Bruce Lisker should be sent back to prison, state lawyers say [Updated]

State lawyers have asked a judge to reverse her decision to overturn the murder conviction of a man who was set free last year after serving 26 years in prison.

Bruce Lisker, who was accused of killing his mother in 1983, should be sent back to prison because the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in another case that inmates should not be allowed to file late petitions for release even if they can prove they are innocent, according to the attorney general’s motion filed late Wednesday.

[Updated at 10:32 a.m.: An earlier version of this post said the killing occurred in 1985. Lisker's mother was killed in 1983.]

Lisker had missed a federal deadline in which to file his petition but was allowed to pursue the constitutional claims in his case because he met an “actual innocence” exception, the judge had ruled.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips overturned Lisker’s conviction in August 2009 after finding that he had been convicted on “false evidence” and that his original attorney did not adequately represent him. 

The judge’s findings mirrored those of a 2005 Times investigation that raised questions about key elements of the prosecution’s case against Lisker and exposed the LAPD’s murder investigation as sloppy and incomplete. Lisker and his attorney were stunned by the attorney general’s motion. 

“The legal system is supposed to protect the innocent and the attorney general is now trying to use it to put innocent people in prison,” said attorney Bill Genego, who represents Lisker. Genego said he found it ironic that the attorney general, who had neglected to pursue an appeal of Phillips’ ruling last year when he had the chance, is attacking Lisker for missing a deadline. 

Instead of appealing the judge’s ruling at the time, the attorney general sent the case back the district attorney to prosecute Lisker again for the slaying of his 66-year-old mother, Dorka. Prosecutors ultimately dropped the case, citing a lack of evidence. 

“It feels like my air is being choked off, and they are trying to kill me all over again,” Lisker, now 45, wrote in an e-mail to supporters and The Times. “As desperate as that sounds, however, I will prevail… Justice will win the day.”

Deputy Atty. Gen, Robert D. Breton declined comment.

-- Matt Lait and Scott Glover

Photo: Bruce Lisker reacts after being dismissed of his mother's murder in September 2009 at the Criminal Courts building in Los Angeles. Credit: Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times

Audio slide show: The taste of freedom

Comments

[Tony B]

I thought the purpose of the attorney general's office is to pursue justice. If the man is innocent, how is remanding him to prison based upon a legal technicality justice, especially after serving 26 years for a crime he didn't commit?

[B.J. Merholz]

Franz Kafka directs our legal system.

[Greg]

You got to be kidding me. They are still pursuing this. He already served 26 years. There is more than enough evidence to bring up reasonable doubt as to his guilt in the first place. There should be no time limit on filing petitions for release if a inmate can prove they are innocent.

[tonyE]

So, no one is denying the man is innocent.

They just say the he did not follow the process?

Are these people NUTS?

The process I would like to see is the one whereby all those lawyers working for the State get a pink slip and are forced to get an honest job.

[Mufon]

Ah yes, was anxiously awaiting the contemplative, saturnine doe-eyed pic of the murder suspect, and it's on the front page of the Times! Thanks for not letting me down.

[Bradford Talamon]

While this is not the first time that a prosecutor's office has contested a ruling that a person is actually innocent, I have never heard of the prosecution saying that even if a person is actually innocent, he should go back to prison because he missed a filing deadline.

Obviously the prosecution doesn't believe that he is innocent and is simply trying to find a back door way to send this man to prison any way they can...even if a judge has determined that he is innocent.

To me, this is an abuse of discretion by the prosecutor's office.

[runcatalina]

Sorry but I don't understand the 9th Circuits decision. Why should a "proven" innocent person continue to serve time in jail?

[pasadena jag]

This is just slimy Jerry Brown in action. An old man who needs to get out of public office and start feeding on his $800,000 a year retirement.

[zw]

Lets see.

Lisker was released after a U.S. District Court Judge found that he was convicted by "false evidence", which simply put means someone orchestrated & perpetrated a crime against him.

So, now the only thing state lawyers can come up with is the technicality and allegation that Lisker's petition missed a federal deadline. This is by far outweighed by the reason he was falsely convicted and imprisoned in the 1st place with the aid of "False Evidence" perpetrated by the prosecution. During this trial, the state failed and neglected to act with integrity in accordance with their oaths.

Is it just the potential cost of liability, embarrassment, and opening of the old files and those who worked on this case, what really worries these lawyers, and possible examination of other cases by those involved that may have had similar questionable conduct and evidence attached to them???

Were some of these same state lawyers working when the3 (three) charges were filed against Deputy Kalish for violating 2 (three) teenage boys, and who also allowed the Statute of Limitations to run out, to aid and abet him avoiding a trial by a "TUTT"; "Times-Up" Technicality Tactic???

Crime is crime no matter who the charges are against and should be tried expediently even against one of your own , and all charges should be based on evidence, both material and by witness testimony, not "False Evidence" of any type, for any reason.

You are all trained, conditioned, and experienced to do the right thing at all times. Nothing less. For anyone.

[Patricia]

If someone is innocent, they can't be in prison. You can't do that to an innocent person. That's immoral. Plain and simple.

[miles beacom]

Logic Fails

They, The State of CA, are doing early release on felons because they can't afford to keep them locked up, but spending money and time and enegy screwing over this person, who appears to have been wrongly convicted and later proved his innocence. The DA would not re-prosecute him for lack of evidence and a federal judge, who looked at his case released him. How crazy is this?

[bdflatlander]

What is the state's problem? It is pretty clear that Lisker is innocent yet they are pulling out every legal trick in the book to try to send him back to prison for a crime he didn't commit.

Better they shouls focus their resources are trying to ensure that the police don't conduct sloppy investigations as was done in Mr. Lisker's case.

[Leric Goodman]

Lisker is running up against an age-old problem. Put in modern terms, there is no adequate quality control in the legal system. And, no one in the system has accepted the need for quality control. Rather, the powers that are continue to act on the basis that public confidence in the system would be shaken were it recognized just how many miscarriages of justice occur. Accordingly, they use every pretext for not officially dealing with and recording such events. The system is perfect, and if not perfect, the defendant had his chance at trial and cannot complain.

Now, the State of California, which is drowning in red ink, is spending taxpayer money it can't replace to put an innocent man back in prison. If it succeeds the State "wins" the right to spend more taxpayer money it can't replace to keep that innocent man in prison -- at about the cost per year of a fireman, a policeman, a teacher, any of whom might have to be let go so that the State of California can keep that innocent man in prison instead of being able to pay them.

There is a saying in industry that quality control is free. The concept is that it saves more money than it costs. Perhaps, in these times of fiscal crisis, the State should weigh the possible savings of instituting true quality control for the judicial branch against the ruffled feathers of those who would no longer be considered (in their own minds) as infallible. Eliminating the estimated 20 to 30% the prison budget now spent to keep innocent folk in jail at public expense might go a long way to restoring some control to the State budget.

[Peter]

Well Jerry Brown just lost my vote for gov.

[blackone]

We are a nation of sociopaths.

Put him back in jail "because the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in another case that inmates should not be allowed to file late petitions for release even if they can prove they are innocent. . ."

And this nightmare of a hypocritical nation is out killing and spending $15 Billion a month pretending to fight for EVERYONE else's rights. Jesus Christ!

[Josh]

Note to prosecutor: Good luck seeking a higher office because this sort of behavior just killed your chances. I'll make sure to vote for anyone but you. Go spend our limited resources prosecuting actual cases. What a moron.

[AJM]

"Statute of limitations" on anything makes absolutely no since. "Time" does not make someone guilty or innocent. Facts decide that and the truth is not bound by time.

[Sherry]

Waste of resources. Farce. Idiotic. Prosecute criminals. Don't waste time and money on innocents.

[Gary Schireson]

Leave him alone already.
Go after the officials in Bell instead

[DavidT]

I had lived in California for 37 years and have now been out of the state for 11. I have always been proud of my California heritage. California sets the trend for other states to follow! I can say that this is the first time since I've been gone that I am ashamed at my 'home' state. Leave Bruce alone; he deserves his freedom and put whoever suggested this idea in prison instead. Whoever he is; he has a warped sense of duty.

[MattV]

This is unreal. There must be a typo: "...inmates should not be allowed to file late petitions for release even if they can prove they are innocent..." If this IS real, where do we live again? What kind of justice system is this?

[All-Hallows-Eve]

Omg, this is a horrible reason to send this man back to prison!

[misanthropicus]

California - the AG and the governor refuse to show up in the court to defend prop-8 which was soundly voted by the California electorate, but rush to the court to nail this man for missing a dead-line. California, realm of Pee-wee Herman -

[hapa]

"Deputy Atty. Gen, Robert D. Breton declined comment."

Of course he will not comment - the absurdity of their actions can't be commented on....

sigh...the IDIOCRACY of our fabulous government in action.
(just like our state budget process and everything else in between)

[Garzo59]

I seldom take the time to comment here on any issue, but this is outrageous!!

I will be the first person to stand in line of protest if the state prevails here.