‘They didn’t lift a damn finger’: California crime victim fund ordered to change practices
Ruby Marichalar didn’t have the money to pay for her son’s funeral after he was stabbed to death in September 2012. Like thousands of Californians every year, she turned for help to a state agency that was created to support survivors of crime.
The California Victim Compensation Board collects restitution and provides financial aid for crime recovery expenses such as funeral costs, income loss and mental health services to eligible survivors and their families.
It twice denied Marichalar’s application without ever meeting with her.
“They didn’t lift a damn finger to help me,” she said. “I didn’t get a hearing. I didn’t get anything.”
Under California law, the compensation board is required to offer in-person evidentiary hearings for people like Marichalar, who contest a denied application. But for over a decade, a recent court order says the agency relied on an invalid regulation that allowed it to limit hearings to a written record. Now, the compensation board is scrambling to bring itself in line with the law as it works through thousands of appeals.
In a recent request to the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom, the agency asked to spend an additional $4.4 million in order to comply with the order and more quickly process its appeals.
California established the first-of-its-kind victim compensation program 60 years ago. Today, it’s overseen by three members: State Controller Malia Cohen; Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton; and a representative from Newsom’s cabinet, Government Operations Secretary Amy Tong. The agency receives the majority of its funding through restitution fines, federal grants and the general fund.
In the last state budget year, the compensation board approved 31,214 applications. It denied 9,326 applications — roughly a quarter of all applicants. The agency refused to answer how many approved applications first went through an appeal. CalMatters filed a public records act request to obtain the information.
Survivors and advocates have long voiced concern over the compensation board’s stringent criteria and discretion, which they say has locked out and revictimized people who have been harmed by violence. A 2022 report by the nonprofit organization Prosecutors Alliance California found that roughly 70% of the 700 crime survivors surveyed did not know why they had been denied compensation.
“It really is sort of an insurance agency model,” said Gena Castro Rodriguez, an assistant professor at University of California San Francisco who authored the study. “They use the statutes and regulations as reasons why they exclude or limit who they give money to.”
The number of appeals has increased by nearly 200% since 2019 – from roughly 1,200 to 3,500 per year. On average, appeals take 325 days to complete — which “far exceeds” the six month processing time that’s required by law. That’s according to the agency’s recent budget request, which would allow the compensation board to hire 17 employees to its appeals unit.
“Without additional staffing, (the compensation board) will remain unable to meet its legal obligations, leaving victims of crime waiting in limbo for a decision on whether they will receive services that they desperately need,” the compensation board wrote in the January request.
In a statement to CalMatters, the compensation board said it does not comment on the proposed budget but “want(s) to make clear that victims of crime are our focus every day.”
The statement continued, “(The compensation board) is committed to providing financial assistance to victims of crime to help them restore their lives.”
Compensation board relied on written record
Delaney Green, clinical supervisor with the Policy Advocacy Clinic at UC Berkeley Law, said it’s unclear whether an increase in staffing is going to help survivors more readily access better resources.
“By and large, accessing victim compensation is very, very difficult,” she said. “I’m hoping this is starting to signal some changes that are reprioritizing the needs of survivors.”
Jonathan Raven of the California District Attorneys Association said it’s troubling to hear that survivors have had a challenging time working with the compensation board.
The agency “is going to have to comply — and that’s what’s important — to comply with the law to best serve our victims,” he said.
Previously, the compensation board had been leaning on a regulation “that allowed for resolution of the majority of appeals on the written record,” according to the request. But that all changed in August 2024, when Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch found that the regulation was “contrary to the statute and thus invalid.”
The decision concluded a roughly three-year court battle. In 2021, Mothers Against Murder, a nonprofit organization that advocates for crime victims and their families, sued the compensation board, alleging it had “resisted and doubled down on continuing to deny hundreds of applicants their right to due process and to the in-person hearing,” wrote executive director Margaret Petros in her original petition.
“They are using this regulation to make it easier on themselves,” she said in an interview with CalMatters. “It is such a blunt abuse of power.”
‘They’re missing the whole story’
According to court filings in the Mothers Against Murder case, Marichalar was one of the first people to have been denied an in-person hearing.
On Sept. 30, 2012, her son, Junior Marichalar, and a friend arrived at a bar in San Jose. Shortly after, according to court filings, two men provoked Marichalar and challenged him to a fight.
With a background in mixed martial arts fighting, Marichalar was “disciplined and trained to walk away from a challenge to fight,” according to court filings. In an attempt to avoid the men, he exited the bar through a back door, but court documents stated he was again confronted in the parking lot, where he was fatally stabbed.
In February 2013, the compensation board wrote that it was denying Ruby Marichalar assistance because “(her) son knowingly and willingly exited a bar with the intent to fight with the suspect which resulted in (her) son’s death.” Its decision was based on a recommendation by the Silicon Valley Conference for Community and Justice, a nonprofit organization that was contracted by the compensation board, according to court filings.
“My son did not contribute to his murder,” Marichalar wrote in appealing the recommendation. “How could any reasonable person know his life will be violently taken away. A criminal stabbed him to death.”
The compensation board yet again denied her request for compensation without offering her an in-person hearing.
Without the funds to pay for her son’s funeral, Marichalar borrowed money from family and friends, and was forced to sell his motorcycle – one of the last remaining possessions that she had of him.
“It broke my heart even more,” she said.
After his death at age 28, Marichalar said she received phone calls from people Junior had met while riding his motorcycle all over the country. She described him as a big character and a stand-up guy.
“Sweet as pie,” she said.
The compensation board eventually reversed its denial, but only after a Santa Clara County prosecutor stepped in and objected to its decision, according to court filings. The agency later reimbursed Marichalar with $5,000 – only a third of what she spent on the funeral.
Looking back on her two-year correspondence with the board, Marichalar said the opportunity to appear at an in-person hearing would have allowed the agency to see what she was going through, rather than simply reviewing paperwork.
“They’re missing the whole story without taking the time to listen to the victims,” she said.
___
This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.