Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

“There were 9 voting members of the board during the year.”

“Director reviews 990 prior to filing”

“This organization has few outside contractors therefore, they are able to review all new contracts as they may enter into it, to be assured it is not with an entity that any of their Board or employees have an interest in.”

“At least annually, the Board reviews salaries and benefits paid to all employees (including officers and key employees), and votes on bonuses or salary increases accordingly.”

“At least annually, the Board reviews salaries and benefits paid to all employees (including officers and key employees), and votes on bonuses or salary increases accordingly.”

“Governing documents, policies and financial statements may be viewed upon request at the Foundation's office located at 2131 L Street, Sacramento, California.”

“BOXSCORE:CJLF v CDCR: 7/28/2025. Unanimous California Third District Court of Appeal decision striking down Governor Gavin Newsom's effort to grant early parole to convicted murderers. The Court held that state law does not authorize the early parole of murderers servicing indeterminate sentences in the state prison, partly invalidating regulations adopted by corrections officials which had allowed the release of convicted murders years before they had served the minimum term of 15 or 25years to life in prison. The lawsuit, brought by CJLF on behalf of the families of murder victims, argued that the CDCR overstepped its authority by allowing the state's most violent criminals to apply credits for good behavior (called "good time" credits) to reduce their minimum terms. The Court's decision upheld, in large part, the December 13, 2023 Sacramento Superior Court ruling which endorsed the CJLF position that the state did not have the authority to grant early releases to violent criminals serving indeterminate sentences. The Superior Court also issued a writ of mandate ordering the state to stop the early releases, which remains in force. WINRIVERS v GUERRERO: 6/12/2025. U.S. Supreme Court decision unanimously rejecting the claim by a serial child molester that he was entitled to successive challenges to his conviction and sentence even though a federal law allows just one, with only narrow exceptions. Activist federal judges have evaded this law since Congress passed it in 1996, in order to repeatedly review claims of trial or sentencing error having absolutely nothing to do with the criminal's guilt or innocence. In Danny Rivers' case, he was found guilty of molesting his daughter and stepdaughter hundreds of times over a four-year period. Both girls were nine years old when this started. A Texas jury sentenced him to 38years in prison for these crimes. Years later after Rivers' final appeal, in the form of a habeas corpus petition, was rejected by a federal judge, he waited another four years to request that the judge allow him to amend it and add new claims. Both the judge and the Court of appeals turned him down, citing the limit under federal law. Because other federal courts had skirted these limits in similar cases, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Rivers' appeal. CJLF joined the case to argue that the limit on repeated petitions applies to requests to amend a petition that has already been rejected. This limit has only narrow exceptions that Rivers did not qualify for. The Court's decision followed that argument. WINGLOSSIP v OKLAHOMA: 2/25/2025. U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding a convicted murderer's claim that "new evidence" invalidates his conviction. CJLF had joined the case to urge the Court to reject the murderer's claim and uphold his conviction and death sentence. In 1997, Richard Glossip hired a handyman to kill the owner of the motel he managed. He was convicted on a mountain of evidence, including the handyman's confession. The new evidence is that the handyman had been treated with lithium, a medication for bipolar disorder, something that Glossip's defense attorneys knew but chose not to introduce because it would have supported the fact that Glossip had manipulated the handyman. This evidence was actually included in Glossip's own appeal in 1998. CJLF argued that the state's highest court had already reviewed and dismissed the new evidence as both irrelevant and procedurally barred, and that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear Glossip's claims. A majority voted to overturn the conviction and ordered Oklahoma to give the murderer a new trial. LOSSCITY OF GRANTS PASS v JOHNSON: 6/28/2024. U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Oregon City of Grants Pass's challenge to a federal judge's ruling to strike down local ordinances prohibiting camping on public property. In July 2023, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the judge's order, citing its 2019 ruling in Martin v City of Boise. T”