Latest news with #CaliforniaSupremeCourt
USA Today
7 days ago
- USA Today
California Supreme Court denies resentencing bid by former NFL star Kellen Winslow II
The former Cleveland Browns tight end had claimed his football head trauma and previous sex abuse should be considered as part of a resentencing for him. The California Supreme Court has rejected a bid by former NFL tight end Kellen Winslow II to get his 14-year prison sentence reduced after he was convicted of sex crimes against five women in San Diego County, including the rape of a homeless woman in 2018. Winslow's attorney had filed the habeas corpus petition in March, arguing that recent criminal justice reform laws in California allowed for him to be resentenced to account for his history of head trauma in football and the alleged sex abuse he suffered as a minor. But the petition was denied by the Supreme Court July 23 with only a brief explanation. The court cited precedent and said a habeas corpus petition 'must include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence.' It also said that 'courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that could have been, but were not, raised on appeal.' The latter reason was why his petition also was rejected by a state appeals court in January. Winslow, 42, currently is incarcerated at a prison in Chino, California, and is not eligible for parole until August 2028, according to state records. He played football at the University of Miami and was the No. 6 overall draft pick of the Cleveland Browns in 2004. What was Kellen Winslow II's argument? His attorney, Patrick Morgan Ford, asked the court to grant the petition or order an evidentiary hearing so that he may be returned to be returned for resentencing under the new sentencing laws. He ultimately sought a two-year reduction in his 14-year sentence, which was issued in 2021. 'Petitioner (Winslow) is not asking to be released from prison at this time, but he does meet the criteria for relief under (state law) AB 124, given the trauma (brain damage) he received in his life of football, physical and sexual abuse he was subjected to as a child, and the impact of his debilitating motorcycle accident' in 2005, Winslow's petition stated. The attorney argued the new laws would have changed the sentencing analysis and led to a more favorable sentence. He also noted Winslow was given neuropsychological testing 'which showed deficits caused by decreased blood flow in his frontal, temporal and occipital lobes, which is typical of traumatic brain injury.' The Supreme Court still found a procedural problem with the petition. Winslow previously filed an appeal of his sentence in 2021, when he sought 233 days of custody credit for time he spent on electronic monitoring. That appeal was pending when the new state laws went into effect, but Winslow's attorney didn't raise those issues at the time. The state appeals court previously said he should have raised those issues then and rejected his petition. Winslow's life in prison described Winslow agreed to a plea deal for his crimes, which included the rape of a woman who was unconscious in 2003. In a previous bid to get resentenced, Winslow said in a declaration filed with the court that 'I will always feel remorse for what I did to the victims in my case.' 'Since entering prison, he has devoted himself to the teachings of the Bible, to helping others, to self-improvement and a productive life outside of prison, a plan that will include ongoing therapy,' Winslow's petition to the state Supreme Court stated. 'He is actively programming in prison, and is described by the director of his Anger Management class as a role model to other participants in the group. He is on a strict running program training for marathons, and has other inmates in the program as well. Inmates have sent letters expressing their gratitude for his support during their dark and difficult struggles in prison.' Winslow's father Kellen, a Pro Football Hall of Famer, attended his son's trial in San Diego County and also claimed injuries from head trauma in football. Kellen Winslow II's attorney didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. Email: bschrotenb@
Politico
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
From green icon to housing villain: The fall of California's landmark environmental law
'The air is going to be cleaner, the water we drink is going to be purer and we are going to alert the people of California to the indisputable fact that the protection of our natural environment must rank as one of our major priorities,' Reagan wrote in an op-ed adapted from a speech. CEQA was heralded for ushering in a new age of clean air and water in an era when an oil-slicked river in Ohio caught on fire and Joni Mitchell sang about replacing paradise with a parking lot. It was relatively modest at first, requiring government entities to analyze and mitigate the impact of proposed public projects. President Richard M. Nixon signs the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) January 1, 1970. | Richard Nixon Library But two years later, a court case changed everything. A group of property owners in the Eastern Sierra region of majestic mountains and crystalline water sued to block a proposed development. Warning of issues with sewage, water and vanishing open space, they argued their county had erred in approving a permit — and they had backup from a new environmental unit created by the state's attorney general, Evelle Younger. 'Evelle Younger, a moderate Republican — remember when we had those? — he charged us with making him look good and doing good on the environment,' said Clement Shute, Jr., then a young attorney for Younger who would go on to become one of CEQA's most resolute defenders. The California Supreme Court's response would shape environmental and housing politics for generations. Justices ruled in 1972 that CEQA applied to private projects if they required a public agency's approval — in other words, virtually everything. 'Most activity that takes place is private activity, which usually requires a permit from the government, so if you want to make a real difference that has to be included,' said Nick Yost, an attorney who backed the homeowners as a young deputy attorney general. The impact was immediate. Many projects halted as lenders, builders, real estate agents, and 'anybody engaged commercially in putting two sticks of wood together descended on the Legislature in a panic,' then-Sierra Club lobbyist John Zierold recounted in an oral history. Industry backlash intensified through the years as CEQA continued to expand through various court rulings. In the mid-'70s, Dow Chemical launched a concerted campaign to dilute the law, which it faulted for stalling economic activity, and irate loggers drove their trucks around the Capitol, horns blaring, after a ruling applied CEQA to timber projects. CEQA has long been 'the scapegoat for everything,' said Shute, and 'under attack almost constantly' since its inception.
Boston Globe
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Before same-sex marriage was US law, they said ‘I do' in Massachusetts
By the time the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, 37 states and the District of Columbia already allowed it, and public opinion was moving swiftly toward acceptance. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Today, though, the picture is more complicated. Last month, a Gallup survey found that while 68% of Americans support same-sex marriage, approval among Republicans had slipped to 41% after peaking at 55% in 2021 and 2022. And the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that a right to abortion could not be found in the Constitution raised fears among many supporters of same-sex marriage that the court could overturn the Obergefell decision on similar grounds. Advertisement 20 Related : Those who said 'I do' in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, were among the first same-sex couples to be legally married in the United States. (The marriages of thousands of couples who were issued marriage licenses in San Francisco earlier that year were later voided by the California Supreme Court.) Advertisement We spoke to five Massachusetts couples, four of whom were plaintiffs in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the case that led to the decision by the state's Supreme Judicial Court. They shared some of the ways in which marriage has shaped their lives. Julie and Hillary Goodridge. Greene, Bill Globe Staff Hillary Goodridge and Julie N.W. Goodridge Boston One month after Hillary Goodridge said 'I do' to Julie Goodridge, her longtime partner, she found herself in the hospital needing stitches after an accident involving a rake and a split lip. As they were checking in, a nurse asked Hillary who Julie was. Julie said, 'her wife.' It was the first time either had publicly used the word to describe her partner. 'We walked right into the emergency room as a married couple,' Julie said. Related : It was quite a change from nearly a decade earlier, when Julie gave birth to the couple's daughter, Annie. Hillary was in the room for Julie's planned cesarean section, but during the procedure, the doctors realized the baby had ingested something and sent her to the neonatal intensive care unit. Hillary was initially barred from the NICU and from Julie's recovery room. 'At that moment, you're not really thinking about social change,' Julie, 67, said. But two decades later, she says, 'the cultural moment that we are in now is so filled with anxiety and vitriol.' 'We're certainly not set up well at the Supreme Court for our families to be protected,' she said. 'If we're going to continue with the current perspective that prior decisions that prior courts have made have limited value, equal marriage is going to have a problem.' Advertisement Hillary, 69, remains more sanguine. 'There is an entire generation of new adults, new voters, who grew up in a world where we had marriage equality,' she said. 'I do not believe we will turn that back.' When the couple married at the Unitarian Universalist Association, overlooking Boston Common and the state House, Annie was the ring bearer. Although the Goodridges separated two years later, Hillary said of their marriage, 'It was totally worth it. I have never regretted it.' In September, Hillary and Julie were proud mothers of the bride when Annie got married in Massachusetts. Eve C. Alpern and Brenda Morris Belmont, Massachusetts In 2007, Brenda Morris gave birth to identical twin boys, Jaden and Isaac. Through the chaotic early days of caring for newborn twins, Brenda and her wife, Eve Alpern, had to navigate a bureaucratic thicket. To guarantee that they both had full parental rights under state law, they chose to legally adopt the children -- a step that they said required Brenda to first sever her rights as the biological parent. 'From hospital policies to custody laws, school registration and passport applications,' Eve said, 'raising our kids has been impacted by our marriage.' Related : Eve, however, had never wanted to get married. 'I associated the institution of marriage with treating women like property,' she said. 'But I envisioned a life in love.' Despite that feeling, she found herself waiting in line next to Brenda at City Hall in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at 2 p.m. May 16, 2004. At midnight, along with nearly 250 other couples, they were among the first same-sex couples in the city to receive marriage licenses. Advertisement Later, they had 75 close friends and family come for an interfaith service, led by a lesbian rabbi, at a historic estate in Arlington, Massachusetts. 'We felt blessed and very, very lucky,' Brenda, 54, said. 'The legal wins were huge, but they don't mean we're fully equal,' Eve, 52, said. 'In this political climate, rights we fought so hard for are being rolled back overnight. The hate is louder. The threats are real. Marriage equality was never the endgame; it was a beginning. We're still fighting to feel safe, seen and secure in our own country.' From left, Mike Horgan and his husband, Ed Balmelli, at their home in Boston. SOPHIE PARK/NYT Mike Horgan and Ed Balmelli Boston Over the course of 20 years of marriage, Ed Balmelli and Mike Horgan both lost their parents. Beyond sharing their grief, they said, their marriage also saved them from additional anguish as they made funeral arrangements and divided their parents' assets with their siblings. They were also listed in the obituaries in the same manner as their married siblings. In 2000, the couple traveled to Vermont to have a civil union ceremony. 'That was the closest thing we could do to get married,' Ed said. 'But then you tell people, 'We're a civil union,' and they're like, 'What does that mean?'' Questions like that convinced the couple to join the lawsuit. 'My feeling on it was that if this era got by us and we weren't involved, I think I would regret that,' Mike said. 'I think it's the most important thing that we've ever done in our lives.' They no longer have to explain their relationship, and when their parents died, they were treated like their many siblings in their large Irish families. Advertisement As Ed, 65, and Mike, 66, celebrated their 20th anniversary last year, they said their joy had been tempered by their concerns about the Supreme Court. After the court legalized same-sex marriage across the country, Mike said, 'we had the feeling that we were done fighting now, we can rest easy. But, he said, 'if they can take away a woman's right to an abortion, they can take anything away.' David Wilson spoke in Arlington as his husband Robert Compton looked on. John Tlumacki/Globe Staff David Wilson and Robert Compton Provincetown, Massachusetts Two decades after Rob Compton married David Wilson, he said he has to explain to his grandchildren why their wedding was such a big deal in 2004. 'Today, we have no qualms about it,' he said. But young people, he said, 'just don't get' why so many were against it at the time. Related : Both men had been married to women and had children, and knew that marriage provided tangible benefits. 'If you say, 'We're married,' immediately, everybody knows what that means, and they treat you accordingly,' David, 81, said. Rob had been the head of a large dental group practice in Michigan when he came out in 1994. When his partners in the practice later asked him to resign, without giving cause, he said, he refused. He was then fired. (He sued for wrongful termination and won the case and the appeal.) By the spring of 1996, he had moved to Massachusetts, one of the few states at the time that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing and other services. He met David soon afterward; they moved in together and had a commitment ceremony in 2000. During an overnight emergency room visit for a kidney stone, David was denied access to Rob's room. It was a shocking way for them to learn the limits of the state anti-discrimination laws. 'It made me aware of the fact that I have individual rights in Massachusetts and some workplace protections,' Rob, 76, said, even as he and David were denied the federal rights and protections that straight married couples enjoyed. Advertisement That episode, Rob said, convinced the couple that they should become part of the Goodridge lawsuit. Today, they said, they are hopeful about the changes that have taken place in the last 50 years. 'When David and I were young in the '50s and '60s, you would never admit you were queer,' Rob said. Now 'a lot of young people today feel empowered to just be themselves. That's a huge swing.' From left, Heidi and Gina Nortonsmith in Northampton. JAROD LEW/NYT Gina and Heidi Nortonsmith Northampton, Massachusetts For years after Heidi Nortonsmith and Gina Nortonsmith were legally married, they carried their marriage certificate everywhere they went. It afforded them 'a measure of security for when we traveled out of state or needed to make our way to the hospital for a family emergency,' Heidi said. The couple, who have been together since 1990, held a commitment ceremony in 1993. Heidi gave birth to their children, Avery, in 1996, and Quinn, in 2000. Gina was not legally recognized as a parent until she completed the process of adopting them, about a year after each was born. Even so, they considered themselves lucky. 'We live in Northampton; it was a very supportive community,' Gina said. 'We were already out. We each had very supportive families. We were not in danger of losing a job because of it.' Gina and Heidi, both 60, gave their two sons the last name Nortonsmith -- a combination of their family names. After they were married, they legally changed their last names, too. 'That was the day that we all became Nortonsmiths,' Gina said. It took a decade for the couple to be comfortable traveling without their marriage certificate. 'Without even noticing a precise moment,' Heidi said, 'we'd each become comfortable, in the sense that our marriage would be understood and respected, no matter where we traveled throughout the country.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California court upholds John Eastman's disbarment for role in Trump 2020 plot
A California court has upheld a recommendation that attorney John Eastman should lose his law license because of his central role in President Donald Trump's effort to subvert the 2020 election. A three-judge 'review panel' of the California State Bar Court found that Eastman's conduct was so egregious — and his remorse so lacking — that the only remedy was to permanently prohibit him from practicing law. 'Eastman continues to fully deny his many unethical actions: he denies he misled the courts; he denies that he made multiple false and misleading statements … he denies that he conspired to subvert the law in order to benefit his client's desire to remain in office after his client lost a fair and lawfully conducted election,' Judge Kearse McGill wrote in the panel's unanimous ruling. 'He used his skills to push a false narrative in the courtroom, in the White House, and in the media. That false narrative resulted in the undermining of our country's electoral process, reduced faith in election professionals, and lessened respect for the courts of this land,' the judges concluded. A judge of the State Bar Court, Yvette Roland, had recommended Eastman's disbarment last year, a ruling that immediately resulted in Eastman's suspension from practicing law. The 'review panel' ruling backs up Roland's conclusion. Eastman's next step is the California Supreme Court, which has the final say over attorney discipline matters. While that's typically the end of the line, Eastman hinted he may intend to pursue his grievances against the process in federal court. 'Dr. Eastman is disappointed in the Review Court's opinion, and believes that its analysis and conclusions are not substantiated by the truth, the record, or the law,' his attorney Randall Miller said in a statement. 'Dr. Eastman will seek further review of the Review Court's decision in the California Supreme Court and, if necessary, beyond, and is highly confident of his ultimate vindication.' Eastman, who was recruited to join Trump's legal team in the aftermath of his defeat at the polls in the 2020 election, became an increasingly prominent figure in Trump's orbit as his bid to reverse the results grew desperate. Eastman helped draft legal efforts to challenge the outcome in key swing states — filings that the court found were riddled with unverified, false and misleading information. And he authored Trump's brief to the Supreme Court that served as Trump's last-ditch legal effort to halt his defeat. But it was after those efforts failed that Eastman's most memorable work began. Working with other fringe figures in Trump's orbit — after many of his campaign lawyers and Republican Party officials had told him the election was lost — Eastman helped craft a strategy to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence to block Joe Biden's victory during the Jan. 6, 2021, count of electoral votes. Pence resisted, despite pressure from Eastman and Trump, triggering a pro-Trump mob to riot and eventually breach the Capitol, forcing Pence and Congress to flee. Eastman and a handful of Trump's other attorneys have been among the few to reap consequences for their role in the 2020 election saga. Disciplinary panels in Washington, D.C., have similarly found that attorney Rudy Giuliani should be disbarred and former Justice Department lawyer Jeff Clark should be suspended from practicing law. The ruling is still under review and has not yet been implemented. Clark, Giuliani and Eastman have also been criminally charged for their roles, though the cases have been mired in pretrial disputes.
Politico
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
California court upholds John Eastman's disbarment for role in Trump 2020 plot
A California court has upheld a recommendation that attorney John Eastman should lose his law license because of his central role in President Donald Trump's effort to subvert the 2020 election. A three-judge 'review panel' of the California State Bar Court found that Eastman's conduct was so egregious — and his remorse so lacking — that the only remedy was to permanently prohibit him from practicing law. 'Eastman continues to fully deny his many unethical actions: he denies he misled the courts; he denies that he made multiple false and misleading statements … he denies that he conspired to subvert the law in order to benefit his client's desire to remain in office after his client lost a fair and lawfully conducted election,' Judge Kearse McGill wrote in the panel's unanimous ruling. 'He used his skills to push a false narrative in the courtroom, in the White House, and in the media. That false narrative resulted in the undermining of our country's electoral process, reduced faith in election professionals, and lessened respect for the courts of this land,' the judges concluded. A judge of the State Bar Court, Yvette Roland, had recommended Eastman's disbarment last year, a ruling that immediately resulted in Eastman's suspension from practicing law. The 'review panel' ruling backs up Roland's conclusion. Eastman's next step is the California Supreme Court, which has the final say over attorney discipline matters. While that's typically the end of the line, Eastman hinted he may intend to pursue his grievances against the process in federal court. 'Dr. Eastman is disappointed in the Review Court's opinion, and believes that its analysis and conclusions are not substantiated by the truth, the record, or the law,' his attorney Randall Miller said in a statement. 'Dr. Eastman will seek further review of the Review Court's decision in the California Supreme Court and, if necessary, beyond, and is highly confident of his ultimate vindication.' Eastman, who was recruited to join Trump's legal team in the aftermath of his defeat at the polls in the 2020 election, became an increasingly prominent figure in Trump's orbit as his bid to reverse the results grew desperate. Eastman helped draft legal efforts to challenge the outcome in key swing states — filings that the court found were riddled with unverified, false and misleading information. And he authored Trump's brief to the Supreme Court that served as Trump's last-ditch legal effort to halt his defeat. But it was after those efforts failed that Eastman's most memorable work began. Working with other fringe figures in Trump's orbit — after many of his campaign lawyers and Republican Party officials had told him the election was lost — Eastman helped craft a strategy to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence to block Joe Biden's victory during the Jan. 6, 2021, count of electoral votes. Pence resisted, despite pressure from Eastman and Trump, triggering a pro-Trump mob to riot and eventually breach the Capitol, forcing Pence and Congress to flee. Eastman and a handful of Trump's other attorneys have been among the few to reap consequences for their role in the 2020 election saga. Disciplinary panels in Washington, D.C., have similarly found that attorney Rudy Giuliani should be disbarred and former Justice Department lawyer Jeff Clark should be suspended from practicing law. The ruling is still under review and has not yet been implemented. Clark, Giuliani and Eastman have also been criminally charged for their roles, though the cases have been mired in pretrial disputes.
