This article aims at explaining the California Supreme Court’s role in the debate over the death penalty in California since the end of the nineteenth century. After a presentation of the Court’s legal and institutional role, the article explains how crucial the 1935 reform was, by which the Court had to examine every capital verdict in the State. From then on, Californian judges became more and more involved in the daily debates and workings of this specific exercise of criminal justice. They imposed high standards of review such as “extraordinary precautions” when reviewing capital convictions. Abolitionists, who had failed to end the death penalty in the Legislature, turned to the Court in the early 1970s in search of victory. Californian judges surprised most legal observers when they handed down their ruling in the “People v. Anderson” case in February 1972. They indeed declared the death penalty “cruel and unusual” and therefore unconstitutional. This ruling infuriated a large part of California’s public opinion, which had definitely adopted conservative positions after R. Reagan’s victory in 1966. As early as November 1972, voters adopted a constitutional amendment to reestablish capital punishment in their State. However, the California Supreme Court resisted this move until voters simply recalled Chief Justice Rose Bird. Afterwards, the Court accepted the death penalty but, ironically, the most influential decisions are now made at the federal level. This situation has led to extreme delays between conviction and execution in this State.