#Parole Laws California

[calparolelawyer]

Mr. Michael Beckman - Parole Lawyers in California

Dedicated parole lawyer in California offering expert legal services for inmates seeking parole. We navigate the complexities of the parole process, ensuring your case is presented effectively and advocating for your early release and second chance.

[aries-the-red05]

EVERYONE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THIS!!!!!

Huge GIGANTIC TW for SA, mentions of rape, mentions of masturbation, and transphobia.

A 2018 report from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law along with a subsequent report in the UCLA Journal of Gender and Law, found that it was common for trans women placed in men's prisons to be assigned to cells with aggressive cisgender male cellmates as both a reward and a means of placation for said cellmates, so as to maintain social control and to, as one inmate described it, "keep the violence rate down". Trans women used in this manner are often raped daily. This process is known as "V-coding", and has been described as so common that it is effectively "a central part of a trans woman's sentence". The report also found it common for correctional officers to publicly strip search trans women inmates, before putting their bodies on display for not only the other correctional officers, but for the other prisoners. Trans women in this situation are sometimes made to dance, present, or masturbate at the correctional officers' discretion. The prisoners serving as customers for these women are informally referred to as "husbands". A 2021 California study found that 69% of trans women prisoners reported being made to perform sexual acts they would have rather not, 58.5% reported being violently sexually assaulted, and 88% overall reported being made to take part in a "marriage-like relationship". Trans women who physically resist the customer's advances are often criminally charged with assault and placed in solitary confinement, the assault charge then being used to extend the woman's prison stay and deny her parole.

This not only happens in the USA, but happens globally and there has been documented cases of it happening in France and the UK as well.

Many people aware of it fear that it will drastically increase after Trump's Project 2025 as trans women are arrested and imprisoned for simply existing in public, this is a real possibility, and the influence can spread globally to cause other nations to do this too.

Best I can say is: SPREAD AWARENESS PEOPLE!

Written by u/communistsorcerer

Commented on a post by u/communistsorcerer on r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns2

Spread this!!!!!!!

[dertaglichedan]

Max Factor heir and convicted rapist Andrew Luster is set to walk free after being granted parole - as victim slams Kamala Harris reform law

The disgraced Max Factor heir who was convicted of 86 counts of drugging and raping unconscious women in 2003 is set to be released early after his crimes were reclassified as 'non-violent' under a 2016 law change masterminded by Kamala Harris, DailyMail.com can reveal. 

Andrew Luster, now 60, infamously fled to Mexico during his rape trial – only to be tracked down by Dog the Bounty Hunter and hauled back to the US in chains.

Now one of his victims has bravely come forward in an exclusive interview to talk about her fears at his imminent freedom.

Tonja Balden, 51, who was just 23 when she was drugged and raped by Luster after a night out in Santa Barbara, told DailyMail.com. 'I'm afraid that when he is released he may continue the same crimes. He just turned 60. That's not very old.

'It is so psychopathic to set up this type of thing where you find a woman, drug her, and then she's an unconscious body and to do all of these things to her while you're videotaping it. That is a real sadistic way of thinking that I don't know if that can be fixed.'

Initially handed 124 years in prison, depraved Luster's sentence was revised down to 50 years in 2013 on appeal.

And now the serial rapist will walk free from Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, California, in a few months' time after being granted parole in August, having served just half his sentence.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"The Progressives’ design for the penitentiary did alter the system of incarceration. Their ideas on normalization, classification, education, labor, and discipline had an important effect upon prison administration. But in this field, perhaps above all others, innovation must not be confused with reform. Once again, rhetoric and reality diverged substantially. Progressive programs were adopted more readily in some states than in others, more often in industrialized and urban areas, less often in southern, border, and mountain regions. Nowhere, however, were they adopted consistently. One finds a part of the program in one prison, another part in a second or in a third. Change was piecemeal, not consistent, and procedures were almost nowhere implemented to the degree that reformers wished. One should think not of a Progressive prison, but of prisons with more or less Progressive features.

The change that would have first struck a visitor to a twentieth-century institution who was familiar with traditional practices, was the new style of prisoners’ dress. The day of the stripes passed, outlandish designs gave way to more ordinary dress. It was a small shift, but officials enthusiastically linked it to a new orientation for incarceration. In 1896 the warden of Illinois’s Joliet prison commented that inmates “should be treated in a manner that would tend to cultivate in them, spirit of self-respect, manhood and self-denial. . . , We are certainly making rapid headway, as is shown by the recently adopted Parole Law and the abolishment of prison stripes.” In 1906, the directors of the New Hampshire prison, eager to follow the dictates of the “science of criminology” and “the laws of modern prisons,” complained that “the old unsightly black and red convict suit is still used. . . . This prison garb is degrading to the prisoner and in modern prisons is no longer worn.” The uniform should be grey: “Modern prisons have almost without exception adopted this color.” The next year they proudly announced that the legislature had approved an appropriation of $700 to cover the costs of the turnover. By the mid-1930’s the Attorney General’s survey of prison conditions reported that only four states (all southern) still used striped uniforms. The rest had abandoned “the ridiculous costumes of earlier days.”

To the same ends, most penitentiaries abolished the lock step and the rules of silence. Sing-Sing, which had invented that curious shuffle, substituted a simple march. Pennsylvania’s Eastern State Penitentiary, world famous for creating and enforcing the silent system, now allowed prisoners to talk in dining rooms, in shops, and in the yard. Odd variations on these practices also ended. “It had been the custom for years,” noted the New Hampshire prison directors, “not to allow prisoners to look in any direction except downward,” so that “when a man is released from prison he will carry with him as a result of this rule a furtive and hang-dog expression.” In keeping with the new ethos, they abolished the regulation.

Concomitantly, prisons allowed inmates “freedom of the yard,” to mingle, converse, and exercise for an hour or two daily. Some institutions built baseball fields and basketbaIl courts and organized prison teams. “An important phase in the care of the prisoner,” declared the warden of California’s Folsom prison, “is the provisions made for proper recreation. Without something to look forward to, the men would become disheartened. . . . Baseball is the chief means of recreation and it is extremely popular.” The new premium on exercise and recreation was the penitentiary’s counterpart to the Progressive playground movement and settlement house athletic clubs.

This same orientation led prisons to introduce movies. Sing Sing showed films two nights a week, others settled for once a week, and the warden or the chaplain usually made the choice. Folsom’s warden, for example, like to keep them light: “Good wholesome comedy with its laugh provoking qualities seems to be the most beneficial.” Radio soon appeared as well. The prisons generally established a central system, providing inmates with earphones in their cells to listen to the programs that the administration selected. The Virginia State Penitentiary allowed inmates to use their own sets, with the result that, as a visitor remarked “the institution looks like a large cob-web with hundreds of antennas, leads and groundwires strung about the roofs and around the cell block.”

Given a commitment to sociability, prisons liberalized rules of correspondence and visits. Sing-Sing placed no restrictions on the number of letters, San Quentin allowed one a day, the New Jersey penitentiary at Trenton permitted six a month. Visitors could now come to most prisons twice a month and some institutions, like Sing-Sing, allowed visits five times a month. Newspapers and magazines also enjoyed freer circulation. As New Hampshire’s warden observed in 1916: “The new privileges include newspapers, that the men may keep up with the events of the day, more frequent writing of letters and receiving of letters from friends, more frequent visits from relatives . . . all of which tend to contentment and the reestablishment of self-respect.’? All of this would make the prisoners’ “life as nearly normal as circumstances will permit, so that when they are finally given their liberty they will not have so great a gap to bridge between the life they have led here . . . and the life that we hope they are to lead.”

These innovations may well have eased the burden of incarceration. Under conditions of total deprivation of liberty, amenities are not to be taken lightly. But whether they could normalize the prison environment and breed self-respect among inmates is quite another matter. For all these changes, the prison community remained abnormal. Inmates simply did not look like civilians; no one would mistake a group of convicts for a gathering of ordinary citizens. The baggy grey pants and the formless grey jacket, each item marked prominently with a stenciled identification number, became the typical prison garb. And the fact that many prisons allowed the purchase of bits of clothing, such as a sweater or more commonly a cap, hardly gave inmates a better appearance. The new dress substituted one kind of uniform for another. Stripes gave way to numbers.

So too, prisoners undoubtedly welcomed the right to march or walk as opposed to shuffle, and the right to talk to each other without fear of penalty. But freedom of the yard was limited to an hour or two a day and it was usually spent in “aimless milling about.” Recreational facilities were generally primitive, and organized athletic programs included only a handful of men. More disturbing, prisoners still spent the bulk of non-working time in their cells. Even liberal prisons locked their men in by 5:30 in the afternoon and kept them shut up until the next morning. Administrators continued to censor mail, reading materials, movies, and radio programs; their favorite prohibitions involved all matter dealing with sex or communism. Inmates preferred eating together to eating alone in a cell. But wardens, concerned about the possibility of riots with so many inmates congregated together, often added a catwalk above the mess hall and put armed guards on patrol.

Prisoners may well have welcomed liberalized visiting regulations, but the encounters took place under trying conditions. Some prisons permitted an initial embrace, more prohibited all physical contact. The rooms were dingy and gloomy. Most institutions had the prisoner and his visitor talk across a table, generally separated by a glass or wire mesh. The more security-minded went to greater pains. At Trenton, for example, bullet-proof glass divided inmate from visitor; they talked through a perforated metal opening in the glass. Almost everywhere guards sat at the ends of the tables and conversations had to be carried on in a normal voice; anyone caught whispering would be returned to his cell. The whole experience was undoubtedly more frustrating than satisfying.

The one reform that might have fundamentally altered the internal organization of the prison, Osborne’s Mutual Welfare League, was not implemented to any degree at all. The League persisted for a few years at Sing-Sing, but a riot in 1929 gave guards and other critics the occasion to eliminate it. One couId argue that inmate self-rule under Osborne was little more than a skillful exercise in manipulation, allowing Osborne to cloak his own authority in a more benevolent guise. It is unnecessary, however, to dwell on so fine a point. Wardens were simply not prepared to give over any degree of power to inmates. After all, how could men who had already abused their freedom on the outside be trusted to exercise it on the inside? Administrators also feared, not unreasonably, that inmate rule would empower inmate gangs to abuse fellow prisoners. In brief, the concept of a Mutual Welfare League made little impact on prison systems throughout this period.

If prisons could not approximate a normal community, they fared no better in attempting to approximate a therapeutic community. Again, reform programs frequently did alter inherited practices but they inevitably fell far short of fulfilling expectations. Prisons did not warrant the label of hospital or school.

Starting in the 1910’s and even more commonly through the 1920's, state penitentiaries established a period of isolation and classification for entering inmates. New prisoners were confined to a separate building or cell block (or occasionally, to one institution in a complex of state institutions); they remained there for a two- to four-week period, took tests and underwent interviews, and then were placed in the general prison population. In the Attorney General’s Survey of Release Procedures: Prisons forty-five institutions in a sample of sixty followed such practices. Eastern State Penitentiary, for example, isolated newcomers for thirty days under the supervision of a classification committee made up of two deputy wardens, the parole officer, a physician, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, the educational director, the social service director, and two chaplains. The federal government’s new prison at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, opened in 1932 and, eager to employ the most modern principles, also followed this routine. All new prisoners were on “quarantine status,” and over the course of a month each received a medical examination, psychometric tests to measure his intelligence, and an interview with the Supervisor of Education. The Supervisor then decided on a program, subject to the approval of its Classification Board. All of this was to insure “that an integrated program . . . may lead to the most effective adjustment, both within the Institution and after discharge.”

It was within the framework of these procedures that psychiatrists and psychologists took up posts inside the prisons for the first time. The change can be dated precisely. By 1926, sixty-seven institutions employed psychiatrists: thirty-five of them made their appointments between 1920 and 1926. Of forty-five institutions having psychologists, twenty-seven hired them between 1920 and 1926. The innovation was quite popular among prison officials. “The only rational method of caring for prisoners,” one Connecticut administrator declared, “is by classifying and treating them according to scientific knowledge . . . [that] can only be obtained by the employment of the psychologist, the psychiatrist, and the physician.” In fact, one New York official believed it “very unfair to the inmate as well as to the institution to try and manage an institution of this type without the aid of a psychiatrist.”

Over this same period several states also implemented greater institutional specialization. Most noteworthy was their frequent isolation of the criminal insane from the general population. In 1904, only five states maintained prisons for the criminally insane; by 1930, twenty-four did. At the same time, reformatories for young first offenders, those between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five or sixteen and thirty, became increasingly popular. In 1904, eleven states operated such facilities; in 1930, eighteen did. Several states which constructed new prisons between 1900 and 1935 attempted to give each facility a specific assignment. No state pursued this policy more diligently than New York. It added Great Meadow (Comstock), and Attica to its chain of institutions, the first two to service minor offenders, the latter, for the toughest cases. New York‘s only rival was Pennsylvania. By the early 1930’s it ran a prison farm on a minimum security basis; it had a new Eastern State Penitentiary at Grateford and the older Western State Penitentiary at Pittsburgh for medium security; and it made the parent of all prisons, the Eastern State Penitentiary at Philadelphia, the maximum security institution. Some states with two penitentiaries which traditionally had served different geographic regions, now tried to distinguish them by class of criminals. In California, for instance, San Quentin was to hold the more hopeful cases, Folsom the hard core.

But invariably, these would-be therapeutic innovations had little effect on prison routines. They never managed to penetrate the system in any depth. Only a distinct minority of institutions attempted to implement such programs and even their efforts produced thin results. Change never moved beyond the superficial."

- David J. Rothman, Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America. Revised Edition. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2002 (1980), p. 128-134

[offender42085]

Post 1030

Richard Sepolio, California inmate, born 1992, incarceration intake in May 2019 at age 26, released November 2020

DUI Manslaughter, DUI causing injury

In November 2020, a 28-year-old former inmate, who was released in early after serving less than three years (including jail and prison confinements) of a nearly 10-year sentence, partially because of the COVID pandemic. Sepolio also received a reduced sentence for good behavior and for working in a prison fire camp.

He was involved in a DUI crash on October 15, 2016, a crash that killed Annamarie Contreras, 50, and Cruz Contreras, 52, a married couple from Chandler, Arizona; and Hacienda Heights residents Andre Banks, 49, and Francine Jimenez, 46.

When it was announced Sepolio would be released, San Diego County District Attorney, Summer Stephan said, “This very early release is unconscionable''.

Stephan further stated, "Department of Corrections decision is re-victimizing the family and friends of the four people killed and seven injured who have been devastated by their loss and continue to deal with the financial, emotional, mental and physical trauma caused by the defendant. This inmate continues to deny and minimize the crime by refusing to admit he was speeding and denying being impaired while arguing with his girlfriend on the phone, which resulted in the devastating crash.''

In addition to having drinks prior to getting behind the wheel, Sepolio was arguing with his girlfriend on the phone just moments before losing control of his truck on the bridge, the prosecutor said.

Sepolio testified he was driving on the transition ramp -- a route back to Coronado that he had driven more than 90 times before -- when he sped up to merge in front of another car and lost control.

Prosecutors said he was driving between 81 and 87 mph when the crash occurred.  His truck plunged over the Coronado Bridge in October 2016. It dropped about 60 feet onto crowded Chicano Park. 

In May 2023, the inmate petitioned the court. He sought to have his parole terminated early and his convictions for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and DUI causing injury erased through a new law that allows inmate firefighters an expedited path to purging their criminal records.

The law, which went into effect in 2023, aims to provide a smoother path for formerly incarcerated volunteer firefighters to obtain employment. Inmates released from custody can now apply for such relief if they successfully complete fire camp and judges can grant those requests if the expungement is found to be “in the interest of justice.”

While now discharged from the Navy, he elected to wear his Navy Uniform in his court proceeding.

This was his second attempt after the first attempt was denied earlier by the court. The second petition was denied.

3g

Last reviewed August 2024

[theserpentsadvocate]

So I’ve been doing a lot of research (or, more accurately, I’ve been doing cursory research fairly often) for the seventy-million Veronica Mars fanfics I’m currently writing, and I’ve run into a… difficulty. The fic that actually prompted this post wasn’t even related to the Thumper thing even peripherally, like it doesn’t even happen in it, but what can you do.

Here’s the thing: under California law, assault is the attempt to hurt or cause harm to someone by an individual with the capacity to actually cause that harm (e.g. throwing a rock at someone and missing, trying to punch someone who dodges). Actually harming someone is battery (e.g. you knock someone out and hide their drug money inside their motorcycle).

Now we, the audience, know that whatever someone might feel morally*, Weevil isn’t legally guilty of murder – he committed battery, and that’s probably all Lamb can prove, because he has witnesses to that part. But he has witnesses. He should have Weevil over a barrel on the battery charge at least.

But here’s the sticking point (or one of them): Veronica says, canonically, that Weevil ‘pled down to assault’ (and he seems to agree with her). So… why did he end up doing time for a lesser charge?

Answer One: The writers messed up.

Okay, so this is a very unsatisfying answer, and I’m rolling my eyes at myself about it. But still: it’s very common for the general public to gloss ‘assault and battery’ as one thing, or to use ‘assault’ to refer to battery charges, doubly so since, in a non-legal sense, the word ‘assault’ does include (legal) battery. Probably whoever wrote that line assumed that they knew what ‘assault’ was and just didn’t double-check.

(And they also didn’t bother to brush up on the difference between a felony and a misdemeanour and whether you can be on parole for a misdemeanour (answer: no), but I’ll get to that.)

But that doesn’t help square everything up with canon (unless you’re the kind of person who can say stuff like ‘that line doesn’t make sense so I’m ignoring it’, which I… am not, generally speaking), so more productively –

Answer Two: Veronica messed up

Veronica’s attitude toward Weevil isn’t always great in season three, trending towards dismissive on several occasions, and she is, technically, a member of the general public, so maybe she just said assault and meant battery, and he did go to prison for battery and not assault. This would track with him still being on parole – well, at all, but notably about halfway through season three, when Veronica wants to meet with the PCHers – and mentioning his parole officer multiple times. (Simple assault is a misdemeanour and has a maximum sentence of six months; parole, unless there is a glaring hole in my Googling, is only for felonies. Nothing he does to Thumper, as far as I can tell, would qualify as felony assault – he doesn’t use caustic chemicals or a deadly weapon, and he definitely doesn’t throw anything at a moving vehicle.)

Misdemeanour battery, on the other hand, appears to have a maximum sentence of a year, and a battery charge would leave the possibility of a felony open: aggravated battery, or battery causing serious bodily harm, is a ‘wobbler’, which means it can be filed as a misdemeanour or a felony, depending on the circumstances, and ‘serious bodily harm’ includes loss of consciousness. (This would also mean he very well could be a convicted felon, which of course has implications for the rest of his life beyond just having a record. I don’t actually want this for him, obviously, but if you want the felony for fic reasons, or to explain the repeated parole references, that versatility is there.)

The only problem is, Veronica is not a very likely person to make this particular mistake. Her dad spent most of her life in law enforcement and she’s very well-acquainted with most law enforcement (and much legal) procedure, she regularly interacts with the sheriff’s department, and she commits enough illegal and dubiously legal acts herself that it’s in her best interest to be familiar with these kinds of distinctions. (Although she’s still very much protected by being a middle-class white woman – she can do things like tasing obnoxious frat bros in The Rapes of Graff without worrying overmuch that she’ll be arrested on misdemeanour battery charges, even though it would absolutely qualify.)  Also, she clearly made the effort to look into how his case played out, since she’s the one who brings all this up, and she appears to have tracked him down at the car wash deliberately, so it would be kind of bizarre if she then got the offence wrong. This one is convenient, but in the end it’s a hard sell and I don’t think I buy it.

Answer Three: Weevil didn’t plead down from murder to assault, he pled down from battery to assault.

Lamb’s case for murder probably isn’t all that great. It makes for terrific oomph when you are deliberately arresting someone two minutes before he’s supposed to graduate, like an absolute monster, but what does he have, really? Two kids who saw Weevil knock Thumper out with… a cloth? Or something? and take a bag of… something. (And leave.)

So this proves battery, it strongly implies robbery, and given Thumper showing up under the ruins of Shark Stadium it certainly suggests murder, but that’s not going to stand up in court. Assuming the autopsy can conclusively determine which ones are from the stadium collapse and which aren’t (admittedly a big if), Thumper’s likely to have injuries from the beating the Fitzpatricks gave him that Weevil is (per the prosecution’s own witnesses) not responsible for and which were incurred after his attack on Thumper. The kids also saw him leave Thumper’s unconscious body and walk away with the bag of money, so – dead to rights on battery, but iffy on murder. The other PCHers can testify that he had motive to kill Thumper, but they might well not be willing to, for a whole host of reasons. Weevil is absolutely smart enough to establish himself an alibi for the entirety of the time after his attack on Thumper, and that would make Lamb’s case very difficult, as does that fact that Weevil literally didn’t kill Thumper, and so there’s very little forensic evidence to be found that would be damaging to him.

(Honestly, even if the charge was murder, and he pled down to assault or to battery, the fact that they offered him that also suggests the case was flimsy. Rich, white, even-more-innocent-of-the-actual-murder Logan only got offered manslaughter in the plea deal for Felix’s murder.)

So if this is it? That is a ton of reasonable doubt. And that’s before Cliff gets up there and points out that Eduardo Orozco was a known gang member and drug dealer and had all kinds of opportunities to make the kind of enemies who might have chained him up in that stadium (which is not only true but also… basically what did actually happen). In fact, typing this all up, I’m kind of pissed Weevil did any time at all.

Add to that the fact that both eyewitnesses are kids, who are notoriously unreliable on the stand… Yeah, I can easily see the DA deciding a murder charge won’t stick. But they have him on battery! …Wiiiith most of the proof being those notoriously unreliable child witnesses. So maybe they drop the murder charges, get him on battery, and then offer him a deal. On their side, they don’t have to worry about those kids holding up in court; on his side, well, if they threatened to file the aggravated battery charge as a felony, he’s looking at the difference between a year at most in prison and a possible four-year term with all the attendant miseries of being a convicted felon for the rest of his life. And he definitely can’t afford a better lawyer than whoever’s available from the public defender’s office. So it’s reasonable to decide that going to court is too much of a gamble, and just take the deal. This also explains how he’s out so quickly, since it cannot be more than three months since he was arrested when season three starts – but if he pled right away and got a light sentence (since it’s his first adult conviction), that might make sense.

The main problem with this one, even though I really like it, is that, well, there are the repeated references to him being on parole. Weevil himself could just be glossing probation as parole, I suppose – ‘don’t tell my parole officer’ makes a better joke than ‘don’t tell my probation officer’ – but Veronica also says he’s on parole in President Evil, which is an unlikely mistake for her to make if he’s not on parole, for all the reasons outlined in Answer Two, especially in what is literally a presentation for her criminology class. (Of course, in that same presentation she refers to him ‘assaulting’ Thumper, so who knows.) Most damning is the entire B-plot of Wichita Linebacker, which makes it clear he is indeed on parole, since if he doesn’t get another job he’ll go back to prison.

(And I suppose ‘pled down to assault’ is kind of a weird way for Veronica to phrase it in this case – but not utterly bizarre, and she’d be unlikely to spell it all out like that, since she doesn’t know she’s on TV and that line is supposed to be letting the audience know why he’s not in prison.)

Answer Four: Veronica was just guessing

I’ve always read the scene in Wichita Linebacker as her finding him on purpose, especially since she doesn’t actually stick around to get her car washed, which is why I also tend to assume that she’s either recently looked up his case or been following it from the beginning and would know what the charge is. (She doesn’t appear to be surprised to see him, either.) I also just… like to think that she’d care enough to follow up on him.

But it’s also possible that she really is just at the carwash for carwash-related reasons, and she’s just… guessing about the reasons he’s out already. In this case, she might have said assault, and he acknowledges this as correct even though the actual charge was battery, because he figures it’s close enough, and she’s got the general idea, anyway.

This covers more bases than anything else, although it still doesn’t explain why she implies he’s on parole for an assault charge during the criminology presentation, at which point she would definitely have done the background to know it was battery and not assault, but mostly I don’t love it for character reasons.

Anyway. If anyone wants to hit their heads repeatedly into this particular wall with me, I would love to hear your thoughts.

*and I’m inclined, personally, to say that the moral responsibility for Thumper’s death is pretty much on the Fitzpatricks, and it’s not like he didn’t know who he was getting into business with

[beardedmrbean]

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Idaho serial killer Thomas Eugene Creech's last-minute request for a stay of execution.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan issued the decision to deny Creech's request Wednesday morning, clearing the way for prison authorities to carry out his execution by lethal injection.

Attorneys for the 73-year-old Creech, Idaho's longest-serving death row inmate, had filed a certiorari petition that the High Court halt the execution to give the panel time to review the decision by the Idaho Supreme Court denying Creech's appeals.

"The application for a stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied," the ruling said. "The edition for a write of certiorari is denied."

Barring a last-minute reprieve by Idaho Gov. Brad Little, Creech will become the first person executed in Idaho in 12 years.

Little has already said he has "zero intention" of halting the execution at Idaho Maximum Security Institution near Boise.

"Thomas Creech is a convicted serial killer responsible for acts of extreme violence," Little said in a statement issued on Jan. 29. "His lawful and just sentence must be carried out as ordered by the court. Justice has been delayed long enough."

In the petition to the Supreme Court, Creech's attorneys argued that his due process rights were violated by the Idaho Supreme Court.

"Mr. Creech has identified a substantial need for guidance from the Court on an issue of great national importance and he has brought a strong vehicle for it to do so," Creech's attorney wrote in the petition, asking for "clarity on [the] question of when a state's post-conviction regime affords little meaningful review to legitimate federal constitutional claims that it violates due process."

The petition added, "There are strong reasons to suspect that at least some states have gone too far in limiting post-conviction review, thus calling for the Court's intervention."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco also denied Creech's latest appeal in a ruling issued Saturday, prompting attorneys for the condemned man to take their argument to the Supreme Court.

Creech, according to prosecutors, has been convicted of five murders in three states, including three committed in Idaho.

In a 1993 opinion issued by the U.S. Supreme Court denying an appeal filed by Creech, late Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "Creech admitted to killing or participating in the killing of at least 26 people."

"The bodies of 11 of his victims -- who were shot, stabbed, beaten, or strangled to death -- have been recovered in seven states," she said.

The last murder Creech pleaded guilty to occurred in 1981 at an Idaho maximum security prison when he killed 23-year-old David Dale Jensen, a disabled fellow inmate, by beating him to death with a sock filled with batteries, according to prosecutors. At the time of Jensen's slaying, Creech was serving two life sentences for a double murder he committed in Idaho and had been convicted of murders in California and Oregon.

Creech argued in his recent appeal that his due process rights were violated by the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole and the Ada County, Idaho, Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

At the commutation hearing in October, Ada County deputy prosecutor Jill Longhurst told the commission that Creech is a "sociopath" who has "utter disregard for human life."

"Mr. Creech is a serial killer, and in 1981 said he would kill again, and he did," Longhurst told the commission. "Thomas Creech is the most prolific serial killer in Idaho."

[lunas-nargle]

↳ fifteen

chapter fifteen of "meddle about" series brian o'connor x reader

xv. sentenced

At the end of the day, Dom still ended up in handcuffs. 

Y/n sat between Brian and Mia as they waited for the judge to sentence Dom. Monty sat beside Mia, holding her hand soothingly, Y/n holding the other tightly, as they tensely stood up as instructed, watching the judge walk to his seat. 

"Please be seated." someone said, letting everyone sit back down. Brian put his arm around the back of Y/n, trying to provide some comfort to her. 

"Please rise, Mr. Toretto," the judge said. Dom silently stood. "I've listened to the testimony...and taken into special consideration...Agent O'Conner's appeal of clemency on behalf of Mr. Toretto, that his actions directly resulted in the apprehension of known drug trafficker, Arturo Braga." Y/n felt her stomach and lungs squeeze as the judge continued. "However, this judiciary finds that one right does not make up for a lifetime of wrongs," 

Y/n let out a shaky breath. Hearing this, Brian moved his arm that was wrapped around Y/n. 

"And as such I find that I am forced to level the maximum sentence under California law." 

Brian couldn't hear anymore. He stood up, and walked off upset. 

"Dominic Toretto," the judge said, as a tear slid down Y/n's cheek. "You are hearby sentenced to serve 25 years to life at the Lompoc maximum security prison system without the possibility of early parole. This court is adjourned."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

On Monday afternoon, CNN published an anti-transgender hit piece on Vice President Kamala Harris based off a 2019 ACLU questionnaire that she filled out during her presidential run. In the 10-page response to the group’s 18 questions, Harris made clear — in answering a specific question — that she supported providing appropriate medical care to those transgender people who “rely on the state for care,” including those in prison and immigration detention, and that medically necessary transition-related care can and does at times include surgical care.

And yet, this is how CNN headlined their pre-2024 debate coverage of this 2019 questionnaire response:

Before we get to Monday’s hit piece, which was authored by my former BuzzFeed News colleague Andrew Kaczynski, let’s make a few things clear. This had not been not some out-of-nowhere question at the time, and it was not some on-the-fly answer. This was an issue that had been coming up more frequently and, specifically, it had been an issue that Harris had dealt with in 2015 in a transgender inmate’s case while attorney general in California. Harris later faced questions about her handling of Michelle-Lael Norsworthy’s case, who only got the necessary surgery after being paroled.

This is also not a particularly complicated issue. The government has obligations to provide necessary medical care for those who it forces under its control — whether due to imprisonment or immigration detention — and often faces challenges related to the failure to provide needed care. When deemed medically necessary treatment for a person’s gender dysphoria (the medical diagnosis that reflects a person’s longstanding mismatch between their gender identity and their gender assigned at birth), gender-affirming medical care is, at the end of the day, medical care. As such, one only reaches the conclusion that gender-affirming medical care should not be provided when called for if one starts from an anti-transgender perspective. Or, posed as a question: Unless you want to exclude transgender people from care, why would you exclude transgender people’s care? Now, it is true that politicians have regularly pushed back against providing such coverage, even where recommended, but I suspect that has been done in not insignificant part due to fear of the very sort of reporting like that Kaczynski produced for CNN and its global audience on Monday.

[...]

In 2019, despite the Trump administration, the country was, in many ways, still progressing on LGBTQ issues — including transgender issues. There were, though, certainly challenges from Donald Trump on down — and the beginning signs of the coming wave of anti-trans hate that would be promoted in culture and in politics. And yet, in 2019, there were no bans on any medical treatments recommended for transgender people. Five years later, about half of the states in the country have bans on gender-affirming medical care for minors, multiple federal appeals courts have held that those bans are likely constitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the issue. One federal appeals court last month even allowed Florida to enforce a ban includes restrictions on adult care during the state’s appeal of a loss below. The fact that CNN decided to eagerly — and repeatedly — encourage the sort of hateful attitudes that it encouraged on Monday is appalling.

What kind of disgraceful reporting was this from CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski (whose reporting has usually been solid)?

From the 09.09.2024 edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront:

[calparolelawyer]

Understanding Your Rights with a Non-Violent Parole Review Lawyer

Navigating the parole process can be complex and intimidating, especially for those unfamiliar with the legal intricacies involved. This is where a non-violent parole review lawyer becomes indispensable. Understanding your rights and having a knowledgeable advocate can significantly impact the outcome of your parole hearing. Let’s explore the crucial role of a non-violent parole review lawyer, the importance of legal representation, and what to expect during the parole hearing process.

[roadtogracelandx45]

New York State of Mind |1| Suits x Sons crossover

I am so nervous about posting this after some reviews that I got about Ryder. But here we go;

crossposted on ao3 and wattpad.

Introduction 

Tacoma Washington 

For the first time in over 4 years Ryder Teller was able to travel for work without having a Sons' sitter go with her and she was thrilled, everywhere she went after she graduated law school and was in Tacoma, she had a Son with her. She went to Chino to see her brother or to see her sister-in-law and the kids, a Son went with her. She went into the office, a Son went with her.

A lot of the time it was Kozik or Happy but they were both unable to leave the state due to their parole status and Ryder was thankful for that, she needed to be a different Ryder, one that didn't bend to the will of her old man and as much as Jax wanted to override her going out there he couldn't, she had made a valid point, he was able to do what he wanted and could come and go as he pleased, but she couldn't? She had been faithful to him since they got together.

That double standard should never be around, but she lived in a very black-and-white man's world and what they said went and it was exhausting. She was exhausted and she just didn't know that until Jessica Pearce asked for her to come out and work with them.

"You know Jax is furious right?" Kozik commented from where he was sitting on the chair in front of Ryder's vanity, "That you are going, and you aren't listening to him." Ryder paused as she was folding up the shirt to put in her suitcase.

"I don't think that I should have to listen to him Koz, "She started, "I am not putting my career on hold again to appease him. If he and Clay want me to help the club out I have to make friends at other law firms in other states. What would happen if you guys went on the run and got in trouble? I have my law license in California, Washington, and New York. I can't do it anymore." She shoved her hands through her hair and fought back tears.

Kozik knew that she was right and that she had more hurt than joy since she became Jax's old lady. He remembered holding her as she cried her eyes out when she found that she had miscarried a baby when she first moved to Tacoma after Jax cheated on her again with Tara. This wasn't the Ryder that he knew when she was younger, this was a broken Ryder. A completely broken Ryder.

"Shouldn’t I be able to be happy to Koz? He is making himself happy.  I don't know if I can keep doing this every single time. " She pointed a trembling finger to the blackberry sitting on top of the folding clothes. It had gone off several times while they were talking and they both assumed that it was Jax trying to get into contact with her

 and talk her out of going to New York again. He had done everything short of showing up at the house and handcuffing himself to her. And being on probation he was unable to go with her to New York for the three months she had been loaned out to them. And it was driving him crazy.

"You are right." He started as he held up his hands not wanting to set her off. 

"I know I am god damn right Herman. I get that I was born into this lifestyle and it's a man's world. But I should never ever be subjected to live like this." She reached across the bed, yanking the phone off of her belongings, and pressed the green answer button, "WHAT do you want!" she snarled, causing the biker to lean back in his chair in surprise. In all the years that he had known the younger Winston sibling, she had never reacted like that before.

To anyone. 

Not even Tara Knowles who justifiably earned every single ounce of hatred that Ryder held towards her.  There was so much hate, so much bitterness. No amount of sweet-talking or promises on the Mother Charter's vice president's part was going to do anything to make her forgive him. 

And honestly, he didn't deserve it. It had finally happened. She had enough and was tired of being broken 

"Look, I am probably gonna catch hell for this but, Jax is coming up tonight after church to talk to you about staying." He started once she was off of the phone, the angry tears coming down her cheeks, "If I were you, I would get on an earlier flight."

Ryder abandoned all packing and picked up her phone and pressed a few buttons and put her phone to her ear. "Hey, Donna, It's Ryder Teller, is there a way you can get me on an earlier flight out? My brother told me not to come down today to see him and the sooner I get out of Washington the better." She was silent for several long minutes before speaking again, "Yes, I can be ready in 30 minutes to go." Donna Paulson, Harvey Specter's assistant, had already been told to get a private plane and driver set up for Ryder Teller. Jessica Pearson and her other partners wanted Ryder Teller to be a part of their firm.

"Thank you, Donna." She hung up the phone and looked at the blonde biker, "Thank you Koz, I know you aren't supposed to tell me stuff like this." He waved it away, "Finish packing what you absolutely need, and then go shopping for the rest when you get there." She wiped her cheek off again and started putting the rest of the clothes that she brought out of her closet into the suitcase.

"What are you going to tell Jax when he shows up?" She asked as Kozik carried her suitcase and carry on to the awaiting black car a while later. "Don't worry about it, Ry. I will handle it." He returned, "Just do stuff for yourself this time around, make yourself happy, that's

 all I can ask for."

"I can do that.' She returned, "Don't know what it looks like but I will find out." His mouth quirked into a smirk, he wanted to tell her to do what Jax did to her and sleep with someone else but he knew that Ryder wouldn't do it. But maybe she would surprise him. She always seemed to.

[latenightsleuth]

The Jenner Beach Murders 2004

Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen Murders: How Were They Killed? Where is Shaun Gallon Now?

By Viswa Vanapalli at The Cinemaholic March 29, 2021

Investigation Discovery’s ‘People Magazine Investigates’ is a documentary series where People Magazine’s journalists team up with Investigation Discovery to have a second look at some of the most high-profile cases in the country. The episode ‘Jenner Beach Murders’ explores the random killings of a loving couple who were camping out on a beach in Jenner, California, in 2004. A case that stumped investigators at the time with an apparent lack of motive, it was only solved in 2017 after a confession. Curious to know more about the case? We’ve got you covered.

How Did Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen Die?

Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen had met each other in 2002 at the Appalachian Bible College in Beckley, West Virginia. Both devout Christians, the 22-year-old Lindsay hailed from Fresno, Ohio, while the 26-year-old Jason was from Zeeland, Michigan. They fell in love quickly, bonding over their Christian faith and their fondness for the outdoors. Within six weeks of knowing each other, they were engaged. In August 2004, the couple was working as counselors at Rock-N-Water, which was a Christian summer camp close to Coloma, California.

On August 13, they decided to take a spontaneous road trip to San Francisco, about a month before their planned wedding. It was during this trip that they would end up missing and eventually killed. When Lindsay’s mother was notified that the couple had not returned from their road trip, an extensive manhunt ensued. About five days after they left for their road trip, the couple was found by a helicopter pilot on a secluded part of Fish Head Beach, Jenner, California.

They were found still zipped up in their sleeping bags and were shot in the head once with a .45 caliber Marlin rifle, a rather uncommon gun. Police quickly ruled out robbery as a motive since Lindsay’s jewelry wasn’t missing and the car they traveled in was still there. There were no signs of a sexual assault either. Beyond that, the authorities were finding it difficult to zero in on a motive. The time of death was estimated to be either on the night of August 14 or the early morning of August 15.

The investigators speculated that the couple might have chosen to camp at the beach after realizing that there were no available rooms at the motel close by. As time passed, the police started to run out of credible leads. With no motive and unable to find the murder weapon, the trail ran cold. It was more than a decade later when the murders of Lindsay and Jason would be solved.

Who Killed Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen?

Shaun Gallon had long been someone the police had looked into regarding the couple’s killing. A self-proclaimed survivalist, he had multiple run-ins with the law. In fact, he was arrested just six days after the bodies were discovered, but on an unrelated weapons charge. Shaun’s father, David, had also told police that he had disposed of his son’s guns after Shaun had called him from prison to do so. In 2009, Shaun was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for shooting a man with a homemade bow and arrow. Over the years, the police found nothing to tie him to the murders, nonetheless.

In 2017, Shaun was accused of killing his brother, Shamus, with a rifle and was arrested as a result of that. During his questioning, he confessed to the killings of Lindsay and Jason. He told the police where he had hidden the spent shell casings from the crime scene. He stated that after he noticed the two sleeping on the beach, he went to his car to bring his rifle, came back, and shot them both at close range. He had also confessed to the attempted murder of someone else that he knew. In 2019, 40-year-old Shaun was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Where is Shaun Gallon Now?

Shaun Gallon pleaded no contest to all the charges against him. As a result, the death penalty was not pursued. For his role in the murders of Lindsay, Jason, and Shamus and the attempted murder charge, he was instead sentenced to three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. He also was sentenced to more than 94 years for other crimes. During his confession, he had told the police that he had killed Lindsay and Jason out of spite.

A news release from the Office of the District Attorney mentioned additional charges, “There were multiple special allegations and enhancements alleged against Gallon, including that he murdered multiple victims, that he committed great bodily injury on those victims, that he used a firearm to inflict great bodily injury on each of his murder victims, and that he had suffered a prior “strike” conviction in 2009 for assault with a deadly weapon. In his change of pleas, Gallon admitted all charges and enhancements.” According to prison records, Shaun is incarcerated at California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, California.

Full article: https://thecinemaholic.com/lindsay-cutshall-and-jason-allen-murders-how-were-they-killed-where-is-shaun-gallon-now/

[hoperays-song]

The Gang’s Jail Sentences

I should preface this with my favourite lovely warning: I AM NOT A BOARD CERTIFIED ATTORNEY OF LAW. I do NOT have a degree in this. I have done research, yes, and come up with somewhat of a defense and timeline but still, I AM NOT A LAWYER. I’m just a hyperfixated idiot. Enjoy!

----------------------

During the events of Sing One we see Johnny’s family/the Gang commit several crimes. However, they are only caught after one failed heist. So, I will be calculating the charges they faced as well as providing possible defenses and my version of sentencing. Everyone ready for a ton of legal mumbo jumbo? Great! Let’s dive in.

Ps. I’m so sorry for the delay y’all, I know I promised this a long time ago but I really wanted to do it right. I hope y’all enjoy!

----------------------

Definitions:

I wasn’t kidding when I said their would be actual legal vocabulary here so let’s go over what it all means.

Wobbler: a special class of crimes involving conduct that varies widely in its level of seriousness.

Misdemeanor: a non-indictable offense, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony.

Felony: a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death.

Parole: the release of a prisoner temporarily (for a special purpose) or permanently before the completion of a sentence, on the promise of good behavior.

County Jail: a facility operated by or for a county for the confinement of persons accused or convicted of an offense.

Sate Prison: is for inmates serving lengthier sentences on crimes that are more severe in nature.

Sentencing: declare the punishment decided for an offender.

----------------------

Crimes and Their Sentences:

Grand Theft Larceny - Wobbler (anywhere from less than a year in County Jail to 3 years in State Prison)

Wearing a Mask - Misdemeanor (up to 6 months in County Jail and a $1,000.00 fine)

Gang Involvement - Wobbler (anywhere from less than a year in County Jail to 3 years in State Prison)

Marcus Exclusively: 

Escape from Custody - Wobbler (anywhere from less than a year in County Jail to 3 years in State Prison with no parole)

----------------------

Maximum Sentencing vs. My Sentencing:

Max: 6 months in County Jail, $1000.00 each, 6 years in State Prison (plus 3 years in State Prison and no chance of parole for anything for Marcus).

My Sentencing: 7.5 months in County Jail, $1000.00 each, 2 years of formal parole, 400 hours of community service for Stan and Barry, and 490 hours of community service for Marcus. All of them also were ordered into court mandated counseling/therapy due to the results found by the court appointed psychologist for the enterity of their incarceration and parole.

----------------------

Explanation and Defenses Used:

Now, you all might notice that my sentencing was much, much, much lighter than the maximum sentence. However, that is because I believe they were not prosecuted for some of the potential charges and they also were allowed parole in change of some of their sentence.

Firstly, I do not think they would be prosecuted for Gang Involvement, mainly due to they barely qualifying as a gang by California State Law. By their definition, a gang is:

“a criminal street gang is any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal: 1. That has a common name or common identifying sign or symbol; 2. That has, as one or more of its primary activities, the commission of [a crime listed in Pen. Code §186.22(e)(1)-(25), (31)-(33)]; AND, 3. Whose members, whether acting alone or together, engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.””.

Now why wouldn’t they be prosecuted for this? We see them fitting those descriptions after all. And while we saw those defining actions, the prosecutors definitely didn’t. 

We see how criminally smart the gang actually is multiple times in the movie. For one, we never see them try to physically confront anyone that tried to stop them, they just ran. That allows them to avoid all the potential aggravated assault on peace officers charges. 

Secondly, when they are captured, they immediately surrendered, no fighting, no running, they immediately surrendered. This allows them to escape literally all evading the police charges as well as them instantly being marked as cooperative, which is extremely useful in their case. 

Third, they seem to move fast. In the first heist we see them pull off, the alarm does not start ringing until they break the window. Now, why would that mean they move fast? Banks and jewelry stores both have something called silent alarms that can be subtly triggered by staff in case of a robbery. Judging by the obliviousness of the nearby officers, that alarm was not triggered. Meaning, no one knew that the gang was there until they were escaping. In fact, it’s hinted that the main heist we see is the longest one yet. Judging by how down to the second everything is planned, they were a bit more nervous about this heist than the other ones. And most of that time is traveling discretely so they aren’t caught. Not only do they see to move fast, they seem to be non-violent offenders.

Finally, the fact that there were only three of them (they clearly covered for Johnny, he wasn’t even shown to be questioned so they definitely denied his involvement) and they view each other like brothers, they definitely denied being a gang and instead identified themselves as brothers who committed a crime together. Also, Johnny wasn’t recognized by the Bear Gang (to be fair they were busy, but still) and you would think he would if have been if he was viewed by other gangs as the son of a rival gang leader. Therefore, I believe their actually identity as a gang was not that solid and they weren’t seen as one in a court of law. And that lightened their sentence considerably.

In the case of the other crimes, I think that Marcus’s escape and the Grand Theft Larceny were both demoted to misdemeanors. Why? Because in the eyes of the court, they are first time offenders. From what we can tell, they were not linked back to their previous crimes, and therefore I will not be calculating that into my sentencing. Sentences for first time offenders (in some cases) are considerably lighter and I think that was part of the case here. 

The rest of the case here is public opinion. Your court sentence is largely based on what the judge deems appropriate. And public opinion can definitely influence that by swaying the judge’s view on the case. The thing is, the public of Calatonia would definitely be on the gang’s side. Why? Because Johnny, that’s why.

Johnny would have just appeared on tv as a performer at New Moon Theatre and as we saw, he drew in a bit of a crowd during his performance during the ending scene. Those fans would definitely want Johnny to be reunited with his dad sooner and could petition the court for a lighter sentence. Not only would his fans potentially influence the sentencing, but Johnny’s mere existence would too.

From what we can tell, Marcus is a single parent. And while Stan and Barry might lend a hand here and there with helping him with Johnny, Marcus is clearly doing majority of the parenting work. Whether his other parent is dead or just divorced, it’s clear that Johnny doesn’t see living with them as an option (he chose to stay in the garage alone). Why is this important? Because Johnny’s primary caregiver (Marcus) and his two other caregivers who he’d probably be sent to in an emergency (Stan and Barry) are now all incarcerated. That means that Johnny (he is implied to be around 17 in Sing 1 so that’s what I’m going with) would be sent to foster care. And if Johnny had happened to recently gone through a traumatic event, like for instance, just throwing it out there, being trapped in a flooding building, or having all of his family be sent to jail, he would more than likely be evaluated by a psychologist to see what the potential effects of sentencing could have on him.

I don’t think it would surprise anyone if I said that I believe that the psychologist would more than likely decide that Johnny would be negatively affected mentally and emotionally if he was kept from his family the full maximum sentence. What kid wouldn’t be? That, along with the gang being non-violent, first time offenders who had (in the court’s eye) been just every day citizens til then, they would have more than likely been given lighter sentences that would have resulted in their release a few weeks before the events of Sing 2, around only a year later.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Ted Kaczynski, the convicted terrorist known as The Unabomber, was found dead in his prison cell Saturday morning, according to a Federal Bureau of Prisons spokesperson. He was 81.

Kaczynski was previously in a maximum security facility in Colorado but was moved to a medical facility in North Carolina in December 2021 due to poor health.

Kaczynski, who went nearly 20 years without being captured until his arrest in 1996, was considered America's most prolific bomber.

Between 1978 and 1995, Kaczynski placed or mailed 16 bombs that killed three people and injured 23 others, according to authorities.

In 1995, before he was identified as The Unabomber, he demanded newspapers to publish a long manuscript he had written, saying the killings would continue otherwise. Both the New York Times and Washington Post published the 35,000-word manifesto later that year at the recommendation of the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the FBI.

If it hadn't been for the suspicions of his brother and sister-in-law, Kaczynski might never have been caught. Kaczynski's sister-in-law, Linda Patrik, was one of the first to identify Kaczynski as The Unabomber after reading The Unabomber's writing.

In an interview with "20/20 on ID Presents: Homicide" in 2016, Patrik recalled the first time she suspected Kaczynski was responsible for the serial bombings.

"I'd thought about the families that were bombed. There was one in which the package arrived to the man's home and his little 2-year-old daughter was there. She was almost in the room when he opened the package. Luckily she left, and his wife left. And then he died," Patrik said. "And there were others. And so I spent those days thinking about those people."

Patrik said she recognized familiar-sounding ideas in the manuscript from letters her husband David Kaczynski had received from his brother. The family eventually decided to contact the FBI, and on April 3, 1995, a 9-man SWAT team apprehended Kaczynski in his cabin in Montana.

"When she said, 'Well, I think maybe your brother's The Unabomber,' I thought, 'Well, this is not anything to worry about. Ted's never been violent. I've never seen him violent,'" David Kaczynski said in the interview. "I couldn't imagine that he would do what The Unabomber had done."

Ted Kaczynski went on trial in Sacramento, California, where the key issue was not his guilt but his sanity and whether he would be spared the death penalty. He pleaded guilty to murder in exchange for life in prison without parole in 1998.

[coochiequeens]

When I post about keeping men out of women’s prisons I also mean no male staff.

A former correctional officer at California’s largest women’s prison has been arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting at least 13 incarcerated people over nearly a decade, prosecutors said on Wednesday.

Gregory Rodriguez, who worked at the Central California Women’s Facility before he retired last year while under investigation, has been charged with 95 counts of sexual abuse, including rape, sodomy, sexual battery and rape under color of authority, the Madera county district attorney’s office said, as well as one drug-related charge. The assaults date back to 2014, but mostly occurred in the last two years, prosecutors said.

Advocates say the charges scratch the surface of systemic misconduct and sexual violence in the women’s prison, and correctional authorities last year said investigators had identified more than 22 victims of Rodriguez’s abuse.

Rodriguez, 54, was being held on $7.8m bail, and it was not clear if he had a lawyer.If convicted on all charges, Rodriguez could be sentenced to more than 300 years in prison.

The DA’s office said the 95 charges include 39 individual sexual assaults. A 48-page complaint alleges that Rodriguez abused people throughout the facilities, including in a substance abuse building, in a clinic, before and after court appearances and in the parole hearing area where incarcerated people appear before commissioners who decide whether to grant their freedom. He is also accused of bringing heroin into the prison.

Advocates working with survivors said there was a culture of abuse, fear and retaliation in the facility that allowed him to continue his behavior for years.

At a state hearing last month, state senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas noted that Rodriguez was accused of abusing more than 1% of the entire women’s prison population, and that allegations against him date back more than 10 years: “Twenty-two women came forward, and we know when women come forward, there are often women and other victims who don’t.”

She also noted a 2021 inspector general report that found the California department of corrections and rehabilitation (CDCR) poorly handled more than 60% of all complaints against staff by incarcerated people.

“If one officer is getting away with this for more than a decade, he is backed up by other officers and by the system, which is not only allowing the culture of sexual violence to continue, but condoning it,” said Colby Lenz, an advocate with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, a group that has been assisting the survivors. “This is not just one bad apple.”

The women’s prison where Rodriguez worked for 12 years is located in Chowchilla, a small city about 120 miles (190km) south-east of San Francisco. Rodriguez retired in August after being approached about the assaults as part of an internal investigation, CDCR said in December.

The investigation, which found that Rodriguez may have engaged in sexual misconduct against at least 22 incarcerated people, was handed over to the district attorney’s office earlier this year. Rodriguez had worked for CDCR since 1995.

“These allegations are in no way a reflection on the vast majority of correctional officers who act professionally and do their best to make sure prisoners serve their time while remaining safe,” the DA’s office said on Wednesday. “It is our hope that the removal and arrest of this defendant encourages them to continue in their honorable profession upholding the law every day.”

Two unidentified accusers filed lawsuits in December alleging Rodriguez sexually assaulted them at the prison, which holds about 2,100 residents.

Survivors who have spoken up have faced persistent retaliation, said Lenz: “They live in terror both from the trauma of the sexual violence itself and ongoing harassment and retaliation by officers, and they never have a chance to properly grieve or heal. They have to continue to live with their abusers who have the keys to their cells.”

Advocates have called on the state to expedite the release of survivors.

“They are constantly under threat. It’s horrific and extremely isolating, and there is nowhere safe to turn inside,” said Amika Mota, executive director of the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, another group working with the victims.

A CDCR spokesperson on Thursday pointed to the department’s earlier statement on the investigation into Rodriguez, which said “retaliation against anyone who reports these kinds of allegations as well as retaliation against those who cooperate with investigations is not tolerated”.

A 2003 federal law known as the Prison Rape Elimination Act created a “zero-tolerance” policy for the sexual assault of incarcerated people. But California prison officials have still been accused of sexual misconduct in recent years. That includes Israel Trevino, a former correctional officer at the Central California Women’s Facility, who was fired in 2018 after being accused of groping and making sexually harassing comments.

An Associated Press investigation found that a high-ranking federal bureau of prisons official, who formerly worked at a women’s prison in the San Francisco Bay Area, was repeatedly promoted after allegations that he assaulted detainees. Another investigation found a pattern of sexual abuse by correctional officers at the women’s facility. The US government is now facing a backlash for seeking to deport survivors of the abuse who are also non-citizens.

Recent civil cases have also exposed widespread sexual abuse of youthinside juvenile prisons in Los Angeles.

These types of accusations extend beyond California. Former prison officers in Kentucky and New Jersey have recently been charged with sexually abusing or assaulting incarcerated people.

The Associated Press contributed reporting