Prosecutor Resources

This page contains information and resources for California prosecutors working on Prosecutor-initiated Resentencing (PIR) and claims of factual innocence. 

Prosecutor-initiated Resentencing (PIR)

Post Conviction Justice Unit
Penal Code section 1172.1 provides authority for the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to initiate resentencing in cases originally prosecuted by DOJ in the Superior Court. However, if a conflict has arisen in a case prosecuted by a local District Attorney’s Office (DAO), or the DAO lacks the resources to conduct a Prosecutor-initiated Resentencing (PIR) evaluation, DOJ may be able to assist. Visit PCJU’s Prosecutor-initiated Resentencing (PIR) page or email PCJU@doj.ca.gov to learn more.

For the People
For The People is a national leader in Prosecutor-initiated Resentencing (PIR) and has many resources available to prosecutors seeking assistance. For The People can assist with developing criteria for PIR evaluation and review, assessing candidates for resentencing, summarizing prison records, drafting motions for resentencing, creating user-friendly internal dashboards, securing waivers for information, and liaising with incarcerated people.

Reviewing Claims of Factual Innocence

DOJ’s Post Conviction Justice Unit (PCJU) may accept referrals from counties who cannot engage in conviction review without substantial compromise to core functions of the prosecution office and assist in cases requiring special expertise if that expertise cannot be reasonably obtained by the county prosecution office.

PCJU may also accept referrals to review DAO cases based on potential conflicts. The following actual or potential conflicts will be considered for PCJU assistance:

  • The elected District Attorney previously represented a client related to the underlying conviction or represented the applicant in any prior matter.
  • The elected District Attorney previously presided over the prior prosecution as a superior court judge.
  • The elected District Attorney is accused of misconduct in the underlying conviction.
  • The elected District Attorney has made public statements about the case that call into question their ability to be fair and impartial in conviction review.
  • The elected District Attorney was a witness or identified as a subject of interest in the underlying conviction.
  • The elected District Attorney has a substantial relationship with the person who represents or represented the applicant in the underlying conviction.
  • The elected District Attorney has a substantial relationship with the applicant.
  • The victim in the case was an employee, family member, or close friend of the elected District Attorney.
  • The victim was a parent, spouse, or child of the elected District Attorney or any prosecution office employee.
  • The case involves substantial allegations of intentional or unintentional misconduct by a prosecutor in the office, especially one who occupies a substantial position of authority over subordinate prosecutors reviewing the case.

The impact of these factors may be heightened or minimized based on the size and structure of a particular prosecution office, which are additional factors in determining whether PCJU should accept a case for review.