Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service
Public Charity Status and Public Support
Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section
4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. See separate instructions.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2011
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Employer identification number
94-2798865
Part I
Reason for Public Charity Status
(All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions
The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 11, check only one box.)
1
2
3
4
5
section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)
6
7
8
9
receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 331/3% of
its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses
acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)
10
11
e
By checking this box, I certify that the organization is not controlled directly or indirectly by one or more disqualified persons other than foundation managers and other than one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2).
f
If the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II or Type III supporting organization, check this box
..................................................
g
Since August 17, 2006, has the organization accepted any gift or contribution from any of the following persons?
(i) a person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described in (ii)
Yes
No
and (iii) below, the governing body of the the supported organization?
................
11g(i)
(ii)
a family member of a person described in (i) above?
......................
11g(ii)
(iii)
a 35% controlled entity of a person described in (i) or (ii) above?
................
11g(iii)
h
Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).
(i) Name of supported organization
(ii) EIN
(iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above or IRC section (see instructions))
(iv) Is the organization in col. (i) listed in your governing document?
(v) Did you notify the organization in col. (i) of your support?
(vi) Is the organization in col. (i) organized in the U.S.?
(vii) Amount of support?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.
Cat. No. 11285F
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2011
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2011
Page 2
Part II
Support Schedule for Organizations Described in IRC 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the
organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization fails to
qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)
Section A. Public Support
Calendar year(or fiscal year beginning in)
(a) 2007
(b) 2008
(c) 2009
(d) 2010
(e) 2011
(f) Total
1
Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") ....
495,386
523,881
536,338
679,516
633,951
2,869,072
2
Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.......
0
3
The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
0
4
Total. Add lines 1 through 3..
495,386
523,881
536,338
679,516
633,951
2,869,072
5
The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included
on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f)..
871,764
6
Public Support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.
1,997,308
Section B. Total Support
Calendar year(or fiscal year beginning in)
(a) 2007
(b) 2008
(c) 2009
(d) 2010
(e) 2011
(f) Total
7
Amounts from line 4..
495,386
523,881
536,338
679,516
633,951
2,869,072
8
Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..
19,342
12,778
11,441
12,421
13,385
69,367
9
Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on..
0
10
Other income. (Explain in Part IV.) Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets..
0
11
Total support (Add lines 7 through 10).
2,938,439
12
Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (See instructions.)
..................
12
13
First Five Years
If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here..........................................
Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage
14
Public Support Percentage for 2010 (line 6 column (f) divided by line 11 column (f))
.........
14
67.970 %
15
Public Support Percentage for 2009 Schedule A, Part II, line 14
...............
15
65.430 %
16a
33 1/3% support test—2011.
If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3% or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
......................
b
33 1/3% support test—2010.
If the organization did not check the box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
.....................
17a
10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2011.
If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b and line 14
is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts and circumstances" test, check this box and stop here. Explain
in Part IV how the organization meets the "facts and circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported
organization
..................................................
b
10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2010.
If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a and line
15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts and circumstances" test, check this box and stop here.
Explain in Part IV how the organization meets the "facts and circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
..............................................
18
Private Foundation
If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a or 17b, check this box and see
instructions
...................................................
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2011
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2011
Page 3
Part III
Support Schedule for Organizations Described in IRC 509(a)(2) (Complete only if you checked the box on line 9 of Part I or if the organization
failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under
the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)
Section A. Public Support
Calendar year(or fiscal year beginning in)
(a) 2007
(b) 2008
(c) 2009
(d) 2010
(e) 2011
(f) Total
1
Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .
2
Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose......
3
Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513..
4
Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf...
5
The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
6
Total. Add lines 1 through 5.
7a
Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons...
b
Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year.
c
Add lines 7a and 7b..
8
Public Support (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)
Section B. Total Support
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)
(a) 2007
(b) 2008
(c) 2009
(d) 2010
(e) 2011
(f) Total
9
Amounts from line 6...
10a
Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..
b
Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975.
c
Add lines 10a and 10b.
11
Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.
12
Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part IV.)
13
Total support (Add lines 9, 10c, 11 and 12.).
14
First Five Years
If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here.............................................
Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage
15
Public Support Percentage for 2011 (line 8 column (f) divided by line 13 column (f))
.........
15
16
Public support percentage from 2010 Schedule A, Part III, line 15
...............
16
Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage
17
Investment income percentage for 2011 (line 10c column (f) divided by line 13 column (f))
......
17
18
Investment income percentage from 2010 Schedule A, Part III, line 17
.............
18
19a
33 1/3% support tests—2011.
If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3% and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
..........
b
33 1/3% support tests—2010.
If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
....
20
Private Foundation
If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a or 19b, check this box and see instructions
.....
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2011
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2011
Page 4
Part IV
Supplemental Information.
Supplemental Information. Complete this part to provide the explanation required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; or Part III, line 12. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).
Facts And Circumstances Test
Explanation
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2011
Additional Data
Software ID:
11000144
Software Version:
2011v1.2
-
TIN:
SCHEDULE O (Form 990 or 990-EZ)
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service
Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ
Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or to provide any additional information.
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2011
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Employer identification number
94-2798865
Identifier
Return Reference
Explanation
Form 990, Part VI, Line 19
Form 990, Part VI, Line 19: Other Organization Documents Publicly Available
Governing documents, policies and financial statements may be viewed upon request at the Foundation's office located at 2131 L Street, Sacramento, California.
Form 990, Part VI, Line 15b
Form 990, Part VI, Line 15b: Compensation Review and Approval Process for Officers and Key Employees
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, Line 12c
Form 990, Part VI, Line 12c: Explanation of Monitoring and Enforcement of Conflicts
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, Line 11
Form 990, Part VI, Line 11: Form 990 Review Process
Director reviews 990 prior to filing
Client Note 1 - Public interest law firm: Attachment of legal cases participated in during the yearUnited States v. Alvarez: LOSS 6/28/2012. U.S. Supreme Court case considering the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, a law enacted by Congress to prohibit the false claiming of military medals. Xavier Alvarez, a member of a California water district board, made numerous false claims about his military record, including being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In fact, he has never served in the military. He was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act and sentenced to probation, a fine, and community service. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the conviction, finding that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. In the Supreme Court, CJLF entered the case, filing a brief on behalf of the Legion of Valor of the United States and itself. Our brief argues that the Act only prohibits lies, not mistakes, parodies, or theatrical performances, and that lies are not protected under the First Amendment. In a splintered decision, the Court decided that the Act as presently drafted is not constitutional. Lafler v. Cooper, Missouri v. Frye: LOSS 3/21/2012. Two U.S. Supreme Court cases involving criminal defendants who claim that their convictions should be overturned because they may have been convicted on lesser charges had their defense attorneys not given them bad advice. In 2003 Anthony Cooper was charged with attempted murder for shooting a woman causing serious injury. A police officer witnessed the shooting. Prior to trial, the state offered Cooper a plea bargain carrying a shorter sentence than if he were convicted on all charges. His attorney advised against the deal. Cooper was later convicted by a jury and received the longer sentence. In 2007, Galin Frye was charged with driving with a suspended license, a felony because of his multiple prior convictions. Prior to trial, the prosecutor offered to allow Frye to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and serve 90 days in jail. Fryes attorney did not report this offer to his client. Later, Frye pled guilty to the original felony charge and received 3 years in prison. In Frye, the state appellate court ruled in favor of the defendant. In Cooper, the state courts rejected the claim but a federal appellate court overturned the judgment. CJLF has joined the high court review of these cases to argue that, while a better attorney might have obtained a more favorable deal, neither criminal was unjustly convicted, and neither is entitled to a second chance for a better result. The Supreme Court allowed the claims to proceed but said that the prisoners will not necessarily get their original plea offers back. The high court left the remedy to the trial judge, who might reinstate the original plea offer or reimpose the same sentence the defendants received before. Martinez v. Ryan: DRAW 3/20/2012. U.S. Supreme Court review of a child molesters claim that his conviction should be overturned because his state-appointed appeals lawyer failed to attack the effectiveness of his trial attorney. Luis Martinez was convicted of two incidents of sexual conduct with his 11-year-old stepdaughter on a July morning in 1999. Evidence at trial included the victims videotaped description of the assaults to a social worker and a DNA match of Martinezs semen on her nightgown. Following his conviction, Martinezs claims challenging his trial and sentencing were rejected by the state courts on direct appeal, and his appointed lawyer reported that she could find no worthy claims to raise on state collateral review. Later, represented by a different lawyer, Martinez claimed that his appellate lawyer was ineffective because she did not find flaws in the performance of his trial lawyer. This claim was reviewed and rejected by two state courts, the federal district court and the court of appeals. When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider Martinezs appeal, CJLF joined the case. CJLF argued there is no constitutional right to a government paid lawyer for collateral review or habeas corpus, and therefore no right to challenge the effectiveness of a lawyer appointed for those types of post-conviction proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision retains the rule we argued for as the general rule. However, it carved out a narrow exception for states such as Arizona that do not allow ineffective assistance claims to be made on direct appeal (the first review of a conviction). For these states, ineffective assistance on the state collateral review will be considered "cause" to raise the ineffectiveness as trial counsel on federal habeas corpus. Maples v. Thomas: LOSS 1/18/2012. U.S. Supreme Court review of a convicted Alabama murderers claim that he is entitled to federal habeas corpus review of his case even though he missed the state deadline for requesting review. Cory Maples was convicted on strong evidence of the 1995 execution-style murders of two acquaintances and the theft of the car of one of the victims. In 1997 he was convicted on all charges and sentenced to death. After his conviction and sentence were upheld by the state court of appeals and supreme court, attorneys from a New York law firm representing Maples pro bono argued on state collateral review that his trial attorney had been ineffective. Prior to the state courts ruling denying these claims, the attorneys who had appeared in the court quit the firm, and the firm failed to inform the court of the change of attorneys. As a result, Maples did not receive notice of the ruling, and he missed the state deadline for filing an appeal, which also prevented review of his claims on federal habeas corpus. CJLF has joined the case to argue that Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that criminals are not entitled to counsel for state collateral review or federal habeas corpus. While Maples pro bono lawyers certainly failed him, absent compelling evidence that he is innocent, the post-conviction review of his case should be over. The Court issued a narrow opinion holding that on the unusual facts of this case, the failings of the lawyers constitute cause for the default. Perry v. New Hampshire: WIN 1/11/2012. U.S. Supreme Court review of a habitual thief's claim that his constitutional rights were violated by the admission of eyewitness testimony in his trial for burglarizing a car. On August 15, 2008, at 2:53 a.m., Barion Perry was caught in the parking lot of an apartment building carrying stereo equipment stolen from a nearby car. A woman, whose husband reported the crime, identified Perry as the man she saw break into a car in the well-lit parking lot and steal the equipment. Her husband also identified Perry as the man he had seen wandering around the lot looking into parked cars. At trial, Perry challenged the testimony of the woman arguing her identification of him was unreliable and therefore violated the 14th Amendment (the Due Process Clause) of the Constitution. The judge disagreed, the testimony was admitted, and Perry was convicted. Perrys claims regarding his identification by the witness were later rejected by the New Hampshire Supreme Court on direct appeal. When the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Perrys appeal, CJLF joined the case to argue that, except in cases of police misconduct, the Constitution leaves rules governing the introduction of evidence to the states. A decision supporting the thief would have allowed criminals to waste years and millions in tax dollars with federal court challenges to eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court agreed with our position and affirmed the conviction by an 8-1 vote.
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.