DA motion prevails, condemned man now eligible for parole

A man who had been condemned to death in 1997 for his role in a "heinous and brutal" rape and murder case was resentenced in Alameda County Superior Court on Wednesday, making him eligible for parole.

The Alameda County DA's office initiated the review July 1, arguing for Keith Thomas to be resentenced "in the interests of justice."

DA Pamela Price announced the resentencing during a press conference Tuesday afternoon but declined to speak to The Scanner about it at the courthouse Wednesday.

In the July 1 motion, the DA's office said Thomas was only 19 at the time of the crimes, had experienced significant childhood trauma and had a nearly unblemished disciplinary record during his 31 years in prison.

"That's pretty rare," said Judge Thomas Stevens, noting that the defendant had only two violations while in prison, neither of which had been violent.

The DA's office also pointed out that the trial prosecutor had described Keith Thomas to the jury as a "hyena," a "walking cancer" and a predator, among other charged terms, language that could allow Thomas to appeal his sentence on constitutional grounds.

In 2012, the state Supreme Court considered that language, among other factors, and upheld Thomas' death penalty sentence.

"There was no misconduct because the prosecutor's descriptions of defendant constituted permissible 'opprobrious epithets warranted by the evidence,'" the Supreme Court ruled at the time.

But numerous California laws have changed since then, particularly with the passage of the Racial Justice Act in 2020, opening the case to additional legal challenges going forward.

"This motion is made upon the grounds that the circumstances of the case warrant that the Court exercise its discretion and re-examine the disposition," the DA's office wrote in the July 1 motion.

Ultimately, the prosecution asked the court to resentence Thomas to 23 years to life, which would result in a parole hearing in the coming months, as Thomas has already served more than three decades in prison.

From the bench, Judge Stevens described the request as a "rather dramatic change" and asked the attorneys to explain why he shouldn't consider a sentence of life in prison without parole instead.

"This is a terrible, heinous and brutal crime," Stevens said. "Almost all of them in this courtroom are — and this one was particularly disturbing."

"Every woman's worst nightmare"

On Dec. 8, 1992, Keith Thomas and Henry Glover Jr. — who died in prison after being sentenced to life without parole — kidnapped a young Black woman at gunpoint and forced her into the trunk of her Ford Mustang near the MacArthur BART station in North Oakland.

The men used the woman's ATM card to withdraw cash, then raped her and shot her in the back of the head "leaving her naked body at a park in Point Richmond," according to court papers.

The woman, 25-year-old Francia Young, was a computer analyst who used BART to commute to work in San Francisco and lived with her mother in Oakland.

A jury later found Thomas guilty of first-degree murder, kidnapping for robbery, and forcible rape and sodomy.

Keith Thomas. CDCR

On Wednesday, prosecutor Aimee Solway told the judge that her first thought when reviewing the case had been: "This is every woman's worst nightmare."

"In no way does this recommendation diminish the seriousness of the crime," she told the court.

Solway said the resentencing request was based on several factors, particularly in light of changes to state law that give more consideration to a defendant's young age and cognitive development; Thomas' good behavior in prison; and the language used by the prosecutor at trial.

"We have serious concerns about it," Solway said.

She also pointed out that Thomas' appeals — those ongoing and any he might file in the future — "would go on for decades," while the suggested outcome would instead allow the case to reach a "global resolution."

She also noted that, while the death penalty is still legal in California, the predominant view is that it's unlikely to be carried out in this case or any other.

"I think the consensus in the state is that the death penalty is over," she said. "Effectively, these individuals are serving life without parole."

Solway said Young's family members had originally spoken in support of the death penalty back in the 1990s but said at least one relative had since reconsidered.

"She did not want anyone to remain under the death sentence if there was racism in the proceedings," she told the judge.

Defense: "You can't compare somebody to an animal"

When it was her turn to speak, defense attorney Christina Moore said the resentencing request "in many ways is being driven by finality."

Moore said she believed California was likely to end the practice of life in prison without parole "in my lifetime," meaning that any resolution including that outcome wouldn't allow for "the same degree of finality."

"We would just be right back here," Moore told the court.

The defense put forward six factors to support resentencing, Moore said: uniformity in sentencing (Thomas' codefendant, who had been tried separately, had not been given a death sentence); the more stringent laws that now exist in California concerning murder convictions; potential "constitutional violations" related to the trial prosecutor's language in light of the Racial Justice Act; the "extreme psychological and physical trauma" Thomas experienced as a child; his young age at the time of the crime; and his good behavior in prison.

Moore said prison officials had given Thomas the "lowest security score achievable" on their risk scale.

In relation to Moore's point about the trial prosecutor's language, Judge Stevens said that any violations of the Racial Justice Act remained allegations, not proven facts.

"These are arguments that are being made in these briefs," Stevens said.

"It hasn't been litigated," Moore agreed.

But she went on to note that violations of the Racial Justice Act make defendants ineligible for the death penalty and said the record was undisputed as far as the prosecutor calling Thomas a "hyena" and using similarly problematic terms.

"The statute says, you can't compare somebody to an animal," Moore said.

Judge: Original conviction was "tainted"

Before making his ruling, Judge Stevens said it was a "difficult situation" and a "difficult case."

He called the circumstances of the crime "horrific" and "stunningly brutal."

But he said that was not the end of the story.

"If we are following the statute, so much has been amended and changed since then," he said. "So much has happened."

Stevens said the language reportedly used by the prosecutor at trial had been a particular concern.

"It's tainted to a degree that does raise legitimate questions about the integrity of the conviction — and whether this would survive if it would continue to be litigated," he said.

The judge acknowledged the other issues raised by both attorneys as well.

"I can see the reason why this has reached the point that it has — considering all those things," Stevens added.

None of Francia Young's relatives attended the hearing Wednesday or submitted letters about the proposed outcome, according to the prosecution.

But Judge Stevens expressed his condolences to the family nonetheless.

"I do express those thoughts, even though there's no one there to hear them," he said. "I'm sure they've heard it plenty of times."

The judge pointed out how resentencing decisions like this, coming decades after a terrible loss, had the "side effect" of retraumatizing people who had already suffered so much.

"I can only imagine what the conversations were like between the district attorney representatives and the victim family," he said.

According to the DA's office, Francia Young's sister had intended to make a statement over Zoom but was not present Wednesday afternoon when the hearing took place.

The Scanner's attempt to reach one of Young's relatives was also unsuccessful.

Keith Thomas: "Deeply and truly remorseful"

As part of the resentencing process, defendant Keith Thomas agreed to withdraw a pending petition he has before the court, related to changes in state felony murder rules, and not to appeal his new sentence.

The charges he now faces as per the negotiated settlement include one count of second-degree murder, reduced from first-degree, kidnapping for rape or robbery, and an enhancement because the men used a gun.

Thomas, who is now in custody at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton following the elimination of "death row" last year, attended the hearing over Zoom.

In response to the judge's remarks, Thomas nodded to acknowledge the resentencing terms but never spoke out loud.

He did, however, provide a brief statement to attorney Christina Moore to read into the record for him.

"I have asked my attorney to read this so you don't need to hear my voice if you don't want to," he wrote.

In the statement, Thomas described himself as "deeply and truly remorseful, more remorseful than I will ever be able to express."

"I do not view this as a win or a celebration in any way because, in the end, there was still a loss of life," he wrote.

"After all of these years," he continued, "I would still give my own life if it would bring her back."

Two people attended the hearing on Thomas' behalf but declined to speak to the media afterward.

The judge said Thomas would likely have a hearing before the state parole board in six to nine months.

"Thomas will be evaluated by the parole board in addition to satisfying requirements specific to someone convicted of a violent sexual offense," the prosecution wrote in its July 1 motion. "The People defer to CDCR's evaluation of Thomas's fitness for release and … do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to deprive Thomas of the opportunity to establish his readiness."

Thomas' case is one of three Alameda County death penalty cases that are set to be resentenced in the next month, DA Pamela Price announced Tuesday.