Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Welcome to Immigration today. I'm Elizabeth Trifonis. And today we're breaking down policies, stories
[00:00:06] Speaker B: and issues that matter.
[00:00:07] Speaker A: You're watching now Media Television.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: Welcome to Immigration Today with Elizabeth Trifonis. I'm, of course, Elizabeth Trifonis.
Today. I'm very excited for our guest. I want to begin with a question.
The heart of every legal system is what happens when we only see the case and not the person, whether it's in immigration, criminal defense, asylum, family separations, other legal advocacy.
People are often reduced to label a status, a charge, a file, a decision.
But behind every matter is a human being with a history, a family, a culture and a story that deserves to be understood.
My guest today is Diane Losano. She's the executive director of Full Picture Justice. She's a third generation Mexican American from Wyoming, a former public defender with 30 years of experience, and my former director of the Wyoming State Public Defender Office.
She's also a national capital defense or death trainer.
Her work now focuses on mitigation investigation, especially in capital cases, helping courts and legal teams understand the full human story behind person who's facing judgment. Diane, thank you so much for joining me today and being willing to go through this conversation and experience with me. I'm really happy to have you.
First of all, can you explain what is mitigation and what does that mean in a case?
[00:01:44] Speaker C: Thank you for having me. I'm also very excited to be here.
Mitigation is the work of digging into the person's life, the person who has been convicted of causing harm before they're sentenced.
What we do in mitigation is we do a deep dive into a person's life experiences the things that influence and shape that person, whether it be a psychological event that happened to them, something with their cognitive abilities, neighborhood experiences, their gender, their race and all of those things so that we can provide the full understanding of the human being to the court or to the jury before they decide what the appropriate punishment is.
[00:02:28] Speaker B: Right now you work at Full Picture Justice. When you hear that phrase, what does that mean to you? And particularly after these three decades in public defense generally.
[00:02:39] Speaker C: Right. You know, the Eighth Amendment requires individualized sentencing and it requires a court or jury and juries decide what the punishment is in a capital case to look at the full person.
And I think the phrase in the law is to consider any aspect of the defendant's character or background. And you can't do that unless you provide the full picture, if you will, of the criminal defendant.
And when we do that, when we center the human Experience of the defendant.
We get courts and juries to stop and slow down and think about everything that should be considered before deciding whether somebody lives or dies.
[00:03:18] Speaker B: Why does that matter? I hear a lot of people want to talk about accountability or punishment, and it's very black or white. You either did it or you didn't do it.
Why does it matter who the person is who's standing in front of those jurors or that judge for judgment?
[00:03:36] Speaker C: I think it really goes to the heart of accountability. The legal definition in Wyoming and then in other states and including California, is that punishment should consider what's termed as moral culpability.
When we help a client understand who he is, who she is, how they came to be sitting next to me at council table, they do start to take accountability and ownership of what they've done. And I think as a society, we need to understand how a person and ends up causing that harm ends up being in the situation that they are. And so we really bring a full circle to what accountability actually means.
I've had clients who've gone through this process with me facing capital punishment after committing some grave harm to individuals and their families and to sometimes to strangers. And when one of my clients says to me, so you're saying I'm not a monster. We can, at that point in time, get to accountability within the legal system, and we can work out plea agreements. We can. Or take responsibility in front of a jury.
And so it really is a form of accountability whether or not the criminal system has said that you're guilty or not, aren't you?
[00:04:56] Speaker B: I hear this from judges before. Aren't you making excuses for why we're here, as opposed to giving me an explanation? Why would the family trauma or the background need to matter in doling out what justice actually becomes?
[00:05:13] Speaker C: And, you know, and I got those questions as well. And so when I was ending my career as a public defender, I did a lot of bigger sentencings, like homicide cases and child abuse cases. And I would just start out telling the judge that we're not here to make any excuses, but rather what we want to do is to provide an explanation as to why my client's here, and to give the court a better understanding of the options the court may have in front of it.
Based on what happened to my client before in his life, what happened to his family before in his life, what was going on with my client at the time of the offense, and then what's my client capable of in the future?
And so that helps a court frame the appropriate Punishment.
[00:05:56] Speaker B: I think we often, when we talk about capital punishment cases too, we're often talking about that future harm, that future danger, even though maybe it's not expressly stated by a juror. As humans, that's what we're thinking of as jurors. What's the future harm? I get how maybe we got here now, but how do I prevent this from happening in the future?
Future harm believer, is that a thing in your philosophy here or in your experience? What's, what's the future harm or future danger we're trying all to protect.
[00:06:29] Speaker C: Right. And well, you know, and I, I've made this argument in front of a judge in my last capital case. I mean, I don't think that any of us can judge what future harm may be.
Prosecutors like to say that predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And I don't really think that the science or the psychological studies that we've done support it is a factor that courts and juries want to know and they want to consider. So when we delve into a client's life and like, let's say we have a client who has some cognitive impairments, or we have a client who has some mental health issues, when we understand what those are and how they influence our clients behaviors, we can then help that client, you know, get on the right medications or form some sort of routine in prison. And really what we do is we provide connection for our clients with the people who love them and care about them.
And when they have that and they're in a secure setting like most prisons are supposed to be, future danger really goes away.
When a client of mine believes that they have value and worth and that there's an answer to their struggles and that they have some agency over controlling their behaviors.
They can be managed and maintained in a prison setting.
[00:07:49] Speaker B: If you're just joining us, I'm starting this conversation with Diane Losano. We're exploring what it means to humanize justice. Her career has taken her from public defense to appellate work to trial advocacy and capital cases to statewide leadership and now national mitigation work through Full Picture Justice.
How long have you been with Full Picture Justice?
What's the basic scoop of what you're trying to accomplish with this organization?
[00:08:18] Speaker C: Right. I started September 3rd of 2024, so 18, 19 months now.
It was a big transition. I'm, you know, running a nonprofit, which is a whole nother beast, if you will.
But I began working with this organization in particular in 2013. We started hiring them to do mitigation work in Wyoming and I believe in what they do and how they do it.
We have the same philosophies about what mitigation is. It should look like what a team dynamic should be in the capital case.
And when they asked me, when they heard I was going to retire if I wanted to be their executive director, I jumped on the chance.
I do a lot of trainings in California too, so I have some connections here. So new life, new role in the system, but same, same goal. Right.
[00:09:06] Speaker B: So I'm zooming in as best I can from Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
You were just visiting us recently because you still have family here and got to enjoy our snow. We woke up this morning.
Sure you're having a good time out in more of a better climate out in the California area. Of course, our Houston based studio is here with us too as well.
But in all those years of advocacy and public defense with Full Picture Justice, I guess it was eye opening to me to learn about capital cases and what was really required from the defense team.
These cases take a long time and a lot of prep work. But can you describe for people who might not know Capitol Punishment case is a death penalty case and what that defense team is made up of and what they need to bring to the table? Quite literally.
[00:09:56] Speaker C: Right. So every criminal defendant has the right to what we call effective assistance to counsel. And when that defendant is facing the ultimate punishment and harm. The United States Supreme Court has said that there are certain standards that we have to abide by and they, those are particularly outlined in ABA guidelines for the appointment and performance of defense counsel in capital cases. So in a capital case, a defense team has to consist of minimally two attorneys who are trained and qualified to handle a capital case, a fact investigator and a mitigation specialist. And that's what we do at Full Picture Justice. The people that I supervise now are those mitigation specialists.
[00:10:35] Speaker B: Mitigation specialists, they are going to delve into the person's life and history and basically go talk to their third grade teacher and, and walk through their, their whole life to find what, what are they looking for?
[00:10:53] Speaker C: You know, the full life story and narrative. You know, we, we work really hard not to cause greater harm to our client. We center the client in everything that we do. But we start with forming a relationship of trust and rapport with our clients and then their immediate family members.
My mitigation specialists are trained to do trauma informed interviewing, which takes time, lots of interviews, lots of personal and human conduct. That contact that may not seem like it's connected to the crime or to the case.
So we start with building those relationships and then what we hope to do is to get records, records of every piece of paper that touched our client's life and then every piece of paper that touched our clients parents lives and sisters and brothers so that we can start putting together the patterns of life history and stories.
We look for genetic predisposition for mental illness. We look for coping mechanisms such as uses of substances to deal with those things. We look for trauma events, but we also look for points of resilience and strengths in our clients lives.
[00:12:06] Speaker B: As sort of a final question in this segment, I guess, and we'll come back and talk some more about this. What do you wish more people had understood just about the human beings who actually find themselves that you're working with
[00:12:19] Speaker C: inside these legal systems that none of us live our lives without being shaped by what other people have done and said to us.
Our genetic code is what it is. And you know, what I really wish people would understand is when they say things like, well, you know, your client chose to act this way. That choice is a very nuanced and layered concept and that most of my clients, if not all of my clients, regret their conduct and they want to figure out how to live a better life and they're truly, truly, truly remorseful for the harm that they've caused. And I think that should matter.
[00:13:06] Speaker B: Agreed.
What I hear in the conversation really is that justice becomes more honest when we're willing to look deeper at it. The full picture does not erase that accountability piece as we've been talking about, but it does demand that human and the humanity, the dignity, the context and the truth. At this point in time, we'll take a short break and when we come back, we'll talk about public defense, public defense, representation, what happens when someone has an advocate who actually sees them and shows up prepared.
[00:13:37] Speaker A: We'll be right back with more insight, context and useful information about immigration law and life. Stay with us on IMMIGRATION today.
[00:13:47] Speaker B: And we're back.
[00:13:48] Speaker A: I'm Elizabeth Trifonis and this is Immigration TODAY on NOW Media Television. Let's continue the conversation.
[00:13:56] Speaker B: Welcome back to IMMIGRATION TODAY with Elizabeth Trifonis. Stay connected to this show and every NOW MEDIA TV favorite live or on demand anytime you like, Download the free Now Media TV app on Roku or iOS and unlock nonstop bilingual programming in English and Spanish on the move. Catch the podcast version at www.nowmedia.tv. from business and news to lifestyle, culture and beyond, Now Media TV is streaming around the clock and ready whenever you are I'm still here with Diane Lozano, the executive director of Full Picture Justice.
I want to continue the conversation about representation and good, effective representation.
After 30 years as a public defender and you training us as public defenders and now working with mitigation specialists, we know that having that prepared advocate show up, whether it's in immigration proceedings, capital punishment proceedings, just that advocacy is not only about knowing the law, but actually caring about your client and showing up prepared. And how would you describe what that difference means to having a strong advocate or just that warm seat next to you?
[00:15:07] Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, you know, can. Can you imagine being a poor person who can't hire their own attorney, can't choose their own attorney and walk somebody that you've never met, and you don't have a choice over who they are, what that must feel like.
Every single person in this country or in our system deserves a full and complete defense. And that means that an advocate sitting to them shouldn't just be there to plead them guilty and say to the judge, give them probation.
The government should be tested on how they did things. The government should be held to the law, and a strong advocate and a good lawyer who spends time with their client will understand where their client came from, who their client is, and what their client wants. And when we do that, we avoid mistakes, and we bring the entire system closer to accountability and healing.
[00:15:57] Speaker B: When.
When you talk about that, though, that sounds like a lot of work for someone who just might be guilty. I. I hear that a lot.
[00:16:04] Speaker C: Right.
[00:16:05] Speaker B: What is your response to that? You know, they're guilty, they did it. Let's. Why are we spending so much time.
[00:16:11] Speaker C: Right. And, you know, the basic answer is that due process requires that because if our government can violate the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment and any other amendment in the Constitution without being checked, then all of us are at risk.
And so there's the due process aspect to it, but there's also the human aspect to it. Every single person I represented was a human being, and they deserved a voice, and they deserved somebody who would stand next to them and fight for them, whether that was to get them the best plea agreement after a risk assessment of their case, or whether it was to hold the prosecutors and the state of Wyoming accountable in front of a jury.
That is what our system is based on. Human beings that are governed by the law, and the law applies to all of us.
[00:16:59] Speaker B: Yeah, I often think public defense work and largely capital defense work, which it's rare. I don't know. Is there a private Attorney in a capital punishment cases, that seems to be a rare thing. Typically that's going to fall on a public defender's office that's really representing the worst of the worst, if you will.
And if we're willing to provide that advocacy and ensure those rights for the worst of the worst, the least of these is often the way that I phrase it, then we can be that, that's justice for all of us.
[00:17:33] Speaker C: Right.
[00:17:33] Speaker B: That preserves all of our rights. And I, I always like to say too, you know, in a system where if you're going to take someone's freedom away, if the government's going to try to do that, that should be damn hard to do. Shouldn't just be something where we say, okay, sure, your advocate doesn't know you just plead guilty. Let's move along.
I'm wondering your thoughts on in the immigration context, people are allowed to have an attorney if they pay for one.
A lot of us are advocating for a public defender like immigration system, especially for juveniles. They do not have the right to an attorney unless they pay for one.
I could guess. But what are your thoughts on why it would be important in the immigration world to provide that advocacy as a public defender based system?
[00:18:26] Speaker C: You know, the law is so complex as it is. And then if you add immigration law, you know, Elizabeth, I've had you train me on immigration law and I still don't, I still don't understand it. And I was a pretty good trial attorney. You know, I know the law and I understand it. So being in a courtroom is scary.
Having other people talk about you and not really understand what it means must be incredibly overwhelming. But when you don't understand the law and you don't understand what it is you can and can't say or what the consequences are going to be when you say something in court.
I just can't imagine that any system that doesn't have lawyers involved in representing people is fair and it just does not feel like American to me.
[00:19:14] Speaker B: Right, right. Well said. I, I have an 11 year old that I represent in asylum proceedings and it's incredible to me. Griefly I'm in a community that is resourcing her to do that. And it's incredible to me that she gets to walk into this center with this judge and the way those hallways look and they're very austere and you know, the government attorney is going to come in prepared and to try to thwart her case and yet she's expected to somehow be able to self advocate in a system that she, she Just got to this country. She has no idea what's going on. So that resourcing is important. But I like your statement that, you know, what's fair for what's fair for one is fair for all, basically.
Right. I mean, we should be striving for that as well as the accountability piece and safety.
I guess, with your background, I always remember you saying to me, you said it at a lot of meetings and conferences. You know, if you were to introduce yourself, there were three things you would say to people. You would say, I am my son's mother, I am a Lozano, and I am a public defender.
That's still true. Working, I think, for full picture justice, obviously.
But with that immigration background and this sort of being this immigration segment, how does that color cases? Does it color cases at all? If you have that kind of background or that type of culture and what are your experiences with that?
[00:20:44] Speaker C: Oh, you know, definitely being a person of color, being a woman of color. You know, I've personally experienced the way people view me and the judgments, the rush to judgment that people make about you because of how you look.
You know, I've seen family members who have Spanish accents be treated a little bit differently.
People talk louder to them because they're afraid they might not understand and those types of things. And so, you know, I brought to my career, I hope, a personal understanding and experience of what it means to be looked at as less than.
And then you add on the layer that somebody's then been charged with a crime.
If you don't have compassion and empathy and you don't have that from your life experience, I think that you become less effective as an advocate in a courtroom or otherwise.
Right.
[00:21:38] Speaker B: What should people watching this in the immigration population, what's your advice to them about being prepared for some of these legal challenges or how can they seek resources or be better prepared?
[00:21:50] Speaker C: That's a really good question.
I think I would first advise them to try not to be scared, to take a deep breath, to be ready to explain what and how, you know, what, what they, you know, what factors they use to consider to come to this country, what has been going on in their lives. But, you know, I think there are educators, there are lawyers who will be willing to talk to people for free. You know, my nonprofit, we don't just do mitigation investigation. We work in our communities. We have healing circles. There are a lot of people in a lot of organizations out there, churches and otherwise, who would be willing to help you out. I just read the Faraw brothers have you ever read that, Elizabeth?
[00:22:40] Speaker B: I have not.
[00:22:41] Speaker C: It's about twin brothers from El Salvador, who I think are 12 or 13. When they walk up to this country and they end up in the Bay Area, which is a lot of compassion and a lot of resources for people who don't have a lot of money and don't have a lot of support. And they ended up in a school for immigrants and different languages being spoken and teachers being able to help them.
But they were able to get their green cards because a teacher knew a lawyer who was willing to help them, and they worked really hard to get them that help.
I think it's about figuring out who in your community you can trust, who can help you bridge some of those gaps in services.
[00:23:27] Speaker B: I think we always say, too, taking that deep breath, you first show up to court, just really encouraging people to, number one, ask for translation services. Don't try to pretend you know what's going on.
Nobody would expect you to know the legal system when you first show up. And mostly it's been my experience that when someone says, hey, I need help with translation, or I need a continuance to get help to understand judges are very, very willing to give people the time. They do, for the most part, want people to show up and be prepared with their legal advocate, but just really encouraging people to slow that process down and ask for the translation help and then ask for the resources and start there.
What would you advise for legal teams when it comes to dealing with people that may have different backgrounds, different cultures?
I mean, it's truly any client. Every client's different, and every client has a story. But when you're dealing with that immigrant person who might be.
Have a background or cultural system that's entirely different. Do you have recommendations for our teams on how we should try to address that or.
Or to address it?
[00:24:40] Speaker C: Well, yeah, I think primarily you have to approach that with humility and understand that your life experience isn't what your client's life experience has been.
I encourage, in a lot of the trainings I do, I encourage people to learn as much as they can about the client's culture, if they know what that is beforehand. To study the neighborhoods, to study the history that impacts our clients, and to just understand that, you know, when we center our own lives, we miss the stories. And when we miss the stories, when we miss the human impact, we cause harm.
[00:25:16] Speaker B: Right, Right, Agreed. Slowing down and just getting to know the person. I like to ask silly questions sometimes. Just, what's your favorite color?
[00:25:25] Speaker C: Right.
[00:25:26] Speaker B: Just human questions of person to start.
Well, in this part of the conversation, I think it reminds us that representation is not just a legal function. It's actually preparation and it's translating the person's story. And sometimes it's the first time a person feels that someone in the system is going to actually listen to their whole story and be their audience at this point in time. We'll take a short break, and when we return, we'll explore more about mitigation, what it means, why it matters, and how it can change the way courts understand a human life and what Full Picture justice is doing to accomplish that.
[00:26:07] Speaker A: We'll be right back with more insight, context and useful information about immigration law and life. Stay with us on IMMIGRATION today.
[00:26:16] Speaker B: And we're back.
[00:26:17] Speaker A: I'm Elizabeth Trifonis, and this is Immigration TODAY on NOW Media Television. Let's continue the conversation.
[00:26:25] Speaker B: Welcome back. I'm continuing with Diane Losano, the executive director of Full Picture Justice. I want to talk more about her current work, mitigation, how we deal with the courtroom and what Full Picture justice, how they accomplish that and her advice on how we can accomplish that as advocates and even, I guess, supporting family members and things in the courtroom. But Diane, with your work and you were saying in our break, you actually deal with and have dealt with a lot of painful, truly painful situations where people have been murdered and you're dealing with family members and the consequences that come with that, as well as the dignity of your client and their human experience.
How have you, first of all, how do you deal with that? How do you accomplish that? And then I'm curious, how do you sort of take care of your own self through those things as well as you've done this now for decades and keep being able to show up. So first of all, how is the courtroom?
What's your advice to dealing with something just so heavy?
[00:27:33] Speaker C: Right.
You know, I again, it's a, it's a, it's a little bit of practicing of humility. But, you know, to not hide from the harm and the pain. It's, you know, I've, I've said to many attorney in many trainings that if we're expecting a judge or a jury to choose life, we need to honor all life.
And it's perfectly okay to feel the pain that the victims are feeling. It's okay to not want to look at the pictures.
And then you just take a deep breath and you go back into your lawyer and your objective and you have a job to do.
You know, and I think I have on many occasions turned to Victims families and explained what mitigation was to them and not to the judge. You know, I'm not here to excuse what, you know, Mr. Lamb did, for instance. I'm not here to say that anything he did was okay under the law. But I need to explain to the judge, it's my job to tell you how we got here. And hopefully at the end of this, we all start on a pathway to healing.
And so if you keep your objectivity, and that's one thing, like with mitigation specialists that has been a struggle, is that they don't have the ethical obligation to be objective and they sometimes forget that we represent individuals who cause a great harm. And I think if you lose sight of both sides, you have to keep both sides going at all times.
And then, you know, when I'm done with a hard case, I go back to my office, I put everything into a box and I put the box down. And that is sort of my way of closing the door, if you will. But I also have to recognize that I'm a human being and those things are going to impact me.
And it doesn't mean I'm a bad lawyer or that I'm weak. And so I've got to take care of myself whether it's go for a walk or watch a baseball game.
[00:29:28] Speaker B: Right. I think when you talk about kind of addressing the pain, I remember for a murder case where it was a three year old and right. The prosecutor at sentencing brought in the purple little urn that the child was in. And there's no, I'm not, can't pretend I'm not seeing the urn. Everybody's seeing the urn. And when we should. Right. We should recognize the damage that's been caused. And I mean, it took me a few minutes of my own tears and just looking and apologizing to the family.
We have to be sorry. But then my role is to say, and these are all the things about the human being sitting here who wishes they could undo everything that happened.
[00:30:08] Speaker C: Right, right, right.
[00:30:10] Speaker B: I like your idea of putting it in a box. I don't know if putting it in a box would work. I mean, I'll try it, but with full picture justice. How many people are on your team these days?
[00:30:23] Speaker C: We have seven mitigation specialists, some based in San Francisco, some in different places in California and then one in Seattle.
We have an operations director who's a former client of ours who is facing the death penalty, who now helps run the business. And then he with an another systems impacted person facilitates our Healing circles once a week. And then we have another former client who meets with clients who have same shared life experiences and helps us with clients. And Rigo, who's the individual I first mentioned, also works with clients, especially when we have a breakdown in trust between the client and the team.
We recently have fallen into a grant, if you will, to bring somebody in to help us with community organization and policy and advocacy and see what we can do if we meld those things together.
See if we can get rid of the death penalty in California and elsewhere.
Right.
[00:31:24] Speaker B: I think some people forget that the death penalty actually does exist in California. There's been a bit of a moratorium or we haven't seen the exit. But correct me if I'm wrong, is that California, Texas, and is it Florida that at this point in time have some of the greater numbers of death row cases?
[00:31:42] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah. California has the biggest death row in the whole world.
[00:31:47] Speaker B: Really?
Wow.
How many cases is Full Picture justice working on? Or what's the, what's, what's the capacity that you all have moving forward for future cases?
[00:32:02] Speaker C: Well, we are handling right now 17 capital cases.
Some of those are nearing the end. Like we're getting, we're getting ready to do presentations to district attorney's offices, hopefully to convince them not to seek death.
And we're pretty successful at doing that. So we've got a couple cases on the tail end. We've got some newer cases that, you know, just like every other case is sort of the upfront work is the heaviest.
And then we have some cases that we're waiting on funding. Either the lawyer hasn't asked for funding or the judge is. Hasn't granted the funding or has denied funding in some way.
So, you know, we're probably working on actively eight cases where we're every single day doing something on those cases. And we also have what we call our short cases, our non capital cases.
Sometimes mostly federal attorneys will bring us in to do a mitigation sentencing report.
But we have two cases that are non capital but very serious cases. And they want us to help with helping determine if a client's not competent. Maybe a client needs to be pleading not guilty by reason of mental illness or insanity.
And then one other team is just, you know, needs us to help with the client. He doesn't speak Spanish, it's a gang circumstance case and wants us to help better understand all of that culture so that they can understand their client and then, you know, whatever their defense ends up being. So we do all kinds of stuff. We just recently got our contract with the Office of State Public Defender in California to work on some Racial justice act investigations as well.
[00:33:33] Speaker B: What's that your number one reason for a prosecutor to not seek the death penalty? You get just a few seconds to make that pitch. And what's your, what's your go to argument on that?
[00:33:43] Speaker C: You know, it depends on, it depends on the prosecutor. But really I tell stories, I say, did you know my client?
Have you ever been to this town? And I start talking about my client and I talk about my client all the time on the record and otherwise. What we do here at Full Picture justice, though, is that we put a full mitigation story together. We do a letter and a video and we interview the people who love the client. And I really think when we mitigation themes include mental illness or trauma, sexual trauma, abandonment, isolation, you name it. I think what influences prosecutors, whether they want to admit it or not, is that there are human beings who still love, care and value the person who committed the harm. And then you layer that with this is going to be a lot of work for you and it's going to cost the county a lot of money and we're going to end up here anyway. So let's just, you know what I mean? Let's just make it easier on everybody else. So it's a, you know, humanize the client, talk about the client, give the prosecutor a reason to see beyond the facts of the case and then talk about the political, financial, everyday sort of impact that this case will have on them.
[00:34:57] Speaker B: Right. I think what stands out in the conversation really is that mitigation is not making those excuses.
It's really looking at the whole record of that human being and making it more truthful and more transparent.
Just looking deeper and recognizing, right, that a human life can't be fully understood in just one event alone and certainly not its worst event.
We're going to take a short break. When we come back, we'll talk about leadership, justice reform and what Diane's next chapter with Full Picture justice means for communities across our country.
[00:35:33] Speaker A: We'll be right back with more insight, context and useful information about immigration law and life. Stay with us on Immigration today.
[00:35:42] Speaker B: And we're back.
[00:35:42] Speaker A: I'm Elizabeth Trifonis and this is Immigration Today on NOW Media Television. Let's continue the conversation.
[00:35:51] Speaker B: Stay connected to Immigration Today with Elizabeth Trifonis and every NOW Media TV favorite live or on demand, anytime you like, download the free Now Media TV app on Roku or iOS and unlock non stop bilingual programming in English and Spanish. If you're on the move, catch the podcast version at www.nowmedia.tv. from business and news to lifestyle, culture and beyond, Now Media TV is streaming around the clock wherever and whenever you are. I'm still talking with Diane Losano, my former boss. And as we close, I do want to focus on leadership and impact, which is something that you imparted to the public defenders for decades here in the state. And to me after 30 years in Wyoming in public defense. I think you were there 2007 coming through 2023, 2024, actually.
And now you're the executive director of Full Picture justice based in San Francisco.
And we talked a lot about mitigation.
Before I go on too far, I guess. How do people get in touch with you and with Full Picture justice about their cases or their family members?
What's the best way to reach out to your organization?
[00:37:05] Speaker C: Yeah. So I have a couple of email addresses that would be easy to reach us at. The first one is Diane D I A N E at fullpicturejustice.org, all lowercase or cri.orgmail.com the organization used to be called Community Resource Initiatives. So that way. And then our website is www.fullpicturejustice.org.
[00:37:30] Speaker B: beautiful. And during the break we were talking about in California, you said has the largest death penalty pending capital punishment cases in the world.
I think a lot of people in your state just don't know that that's a thing. What's happening in Calif.
Death penalty.
[00:37:51] Speaker C: Yeah. So Governor Newsom announced a moratorium. And so he said he wouldn't execute anybody under his watch. And his term is up this year. So we're going to be electing a new governor.
And because of that moratorium, a lot of counties in California just decided, prosecutors decided that they weren't going to seek death. But we have worked in 10 counties that have active death penalty cases right now. And as long as a prosecutor has the right to seek the death penalty, the death penalty exists. And it could result in 12 citizens who have nothing to do with policymaking being put in the position of deciding whether or not somebody lives or dies.
So what we're kind of up against in California is convincing everybody that it's still real and that I think capital punishment is a political issue.
And there's a chance that there could be a Republican governor in the state of California. Primaries are in June. There's the way that elections it could be two Republicans in the general election running against each other, or it could be Two Democrats. But it could change in a heartbeat with just a governor saying, I'm going to start executing people again, or signing death warrants, if you will.
New prosecutors could come in and they could decide. And then their county, they don't, they don't like how it's been going in Alameda County. So they're going to start seeking death. And you know, then what that does is it, it doubles up or more the cost to the criminal justice system as well. And so, yeah, it's going to be an interesting few months in California. It could become the death penalty could become real again in California, although it's still on the books and prosecutors are still seeking it.
[00:39:35] Speaker B: And certainly with our Houston based studio right in Texas, it's a very real active policy. What would you say to people listening to this who say, you know what, but why shouldn't I be pro death penalty? Why should I listen to Diane Lozano and why should I be voting maybe for something different in my state?
[00:39:54] Speaker C: Yeah, I think it's always interesting to me that the political bent that says out loud, it doesn't like big government is also the same group of people who think that the government should be able to execute its own citizens. And I don't believe any government should have that kind of power or authority.
We know, especially in the state of Texas, that innocent people have been executed.
We know that political decisions are, or political factors are what goes into whether or not somebody's granted clemency. In Texas.
There was a person just executed who the state, the prosecutors and the defense all believed that he was cognitively impaired. And the governor said, oh, I don't care.
And so we shouldn't let politics decide those things. But at the end of the day, all human beings are capable of resilience and all human beings have value. And we should honor life in this country.
I believe that's what our Constitution is based on, the concept that each individual life should be protected from the abuse of power and government and that.
Mercy, mercy should be at the heart of everything that we do.
And I don't have a client currently or in the past who came from the same walk of life as the people who are making these policy decisions. They come from poor communities. They come from communities that are riddled with violence. They come from communities that are treated differently because of how they look or what their culture is or what language they speak.
And as a society, we need to step back and figure out how to stop these things from happening. And it's not going to happen with the Death penalty doesn't deter crime, doesn't stop people from shooting cops. The studies are clear on that.
And it's very, very, very, very racially applied.
[00:41:54] Speaker B: Right. And I think the history of it, I remember when you had us do a training and you had us watch Ms. DuVernay's 13th Amendment documentary, and I was really proud that that was the training I was getting in Wyoming in particular.
I came from California, went to Wyoming. So I showed up there with some of my own biases on what was going to be happening in that state. And certainly it's a rural state and predominantly a white, statistically speaking state. So learning the training of the 13th amendment and really how the death penalty has carried that history forward, of course, why mitigation specialists are so important to really open the eyes of those jurors who probably didn't come from anything like your client's background.
[00:42:38] Speaker C: Right, right.
[00:42:39] Speaker B: I find that with the asylum cases too, it's not a death penalty case, but it's just an asylum hearing two weeks ago where the judge, immigration judge, who's not an independent judge and gets to be the judge and jury underneath, the administration ruled that, yes, my client did qualify as a particular member in a particular social group was going to be killed if he was removed from the country, but denied the claim anyways. We've seen asylum claims go from, you know, in the 50% range of being approved down to the single digits. And we know that's intentional and certainly it's not a death penalty by the government, but it'd be carried out by that individual's government upon return.
So what you were saying about mercy.
Yeah, that's, I'd like to drum that beat for people that mercy is, we should be seeking that as part of justice.
[00:43:35] Speaker C: And, and it's allowed by the law when we're considering punishment. And you know, one thing I do want to say that I should have said earlier and should say over and over again that if, if somebody is convicted of first degree murder and they don't receive the death penalty, that doesn't mean that they got away with it and that doesn't mean they're not going to be punished.
Spending the rest of your life in a cell at the, at the discretion of guards and sometimes never again having a face to face human contact is a severe and extraordinary punishment.
[00:44:08] Speaker B: Right. What's one thing you would say to jurors if you could? Maybe that little bug in their ear about their, their right or their ability to, to vote for mercy?
[00:44:23] Speaker C: You know what, what I've I've said to jurors in the past, and what I've seen trainers talk about over and over again is to remind the jury that the law doesn't demand a death sentence and that the law is always okay with a life sentence and that it is an individual moral reason, decision. And it has to be something that they can live with down the road.
If, if, you know, if it's a death sentence, is that something they can look themselves in the mirror at and to, to, to make them understand that.
It's okay, it's okay to, you know, I mean, I guess I don't even know how to describe it, but that you also have to let jurors know that there is still severe punishment ahead.
And, you know, and I always acknowledge with jurors that I recognize that they've been put in a tough position and that this is a scary place to be in. That's okay to acknowledge that as well.
Then I talk about love, mercy and value to other human beings.
[00:45:29] Speaker B: This is what we believe. On Immigration Today with Elizabeth Trifonis, that immigration laws, policies, death penalty policies, it's not just black or white. It's actually about people, families.
There's identities, courage, as well as seeking mercy and working for the least of these. What we do for the least of us, we do for all of us.
And to everyone watching, we invite you to keep asking deeper questions, keep seeking clarity, keep seeing the human being behind the headlines and the statistics and the jargon.
Every case and every journey is important.
Stay connected for more on NOW Media tv. Thank you.
