By Laura Robinett
In 2017, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a landmark decision advancing the rights of juvenile defendants in Washington Courts. State v. Houston-Sconiers held that, when kids are sentenced as adults in adult felony court, judges must consider “the mitigating factors of youthfulness” and have authority to sentence these children below the adult standard sentencing ranges. This meant that, for the first time in our state history, judges would have the ability to consider the common-sense notion that children are not adults, are not as culpable as adults, and should be given the opportunity to grow and change. This decision was based on contemporary brain science showing that children not only experience impaired decision making, but also demonstrate low rates of future crime.
In 2020, Gause Law Offices brought a case before the Washington Supreme Court, arguing that Houston-Sconiers should be made retroactive. Our client, Endy Domingo-Cornelio, was sentenced in 2014 for a crime he allegedly committed when he was just 15 years old. The judge sentenced Mr. Domingo-Cornelio to 20 years in prison. Because Houston-Sconiers was not yet decided, Mr. Domingo-Cornelio’s trial counsel did not argue that he should be sentenced below the standard sentencing range, and the judge did not have to consider Mr. Domingo-Cornelio’s youthful characteristics at sentencing. Gause Law Offices represented Mr. Domingo-Cornelio on his appeal and all the way up to the Supreme Court, arguing that our client, and all children sentenced in adult court before Houston-Sconiers, should get a new sentencing hearing which takes into account all what we now know about children’s brains and development. Our Supreme Court agreed, issuing a ruling which would allow over 300 Washington inmates to access a more just, evidence-based, and individualized legal process.
However, prosecutors were unhappy. Prior to Houston-Sconiers, prosecutors could induce children to plead to lengthy prison terms through over-charging and coercive negotiation. And judges had no authority to intervene. Houston-Sconiers and Domingo-Cornelio took the power away from prosecutors—who could operate without oversight and behind closed doors—and placed it in the hands of judicial officers whose very job is to hand down impartial and just rulings. So, King County elected prosecutor Dan Satterberg joined Pierce County prosecutor Mary Robnett in appealing Domingo-Cornelio, and its companion case, State v. Ali, to the United States Supreme Court. Dan Satterberg argues that this attempt to undo a major advance in juvenile justice reform is not out of keeping with his self-proclaimed identity as a “progressive prosecutor”. As President Biden likes to say, we call malarky.
Recently, Satterberg has been engaging in a media campaign which attempts to sanitize his decision to appeal such a landmark advancement in juvenile justice. Unfortunately for the listening public, many of these arguments are disingenuous, hypocritical, or simply untrue.
Separation of Powers or Power Grabbing?
Appearing on The Appeal in January, Satterberg argued that his decision to appeal Domingo-Cornelio is about “separation of powers.” “Can the legislature create a scheme to take care of these cases or, is it as our state supreme court said: ‘nothing the legislature can do is good enough. These cases are all unconstitutional and we have to re-sentence them all again’?” Here, Satterberg presents his appeal as being about protecting the legislature’s authority to develop a sentencing structure to which courts must abide. But the Supreme Court’s decision in Domingo-Cornelio and Houston-Sconiers does not do away with Washington’s sentencing structure. Instead, it simply gives judicial officers the option to go below the standard sentencing range when sentencing children—and the ability to revisit cases where judges did not consider youth. Judges still have absolute power and discretion to consider all of the facts and impose any sentence, including the same sentence it originally imposed.
Satterberg’s argument ignores the fact that the legislature already gave judges the power to do what is called for in Domingo-Cornelio and Houston-Sconiers. Under RCW 9.94A.535, “the court may impose a sentence outside the standard sentence range for an offense if it finds… there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.” Additionally, “the court may impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range if it finds that mitigating circumstances are established by a preponderance of the evidence.” The law provides a list of reasons that a sentencing judge may go below the standard sentencing range, but states that this list should not be viewed as exclusive. In fact, our Supreme Court found in State v. O’Dell that the age of the offender has always been a factor a sentencing judge can use to deviate from the standard sentencing range.
Satterberg’s disingenuous attempt to represent himself as the champion of the legislature was challenged when he was asked about a new bill currently being considered by Washington lawmakers. In response to Satterberg and Robnett’s attempt to overturn Domingo-Cornelio, the Washington legislature introduced a bill that would codify Domingo-Cornelio and Houston-Sconiers so that they cannot be eliminated by the United States Supreme Court. When asked whether he would withdraw his appeal if the law passed, Satterberg did not answer. If this case were truly about separation of powers, Satterberg would step back and let our legislators decide what to do. But Satterberg isn’t actually interested in protecting the legislative function—he is interested in maintaining the prosecutorial power to intimidate and condemn young people.
Dan Satterberg’s interview with The Appeal can be watched here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=410609490014327&ref=watch_permalink
A Shady Attempt to Undo Established Law
When Houston-Sconiers was decided in 2017, prosecutors did not try to appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court. This may be because the composition of the Court was quite different in 2017, when Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Anthony Kennedy were still on the bench. Whatever the reasoning, Dan Satterberg has been attempting to convince the media that he and his office agree with Houston-Sconiers, but simply believe that making the law retroactive would be too costly, and usurp legislative authority. In a recent interview with KUOW (https://www.kuow.org/stories/people-incarcerated-as-children-can-be-resentenced-says-wa-supreme-court-some-prosecutors-don-t-want-that), Satterberg stated that he “supports the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Houston-Sconiers that factors surrounding one’s youth be a consideration when initially sentencing children in an adult court.” “Resentencing by courts all over the state, without any guidance about how you’re supposed to do a mitigating factor review, is going to be a huge, expensive, slow, and confusing process,” he said. “It's not going to give people the kind of relief that they think they want.”
This argument might sound compelling, if it were not based on a complete falsehood. The petition for certification to the Supreme Court bears Mr. Satterberg’s name. Buried in a footnote, the brief states: “The State challenges the Washington court’s conclusion that the Eighth Amendment demands strict proportionality when sentencing all juvenile offenders in adult court. It does not seek review of the state court’s retroactive application of Houston- Sconiers under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).” This means that Satterberg is, explicitly, challenging Washington law which allows judges to exercise discretion when sentencing children. Satterberg and the King County Prosecutor’s Office are attempting to undo Houston-Sconiers— four years after it was decided--- by appealing a case which merely makes that law retroactive. This is a clever attempt to undo a law which provided hope and justice to countless vulnerable children facing tremendous criminal punishments. King County residents deserve to know the truth about what their elected officials believe, and what actions they take. Unfortunately, Satterberg is peddling convenient sound-bytes that directly contradict the actions of his office.
For years, Dan Satterberg has represented himself as a “progressive prosecutor”. He campaigned on a platform of criminal justice reform. He presented a TEDTalk about reducing recidivism and criminal justice involvement. He has written blogs on the importance of juvenile brain development in criminal sentencing and served on Washington’s Juvenile Sentencing Reform legislative task force. But when the unchecked power of prosecutors was challenged, Satterberg’s positive image was put to the test. Satterberg has chosen power-grabbing over justice for Washington’s criminally-involved youth. The least he could do is be honest about it.
To read Dan’s petition for certiorai to the United States Supreme Court, click here: Satterberg Petition
To read Gause Law Offices’ brief in opposition on behalf of Endy Domingo-Cornelio, click here: Gause Law Office BOI
Remember: hold your elected officials accountable for their conduct in the next election. Dan Satterberg is up for re-election in 2022.