A Salinas attorney goes to bat to overturn an initiative that makes it simpler to try kids as adults.

Avenging Angel: Lawyer Miguel Angel Hernandez calls Proposition 21 an "evil thing" that is not only wrong but unconstitutional.

Dressed in the mustard-yellow uniform of Monterey County jail inmates, 17-year-old David Varela leans his head into his left arm as prosecution attorney Debra Guilett calls a procession of witnesses to the stand. To Varela''s left, the graying Salinas defense attorney Miguel Hernandez does his part to call the evidence against his client into question and objects to questions he sees as leading or irrelevant.

By the end of the week, the 12-person jury of mostly Anglo twenty- and thirty-somethings finds the teenager guilty of eight counts of robbery and one count of assault with a deadly weapon. The consequences will be severe: Varela was tried as an adult under Proposition 21. Instead of spending time at the California Youth Authority followed by probation with counseling, he''ll go to prison. He potentially faces a life term.

Hernandez never wanted to see the case tried in adult court and has already vowed to appeal the verdicts. But the long-time criminal defense attorney has a mission larger than the Varela case. He is waging a legal battle to overturn Prop. 21, the initiative passed last March that makes it easier to try juveniles as adults, because he believes it is unconstitutional and downright wrong.

"It''s shocking and appalling and one of the most disgusting things I''ve ever come across," says Hernandez matter-of-factly. He''s one of just a few attorneys in the state to challenge the constitutionality of the initiative.

Prop. 21 was driven by former Gov. Pete Wilson and supported financially by several large corporations, including the Hilton Hotels Corporation, Chevron and PG&E. The proposition gave district attorneys the power to put certain youth offenders directly into the adult court system without approval from a judge (previously, only judges were allowed to make the call to try minors as adults, and only after fitness hearings to assess a defendant''s maturity level). Prop. 21 also increased penalties for gang-related crimes and stiffened penalties for juveniles by limiting the use of alternative sentencing and probation for them.

Hernandez'' beef with the new law is manifold. Launching into an angry tirade of legalese, Hernandez insists that Prop. 21 violates the separation of powers clause of the federal constitution, the due process statute, the provision against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Equal Protection Act. All told, it''s quite a laundry list of complaints.

"But philosophically and morally what bothers me more," says Hernandez, "is that we''re putting away 16-year-olds that are not fully developed. We put them away into prison for the rest of their life for a horrible mistake that they made. Essentially they become adults in the prison system without ever having the possibility to be rehabilitated like the other 90 percent of young people. And all on the whim of a DA."

The process of making a genuine constitutional challenge begins with Hernandez taking on the legal representation of three of the six juveniles who have been charged as adults in Monterey County since the passage of Prop 21. In each case, Hernandez has appealed to the 6th District Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court to have the trials remanded back to juvenile court. This move has given judges an opportunity to rule that the method by which the youngster landed in adult court was unconstitutional, thereby establishing a constitutional challenge to the proposition.

Although all his appeals thus far have been denied, Hernandez is keeping at it. "They [the Superior Court] can use any one case to overturn Prop. 21," he says to explain his persistence. "They can strike it down without Prop. 21 itself ever going before court. I''m giving them a reason to hang their hat on."

A case in Sonoma County recently achieved that first step when a lower court judge ruled that direct filing is unconstitutional and had a Prop. 21 case refiled in juvenile court. Since that case stayed in the lower court instead of advancing onto the appellate court, the ruling impacted only that particular defendant. But a similar victory at the appellate court level would set a precedent that could lead to constitutional problems for the proposition.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is keeping tabs on such developments throughout the state, as well as mounting the only "facial constitutional challenge" to Proposition 21 (i.e., a civil case directly challenging the proposition). The foundation of the ACLU''s case is a technicality.

"Our basic belief is that Prop. 21 as a whole was invalidly passed because it comprised more than a single subject," explains San Francisco-based ACLU staff attorney Robert Kim, noting that the proposition is the largest criminal justice-related initiative in the history of California. "That''s in violation of the state constitution, which says that every proposition must deal with one topic. Prop. 21 contains hundreds, if not thousands, of provisions amending both laws pertaining only to juveniles and a number of laws pertaining to adult criminal behavior as well."

While the ACLU case centers on this issue--that the proposition was not fit to be voted upon by the public--it also states that direct filing in adult court violates the separation of powers by taking responsibility from the judicial branch (the court) and giving it to the executive branch (the district attorney''s office). The case was denied by the San Francisco Superior Court and is currently on its way to the state Court of Appeal. The ACLU expects a response at some point this year.

And according to Kim, the threat from Prop. 21 is increasing rather than decreasing, as prosecutors familiarize themselves with the complicated law that took effect immediately after its passage last March.

"Right now, the proposition is being aggressively used in certain locations like LA and San Diego and not heavily in other areas like San Francisco," says Kim. "The number of cases we''ve heard about has risen dramatically over past two to four months, and we fear it will be utilized to a much greater degree in coming years."

Even coming from a region like Monterey County--where the district attorney''s office has tried fewer youths as adults since Prop. 21''s passage than it did the preceding year--Hernandez agrees that the proposition is dangerous for the state overall and must be overturned on principle.

"We shouldn''t be complacent--one person is too many," he says. "My hope is that Prop. 21 will be declared unconstitutional and make DAs do their homework again. It''s just like shooting fish in a barrel right now. I do believe in the bottom of my heart that it is so wrong and such an evil thing that it will be overturned."