldn't have a system
Speaker 1: where that's the norm. I think we could I think
Speaker 1: people generally do tend to age out of a lot
Speaker 1: of their criminality. So the idea that he's become a
Speaker 1: straight if you will, uh, while abiding, because he's not
Speaker 1: getting he's not up there getting violations and getting involved
Speaker 1: in things in the prisons. Um. The idea that he's
Speaker 1: done that shouldn't be too unusual, but it given the
Speaker 1: circumstances on death row, it it is at some level
Speaker 1: given you horrifying. Those circumstances are. So when you put
Speaker 1: together just he the weakness of the case, and the
Speaker 1: quality of the individual, and the leadership and inspiration he
Speaker 1: provides for others, it really does become, as I say,
Speaker 1: pretty irresistible. Could Jervis's case ever end up at the
Speaker 1: Supreme court level? I mean, Jarvis has some issues in
Speaker 1: the case, some federal constitutional issues that are very significant,
Speaker 1: and you know, I am very hopeful that he will
Speaker 1: secure relief in the trial court and if the state
Speaker 1: chooses to appeal that that the Ninth Circuit would agree
Speaker 1: uh and affirm is being given that relief. In the
Speaker 1: event that those things didn't happen, I think Jarvis would have,
Speaker 1: you know, a very strong chance of securing what's called
Speaker 1: curtiary from the U. S. Supreme Court. That's when the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decides to hear a case. Doesn't do that
Speaker 1: very often at all. It doesn't around eighty times for
Speaker 1: the whole country for the whole year, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: in and usually it wants certain kinds of cases that
Speaker 1: have split the lower courts. But I think there are
Speaker 1: aspects of Jarvis's case that are so compelling that I
Speaker 1: would hope that they would be a strong candidate for
Speaker 1: for certain As they said, so when you say relief
Speaker 1: at the lower level, does that mean like, could he
Speaker 1: be exonerated or what is the best case scenario for
Speaker 1: his situation? The best case scenario given the claims that
Speaker 1: are being advanced, and this is what's typically the case,
Speaker 1: is that the federal court would say the conviction and
Speaker 1: sentence are vacated and the case is remanded to state
Speaker 1: court with the instruction to either let him go or
Speaker 1: to retry him within X number of days. And that
Speaker 1: is the most generally that a federal court can do.
Speaker 1: There are rare instances where a federal court can go
Speaker 1: beyond that and say that the evidence, even at the
Speaker 1: time it was presented, was so insufficient and no reasonable
Speaker 1: jury could convict. But that's an extremely rare thing to
Speaker 1: have happened. Usually you're talking about a remand to the
Speaker 1: state court for the state to make a decision on
Speaker 1: how to proceed. My name is Jeffrey wrote Wine, and
Speaker 1: I'm an attorney. I've been practicing for about forty five years.
Speaker 1: I met Michael Satris in the late nineteen eighties. He
Speaker 1: was an attorney on a capital case involving a killing
Speaker 1: of a guard at San Quentin Prison in Burn County,
Speaker 1: and they needed a second attorney and I was appointed
Speaker 1: to work with him and to represent our our client,
Speaker 1: Jarvis Masters. We represented Jarvis through the preliminary hearing into
Speaker 1: the trial, all the way through the guilt trial into
Speaker 1: the penalty phase of the trial as well. In so,
Speaker 1: I am really, really really gonna miss Michael. I already
Speaker 1: have I talked talking to my wife this morning about it.
Speaker 1: I can't believe Michael's gone. He had a great reputation,
Speaker 1: a really sterling reputation in the legal community, with the judges,
Speaker 1: with the courts. His closing argument in the penalty phase
Speaker 1: with Jarvis was just brilliant. It was so meaningful and
Speaker 1: warm and personal and frankly, I got tears in my eyes.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was just it was It was not
Speaker 1: it was not legal. It was very humanistic about Jarvis
Speaker 1: and about life and about life and who he was.
Speaker 1: But who Jarvis was, it was incredibly moving. Following, Attorney
Speaker 1: Rick Targo volunteered to read excerpts of Michael Satras's final
Speaker 1: plea in the penalty phase of Jarvis's capital case. Rick
Speaker 1: had been appointed by the California Supreme Court to Associate
Speaker 1: Council in the appeal of Jarvis's conviction and sentence, and
Speaker 1: through the years he got to know and appreciate Michael
Speaker 1: Satris and his stellar reputation. Michael Satris's closing arguments in
Speaker 1: defense of Jarvis j Masters, July three. Some are born
Speaker 1: to sweet delight. Some are born to endless night. We
Speaker 1: know well from the evidence in this case, ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 1: the Jarvis Masters was not born into a life of
Speaker 1: sweet delight. And we know just as certainly from the
Speaker 1: verdicts that you have already rendered in these proceedings, that
Speaker 1: he will live a life of endless night in state prison.
Speaker 1: You can see his future that awaits him. It is
Speaker 1: a very dark one. There's barely a light at the
Speaker 1: end of that time, but there is a little bit
Speaker 1: of light. There is a light of life. And the
Speaker 1: question that faces you now is whether that little bit
Speaker 1: of light is too much to give to Jarvis Masters.
Speaker 1: The question is, is the life that Jarvis Masters has
Speaker 1: led so far, that life you've heard so much about,
Speaker 1: not a very happy one, not one that we would
Speaker 1: wish on anybody. Is that life too good for him?
Speaker 1: So that right now it must be put an immediate
Speaker 1: end to Right now, as soon as legally possible, direct
Speaker 1: the state of California to place Jarvis Masters in the
Speaker 1: gas chamber a few miles away from here. I think
Speaker 1: there's one overall principle that the law is going to
Speaker 1: give you. Remember this is Latin in favorum vite, in
Speaker 1: favor of life. That's a principle that the law has
Speaker 1: used to decide questions where they are complex and where
Speaker 1: they are profound, where there's no ready answer. And what
Speaker 1: the law does in this case is decide in favor
Speaker 1: of life. And I think as you see the instructions,
Speaker 1: you will see they tend to make it very easy
Speaker 1: for you to return a verdict in favor of life.
Speaker 1: And they make it very hard for you to return
Speaker 1: a verdict in favor of death. The law is wise,
Speaker 1: It knows its own limits. It knows it can't tell
Speaker 1: you ever to impose death. At the most, what it
Speaker 1: can do is leave you alone and let you make
Speaker 1: that decision on your own personal moral judgment. The death
Speaker 1: is required. If Mr Masters is put to death at
Speaker 1: the direction of you by the state, that is something
Speaker 1: you can not call back any more than any of
Speaker 1: us can call back Sergeant Birchfield, which everyone in this
Speaker 1: room I know would wish so fervently that we could.
Speaker 1: You're in a hard position. It's not a happy position.
Speaker 1: You have to decide between life and death. You found guilt,
Speaker 1: which meant a life without possibility of parole. But choose
Speaker 1: to believe, Choose to believe, do something that's positive. I'm positive.
Speaker 1: Let's be positive. Let's hope that institutions can change and
Speaker 1: take care of the situations. Let's hope that people can change.
Speaker 1: Let's help them, let's encourage them. In this case, there
Speaker 1: was talk about state raised and Jarvis is the paradigm
Speaker 1: of being state raised. The state took charge of him
Speaker 1: when he was six years old and he's been under
Speaker 1: that care of the state in one form or another
Speaker 1: since the state has been his parent. And now you're
Speaker 1: supposed to be in the position of acting the state
Speaker 1: to kill him. The state wants to kill him. Would
Speaker 1: you kill your own child. It's not normal. You don't.
Speaker 1: You don't you understand him. You do what you can,
Speaker 1: and you don't give up. You don't just say he
Speaker 1: hasn't done this thing. I haven't done mine. I failed,
Speaker 1: he's failed. Let's just kill him. You don't do that
Speaker 1: to your own children, and the state should not do
Speaker 1: that in this case. As Mike was winding down, he
Speaker 1: asked the judge how much time he had left, and
Speaker 1: she said two minutes. Mike said, I want you to
Speaker 1: think of Jarvis. Think of him as Jay. Remember Jay.
Speaker 1: Remember him being kept in the dark of his house,
Speaker 1: hiding out in the dark, jumping out of the window
Speaker 1: at age four or five or whatever to scrounge food.
Speaker 1: Remember Jay. Remember JJ who developed the relationship with his sister,
Speaker 1: who had uncles who were in prison, supposedly taking care
Speaker 1: of him in and out of prison. The violence in
Speaker 1: that ghetto, the violence that started in the womb for Jarvis.
Speaker 1: Remember in the end the person of Jarvis Masters, who
Speaker 1: is here and now before you, and who you have
Speaker 1: heard from personally and heard so much about. When you
Speaker 1: decide whether it is really necessary, he'd be put to death.
Speaker 1: Immediately Following Michael Satras's final argument, the court reaffirmed the
Speaker 1: fact that the defendant has been found guilty of murder
Speaker 1: in the first degree, and the special circumstances charge here
Speaker 1: was also found to be true. They continued, the law
Speaker 1: of this state is that penalty for a defendant found
Speaker 1: guilty of murder in the first degree, where a special
Speaker 1: circumstance has been found, he shall be put to death
Speaker 1: or confinement in state prison for life without the possibility
Speaker 1: of parole. Under the law of this state. You must
Speaker 1: now considder which of these two penalties shall be imposed
Speaker 1: on the defendant. You shall determine which of these two
Speaker 1: penalties is appropriate. Of the three defendants and the murder
Speaker 1: trial of Sergeant Birchfield. While Jarvis was easily and obviously
Speaker 1: the least culpable, he was nevertheless arbitrarily sentenced to death.
Speaker 1: And here he is, thirty years later, fighting for justice.
Speaker 1: Next week on Dear Governor, A close personal friend of
Speaker 1: Jarvis David Chef, author of the Buddhist on Death Row,
Speaker 1: How One Man Found Light in the Darkest Place. This
Speaker 1: episode was written and produced by Donni Fazzari and myself
Speaker 1: Corny Cole. Our theme song sentenced is compliments of the
Speaker 1: band Stick Figure from their album Set in Stone. Stu
Speaker 1: Sternbach composed the original music. Nate Dufort did the sound design.
Speaker 1: For more information on Jarvis and to find out how
Speaker 1: you can follow his case and support his cause, please
Speaker 1: visit free Jarvis dot org. For more podcasts or my
Speaker 1: heart radio, visit the I heart Radio app, Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. H