2025-03-09T12:21:28-07:00 2024-07-31 842147762 Bluemel & Dhillon CPAs LLP 3426 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SUITE A SACRAMENTO CA 95864 990 2023-08-01 942798865 Criminal Justice Legal Foundation CRIM 9164460345 2131 L Street Sacramento CA 95816 Michael Rushford President 2025-02-18 true true Deborah N Bluemel CPA P00021047 9169294174 X 2023 2025-03-06 01:10:19Z 2131 L Street Sacramento CA 958164924 1591638 false X http://www.cjlf.org X 1981 CA The only public interest law foundation in America that defends the rights of crime victims and law enforcement. 10 9 6 11 0 603011 1228875 0 58369 264519 0 661380 1493394 0 0 650095 561782 0 80754 109148 121204 759243 682986 -97863 810408 3007636 3991656 12777 9586 2994859 3982070 The only public interest law foundation in America that defends the rights of crime victims and law enforcement. false false 296507 Represent the public interest in criminal cases before the appellate and supreme courts. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation participated in numerous cases as a friend of the court during the current year. 112468 Conduct extensive research on the major issues of criminal law and make prepared arguments and memoranda available to county, state and federal prosecutors and defense lawyers free of charge. 102244 To provide the news media with timely and scholarly responses to claims made by anti-law enforcement advocates, and conduct and disseminate scholarly studies identifying programs and policies which improve the effectiveness of law enforcement and enhance public safety. 511219 true true false false false false false false false true true false false false false true true false false false false false false false false false false false false true false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false true 5 0 true 6 true false false false false false false false 0 false false false false false false false X 10 9 false false false false false false false true true false false true true true true false false true true false CA X Michael Rushford 9164460345 2131 L Street Sacramento CA 95812 Kent Scheidegger Legal Director 40.00 0.00 140001 0 10876 Mike Rushford President 40.00 0.00 X X 140001 0 2342 William Bloomfield Jr Trustee 0.00 0.00 X 0 0 0 Samuel Kahn Trustee 0.00 0.00 X 0 0 0 McGregor Scott Vice Chairman 0.00 0.00 X X 0 0 0 William A Shaw Trustee 0.00 0.00 X 0 0 0 Hon Pete Wilson Trustee 0.00 0.00 X 0 0 0 Rick Richmond Chairman 0.00 0.00 X X 0 0 0 Terence Smith Trustee 0.00 0.00 X 0 0 0 Gino Roncelli Sec/Treas 0.00 0.00 X X 0 0 0 280002 13218 2 false true false 0 1228875 1228875 0 91053 91053 0 0 0 271710 98244 173466 173466 173466 0 0 0 0 1493394 264519 0 0 0 0 140001 70001 35000 35000 0 347746 322744 12501 12501 11573 9353 1110 1110 24274 15475 3034 5765 38188 30750 3719 3719 0 0 14200 14200 0 0 0 0 0 14447 8197 2702 3548 0 0 29839 14919 7460 7460 3684 1842 921 921 0 0 0 0 9744 4872 2436 2436 8520 5282 1619 1619 Meetings 16466 8232 4117 4117 Subscriptions and journals 11857 11264 593 Printing and Publications 6764 3382 1691 1691 Dues and fees 2700 2565 135 2983 2341 368 274 682986 511219 91013 80754 96947 72763 689485 1603843 0 0 0 0 0 0 9174 8650 635903 479979 149518 155924 2062512 2144955 0 0 0 5521 3007636 3991656 12777 9586 12777 9586 X 1483486 2470697 1511373 1511373 2994859 3982070 3007636 3991656 810408 176803 X false true X true false X 439368 690836 775954 603012 1228875 3738045 0 0 439368 690836 775954 603012 1228875 3738045 2544240 1193805 36014 30821 31474 58369 91053 247731 0 0 3985776 0.29950 0.35110 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 2062512 82443 2144955 1835957 226555 2062512 2193481 -157524 200000 1835957 1911984 681497 400000 2193481 1895542 186442 170000 1911984 0.30000 0.70000 false false false 97500 97500 409490 356422 53068 128913 123557 5356 155924 X 1670197 176803 176803 1493394 1493394 682986 682986 682986 Part X : FIN48 Footnote The Foundation's audit included a FIN 48 footnote, which stated that the organization did not have a liability for uncertain tax positions. X false false false false false false false false false Kent Scheidegger Legal Director 140001 2220 8656 150877 Form 990, Part VI, Section A, Line 1a There were 9 voting members of the board during the year. Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Line 11b Director reviews 990 prior to filing Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Line 12c 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. Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Line 15a 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. Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Line 15b 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. Form 990, Part VI, Section C, Line 19 Governing documents, policies and financial statements may be viewed upon request at the Foundation's office located at 2131 L Street, Sacramento, California. Statement Note 1 People v Hardin: 3/4/24. California Supreme Court decision rejecting a murderer's claim that he had a constitutional right to early release from his life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) sentence. The high court utilized CJLF arguments in its decision which held that while several recently enacted state laws do make convicted murderers eligible for parole years earlier than their sentences prescribe, murderers over the age of 18 who are sentenced to LWOP are specifically excluded. The crime of conviction and adult v. juvenile status are sufficient grounds to treat criminals differently. Hardin was convicted in 1990 of the brutal robbery and murder of an elderly woman who had befriended him. Thanks to this decision he and others like him will never see the outside of prison. WINCJLF v. CDCR: 12/13/23. Sacramento Superior Court decision barring early release of criminals sentenced to indeterminate sentences. The decision came in a CJLF lawsuit on behalf of crime victims to block Governor Newsom's effort to award early release to violent criminals and murderers. In 2017 and again in 2021, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) adopted regulations to award good behavior and program participation credits (called "good time credits") to violent criminals reducing their sentences. CJLF responded by suing CDCR, arguing that the new administrative regulations unlawfully override numerous state laws which specify when and how a prison inmate qualifies for parole or credits. The judge held that, at least with regard to murderers and other criminals serving sentences of 15 or 25 years to life, they must serve the 15 to 25 years before they can be eligible for parole. The Newsom administration has appealed this decision. WINPeople v. Rojas: 12/18/23: California Supreme Court ruling upholding a gang murderer's claim that his life-without-parole (LWOP) sentence should be overturned because of a 2021 state law making it harder to prosecute gang criminals. In 2018, Fernando Rojas was convicted of murder along with enhancements for membership and participation in a criminal gang, which qualified him for LWOP. In 2021, the Legislature passed a new law changing the requirements needed to add gang enhancements, and Rojas appealed claiming the law should apply to him.The appeals court held the new law unconstitutional and upheld his murder conviction. CJLF joined the case arguing that Proposition 21, adopted in 2000, defined what was needed to prove a criminal was a gang member and it could only be amended by a 2/3 vote of the Legislate. The new law redefining gang membership did not get the required 2/3 vote in either house, making it unconstitutional. In its ruling, the Supreme court held that because the definition of gang membership had been changed several times before Proposition 21 was adopted, the voting public understood that it could be changed later without qualifying as an amendment. LOSSCounterman v. Colorado: 6/27/23: U. S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the conviction of a Internet stalker. At issue was whether the defendant's two years of unwanted communication with a young woman who repeatedly tried to block him constitutes a threat which can be punished as a crime. Billy Raymond Counterman was convicted of making "true threats" based upon the content of his communication. CJLF joined the case to argue that Counterman's pattern of behavior was demonstrably threatening and that the content of his communication, which frightened his victim, qualified as a "true threat not protected by the First Amendment. Counterman argued that he never intended to frighten his victim. The Court overturned his conviction, announcing that the state needed to prove "that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence." The Court did not address the manner in which the defendant harassed his victim. DRAWJones v. Hendrix: 6/22/23. U. S. Supreme Court decision which clarified the limits on federal challenges to criminal convictions. At issue was how the Court interprets a 1996 Act of Congress, AEDPA, adopted to strictly limit federal court review of post-conviction claims of state and federal criminals. The Act's only exceptions are proof of actual innocence or a constitutional change in the law. It was adopted to restrict the federal courts from considering more than one post-conviction petition from almost all convicted criminals. In 2000, Marcus Jones was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Jones had 11 prior felony convictions and had served prison sentences for at least 5 of them. In August 1999, Jones lied about his prior felonies in order to purchase a handgun from a Missouri pawnshop. Later that day, he admitted having the gun to an undercover officer during a drug deal. Jones' multiple petitions challenging his conviction were rejected by the federal courts, until last year when the Supreme Court agreed to hear his claim that there should be an exception because he did not know that it was illegal for him to have a firearm. CJLF joined the case to argue that the federal courts where not authorized to create new exceptions to the limits on successive petitions and that Jones did not qualify. The high court agreed. WIN