June 17, 2021 • 25 mins
He’s filed for appeal in the federal courts. What does that mean for Jarvis and the next steps in his pursuit to find justice? Hear from the experts and learn what awaits him on the horizon. Jarvis has requested that we dedicate this season of “Dear Governor,” to the late Michael Satris, who devoted his life to criminal justice reform and sat as second chair at Jarvis’s defense trial in the 80’s.
If you’d like to support Jarvis Masters’s cause, please considering signing a petition on his behalf at www.freejarvis.org
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Dear Governor is a production of I Heart Media and
three Months Media. If you are moved by Jarvis Masters
and his thirty years struggle on San Quentin's death throw,
and you'd like to support his cause, please consider signing
a petition on his behalf. Visit Free Jarvis dot org
slash podcast to sign your name to an open letter
(00:20):
to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Dear Governor Newsom, Dear Mr
Governor Newsom. This is an open letter to Governor Gavin Newsom,
Dear Governor news Public. In season one of Dear Governor,
(00:44):
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
(01:04):
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,
(01:26):
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
(01:48):
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.
(02:12):
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.
(02:36):
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,
(02:57):
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
(03:19):
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
(03:40):
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
(04:05):
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
(04:27):
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
(04:53):
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
(05:15):
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
(05:39):
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
(06:00):
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
(06:26):
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
(06:50):
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
(07:11):
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
(07:31):
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
(07:53):
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,
(08:14):
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
(08:37):
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
(08:58):
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,
(09:22):
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
(09:43):
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
(10:16):
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,
(10:36):
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
(10:58):
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.
(11:18):
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
(11:39):
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
(12:01):
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
(12:27):
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
(12:50):
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
(13:15):
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
(13:38):
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
(14:01):
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
(14:22):
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
(14:45):
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
(15:09):
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
(15:31):
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
(15:55):
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
(16:20):
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
(16:41):
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
(17:08):
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,
(17:30):
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,
(17:54):
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
(18:14):
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
(18:35):
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
(18:55):
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
(19:16):
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,
(19:39):
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
(20:00):
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
(20:20):
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
(20:42):
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
(21:02):
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.
(21:28):
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
(21:48):
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.
(22:10):
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
(22:33):
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.
(22:53):
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
(23:14):
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
(23:35):
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
(23:56):
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.
(24:19):
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
(24:41):
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,
(25:04):
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. H
Dear Governor is a production of I Heart Media and
three Months Media. If you are moved by Jarvis Masters
and his thirty years struggle on San Quentin's death throw,
and you'd like to support his cause, please consider signing
a petition on his behalf. Visit Free Jarvis dot org
slash podcast to sign your name to an open letter
(00:20):
to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Dear Governor Newsom, Dear Mr
Governor Newsom. This is an open letter to Governor Gavin Newsom,
Dear Governor news Public. In season one of Dear Governor,
(00:44):
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
(01:04):
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,
(01:26):
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
(01:48):
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.
(02:12):
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.
(02:36):
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,
(02:57):
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
(03:19):
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
(03:40):
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
(04:05):
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
(04:27):
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
(04:53):
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
(05:15):
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
(05:39):
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
(06:00):
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
(06:26):
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
(06:50):
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
(07:11):
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
(07:31):
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
(07:53):
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,
(08:14):
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
(08:37):
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
(08:58):
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,
(09:22):
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
(09:43):
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
(10:16):
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,
(10:36):
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
(10:58):
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.
(11:18):
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
(11:39):
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
(12:01):
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
(12:27):
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
(12:50):
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
(13:15):
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
(13:38):
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
(14:01):
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
(14:22):
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
(14:45):
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
(15:09):
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
(15:31):
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
(15:55):
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
(16:20):
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
(16:41):
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
(17:08):
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,
(17:30):
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,
(17:54):
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
(18:14):
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
(18:35):
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
(18:55):
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
(19:16):
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,
(19:39):
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
(20:00):
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
(20:20):
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
(20:42):
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
(21:02):
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.
(21:28):
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
(21:48):
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.
(22:10):
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
(22:33):
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.
(22:53):
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
(23:14):
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
(23:35):
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
(23:56):
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.
(24:19):
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
(24:41):
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,
(25:04):
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. H
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.