The LA County District Attorney's office requests Raymond Lee Jennings' murder conviction be set aside, Mammoth gears up for more snow, why we just can't quit Jack in the Box tacos.
1st big case for DA's special wrongful conviction unit
In 2005, Raymond Lee Jennings was arrested and charged with the 2000 murder of an 18-year-old Palmdale high school student. In 2009, he was convicted and sentenced to serve 40 years to life in prison.
This week, prosecutors from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office — the same prosecutors that got him convicted — submitted a request to a judge to overturn the ruling based on newly discovered evidence of Jennings' innocence.
District Attorney Jackie Lacey introduced a special unit within the office designed to review claims of wrongful convictions and to safeguard against them back in 2015. This is the Conviction Review Unit's first big case since then, though it unfolds several months after Jennings was released from state prison.
Deputy District Attorney with the unit, Bobby Grace, spoke with Take Two's Alex Cohen about the possible exoneration of Raymond Lee Jennings.
The following interview has been edited slightly for clarity and length.
Interview highlights:
Let’s start with the conviction of Raymond Lee Jennings in 2009. What evidence was there supporting the notion that he was the killer?
It was a circumstantial evidence case where Mr. Jennings was tied to the crime scene. He was a security guard at the location of the murder. Subsequently, he gave statements that placed him in or around the scene of the shooting at the time Michelle O’Keefe was killed. He also made several contradictory statements in interviews that were conducted by the police in a wrongful death suit that was brought by the O’Keefe family.
Last year, Raymond Lee Jennings was released. What happened at that time? Why was he let go?
The L.A. County District Attorney’s office went to a judge and said we had serious concerns about the conviction of Mr. Jennings based upon an investigation the review unit had conducted, based upon information that was provided by Mr. Jennings' attorney. This Conviction Review Unit was started by L.A. County District Attorney Jackie Lacey. This was the first major case that the conviction review unit had begun an investigation on and started looking into the facts.
Out of all the cases to review, why this one?
It stood out because of the fact that it was a circumstantial evidence case with no physical evidence linking Mr. Jennings to the shooting of the victim.
Why hadn’t the case been dismissed and what has happened to that effect this week?
After Mr. Jennings was released last year, we informed the court that our office and the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department was going to continue our investigation into the murder of Michelle O’Keefe and continue to review new evidence that we had uncovered after the Conviction Review Unit had begun a formal investigation. From June of last year through this month, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department has devoted significant resources into her death and we’ve developed a lot of new information in respect to her murder. We can’t reveal what that new evidence is because the investigation is still ongoing, but the new evidence that has been discovered bolstered our opinion that the L.A. County District Attorney’s office no longer has confidence in the conviction. On Wednesday of this week, our office filed a letter with the Los Angeles Superior Court stating that we agreed with the position of Lee Jennings that his conviction should be vacated.
These are the attorneys who initially put this man behind bars. And now, you’re reviewing the work of your colleagues and you determined that maybe that work wasn’t completely correct. How does that feel for you?
The elected District Attorney Jackie Lacey followed the trend of what’s going on in the nation with a number of prosecutorial offices across the country starting these wrongful conviction units. It’s a recognition that is important, that any criminal justice agency has to be willing to look at its work, and if something has not been done correctly, or if there has been a mistake, that we’re willing to look at things and try to right a wrong if a wrong has been done.
There’s a man who hasn’t had the opportunity to watch his five kids grow up and now we discover that he might not have had to be behind bars. Does that concern you at all?
What it tells me is that the criminal justice system is evolving and has recognized that there should be different avenues to be heard when they feel that they’ve been wronged by the system. This is not the first time that the L.A. County District Attorney’s office has joined in the appellate process in determining that somebody has been wrongfully convicted. What we have done, is we set up another avenue where people can say that they’ve been wronged and they presented new evidence that had not been heard before.
Meanwhile, the family of the victim are still convinced that he is guilty.
We have nothing but sympathy for the O’Keefe family. Nobody has suffered more than their family. It’s very important to us that we continue to investigate the murder of Michelle O’Keefe and to support her family in any way that we can. We stand ready to do that and ensure the family that the resources that have been devoted to this are going to continue to be devoted. If we can reach some kind of conclusion in terms of criminal prosecution, we will pursue that goal as vigorously as we can.
To listen to the full interview, click on the blue media player above.
LA's homeless might see a change under President Trump
Southern Californians have an unprecedented amount of energy to tackle homelessness.
"Today, particularly here in Los Angeles, there is the greatest political will that we have seen both at the city and county level," says Stephanie Klasky-Gamer of LA Family Housing.
Read more about KPCC's special report on family homelessness, Broke.
But that enthusiasm might stop short at the D.C. Beltway.
The poor and homeless rely on federal assistance as much as local help. They might get subsidized housing through the Section 8 program, for example, or food stamp benefits from SNAP.
The Trump administration, however, could make dramatic changes to that social safety net.
"All signs, to me, point to the likelihood of very significant changes and significant cuts to the social safety net," says Luke Shaefer, professor of social work and public policy at the University of Michigan. "It would be the likes of which we've never seen."
The federal government invests $3.5 trillion in social welfare programs for the poor, and there would be big effects if they're scaled back or altered.
"The only history that we have of making these kinds of changes have been bad," he says. "Anything that happens in Washington with that program are going to affect families all over the state."
CalFresh, for example – the state's food stamp program – could be affected, he says, because it gets 100 percent of its funding from the federal government.
If the Trump administrations steps down its investment, it's unclear whether local governments can step up.
"Cities and states don't have the resources that the federal government has," says Shaefer.
Listen to more of the interview by clicking the blue audio player above.
IMDb fights back against age censorship law
Among the many new California laws going into effect this year is one designed to combat age discrimination.
Assembly Bill 1687 makes it illegal to posting an actor's birth date to a "commercial online entertainment employment service provider."
A.k.a. IMDb.
Yesterday, the popular entertainment website filed a motion asking the court for a temporary injunction to prohibit enforcement of AB 1687. In it, they call the new law "unconstitutional."
The situation raises several legal questions. Take Two put them to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the UC Irvine School of Law.
To listen to the full interview, click on the blue media player above.
Mammoth Mountain prepares for 20 feet of snow
Mammoth Mountain was hit with a big storm this week. With the snowfall up to 8 feet and more on the way, the snow could get up to 20 feet over the next few days.
Weather like this can be a boon to California's ski resorts. Skiers and snowboarders begin to fill the ski lifts, eager to hit the slopes. But so much fresh powder in so little time can bring its challenges.
Take Two's A Martinez spoke with Mammoth Mountain spokesperson Lauren Burke about how the resort is preparing for even more snow.
Interview highlights
Snow storm brings a winter wonderland
We just came out of what of the first of what looks like three or four major storm systems that are in the forecast for Mammoth. The past two days, it has been absolutely dumping up here. The snow hadn't stopped for a solid 48 hours.... It was a good, old fashioned Mammoth storm. And then, we woke up today to blue bird sunshine, from three to seven-and-a-half feet of snow, so everybody's out there right now getting their fresh tracks before the next storm rolls in.
Bracing for more storms and more snow
This is what our operations team does. A couple low snow years really hasn't changed how we operate our mountain. We are a true 24 hour operation here. Our CAT crew is out from 4 p.m. to 8 a.m. every single night.... They're making sure that the runs are skiable from the beginner runs to the top of the mountain. Our ski patrol team is on hand. Our lift maintenance team is making sure that the lift lines are clear and that the cables are clear. And then, there's a whole lot of shoveling that happens.
Getting in and out of the resort
There are chain controls right now for the roads and those are going to continue to be in place with the snowfall that's been predicted for the next couple days. So, make sure that you have chains at all times. Four-wheel drive and snow tires help substantially. And if you're here, use public transportation. It also makes a huge difference— keeping cars off the roads. If you don't have to be on the roads, don't be on the roads. Conditions next week are likely going to be fantastic.
Quotes edited for clarity.
To listen to the full interview, click on the blue media player above.
On California's slow-growing population: ‘Demography is destiny’
According to the latest numbers from the California Department of Finance and the Census Bureau, California has roughly 39 million people residing here. That's about a 2 million more people than in 2010.
Two million sounds like a lot but in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty low. Demographers who track the rate of growth argue that a slow-growing population can have a big effect on the state in the near future.
For more on why we are gaining less people and what that could mean for California, Take Two's Alex Cohen spoke with Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee.
Highlights
Walters: Part of it is the aging cohort. If you don't have a high number of babies or a high number of young immigrants coming in, the age of your population overall tends to rise. And we are seeing a graying tendency in California.
It affects everything. It affects demand for public services. For example, the enrollment in California's public schools has been basically frozen now for around a decade or more at around 6 million kids. And some school districts are losing children and that creates a good deal of financial angst in those districts because they get tax money based largely on their enrollment. If they're enrollment starts going down, they have to start thinking about closing schools and that's happened in a number of districts.
The demand for public services levels off. Traffic levels off. But you also have less of a demand for private services and goods so the whole retail economy feels the impact with not having as many people out there buying. It takes some of the heat off the housing crisis. Demography, it's been said, is destiny. And one of the big demographic factors in California now and into the foreseeable future, is we're going to see relatively low and perhaps even declining population growth in the state.
One of the off beat impacts of that is, if we don't grow stronger than the rest of the country, we don't get any more congressional seats. We don't get any more electoral votes. And we've seen huge increases in California's congressional seats and electoral votes in years past. But then after the last Census, we got nothing. And that indicates that that has plateaued out.
To listen to the full interview, click on the blue media player above.
Debating the proposed tuition hike for CSU and UC schools
For the first time in six years, California's public universities are tentatively proposing a tuition increase.
The increase would mean a $270 per year hike at Cal State campuses and a $300 per year hike at UC schools. Administrators and spokespeople for the combined 33 campuses are hoping that money will help graduation rates and academic initiatives.
Unsurprisingly, students aren't happy. According to a recent EdSource article, the proposed hike has spurred protests, and debate over higher education costs is likely to continue even after the negotiations are finalized, which will possibly happen in June.
To get a better picture of how these increases will impact California's two biggest university systems, A Martinez held a discussion with UC spokesperson Ricardo Vazquez and Erika Perez, a fifth-year student at UC Riverside and UC Student Association action committee chair.
Interview highlights:
On alternatives to tuition hikes:
PEREZ: [They could] put a cap on senior management, administrative salary caps. The UC always talks about investments, why don't they look for those alternative sources of revenue?
VAZQUEZ: We [both agree] that the state could step up in support of higher education. UC has tightened its belt by cutting costs, saving and generating millions of dollars in revenue, we are doing more with less. Those efforts have made the university leaner and more efficient. Some of the cutbacks, especially at the campus level, have negatively impacted the student experience on campus and we believe that it's time to make this investment to preserve the quality of a UC education.
On possible changes to financial aid:
VAZQUEZ: Two-thirds of California undergraduates would have the fee increase fully covered by grants and scholarships and most would see their financial aid increase by more than the proposed increase. Currently, 54 percent of California undergraduates have all their tuition and fees covered by financial aid and that will continue to be the case.
PEREZ: We the students, see financial aid as a band-aid solution to make the UC affordable in the first place. Not all students qualify for financial aid. As a low-income student, I qualify for financial aid. But that's not the case for students who are in the middle-income class. So this is not going to apply to all UC students, it's only going to apply to some students.
On trust between students and universities:
VAZQUEZ: The university will work with the campus chancellors to make sure that tuition revenue would be used in ways that benefit students. The chancellors will be responsible for directing funds towards the highest priority needs of their specific campuses. I believe that students should hold the university and the campuses accountable for how those funds would be used . . . I believe there needs to be an open line of communication between the administration and students so that we are aware of their priorities and concerns.
PEREZ: We need transparency in every project that will affect us, the students. Unfortunately we have seen [a lot] of problems with our chancellors. We need to examine how we do things, how we recruit, how we hire. . .because at the end of the day, we should be working together to get money that we need from the state and hold people accountable together and by being inclusive.
*This interview has been edited for clarity
To listen to the full interview, click on the blue media player above.
How eating a Jack in the Box taco is an exercise in individual rights
Can a food be both disgusting and delectable? Repulsive and yet irresistible?
If you're a fan of Jack in the Box tacos, your answer is likely yes.
If you've never tried one before, trust us, there is such a thing on their menu. It's been there for decades. And people really, really love them.
A highly entertaining Wall Street Journal article about these deep-fried pockets of beef and cheese made the online rounds this week. The headline was "Americans Eat 554 Million Jack in the Box Tacos a Year and No One Knows Why."
But there's got to be some reason, right?
Sophie Egan, food writer and author of the book "Devoured: From Chicken Wings to Kale Smoothies— How What We Eat Defines Who We Are," offered some possible explanations:
They're cheap.
This might sound like a boring reason, but it also may be the most important. At two tacos for 99 cents, the affordable price point can't be ignored — it's an important factor in our food choices. The same thing happens with gas station hot dogs. They bring in billions of dollars in revenue for gas stations. They're greasy, cheap, instantly satisfying calorie bombs.
They're fried.
The fact that the tacos are fried also likely plays a big role. Lots of foods that are fried could be described in the same way that these tacos have been described: both 'vile and amazing,' both repulsive and irresistible. Think about state fairs where there are all sorts of concoctions like fried Oreos or even butter. And all that salt, sugar and fat ignite the pleasure centers in our brain and makes us want more.
They're a way to exert your individual rights as an American.
There's also a psychological aspect to the appeal of an item like the Jack in the Box taco. It's really in some ways a signal of a rejectionist movement going on to what's been called the 'food police.' There are so many issues right now with soda taxes and calorie postings. There are all kinds of dietary guidelines that all of us feel pressured by each day. So in some ways, eating this item is almost like a metaphoric flip of the bird to Michelle Obama and all of the nutritionists telling us what to eat everyday. Eating this perhaps disgusting, but ultimately quite popular item, is a way of exercising our individual rights. It's saying, 'You know what, it might taste awful, but I'm an American, and it is my right to sit in my car and eat as many of these as I darn well please.'
Responses have been edited.
Take Two also conducted an unscientific Guilty Pleasure Taco Taste Test, based on our listener suggestions:
The contenders: Del Taco's chicken soft taco, Taco Bell's crunchy beef taco, and the Jack in the Box taco
The judges: KPCC's A Martinez and Meghan McCarty
The rating scale: Taste (1-gross to 5-tasty), Irresistibility (1-hard pass to 5-I'd have more), Affordability (1-too expensive to 5-good deal)
The winner: Jack in the Box