How a 77-year-old Manson follower has Newsom in familiar bind
The Board of Parole Hearings, whose members were appointed by the governor, voted Friday to grant parole to Krenwinkel, the state's longest-serving female prisoner. The board had ruled against her 14 times before recommending parole in 2022, but Newsom vetoed her release, saying she had not shown 'sufficient insight' into her crimes.
The governor gave a similar explanation in 2022 for vetoing the parole of another Manson follower, Leslie Van Houten, whose release had been approved five times by the parole board since 2016 but blocked each time by Govs. Jerry Brown and Newsom.
But a state appeals court ruled in 2023 that Newsom had failed to justify his conclusions that Van Houten, 73, lacked sufficient understanding of her actions and could still be dangerous after 54 years in prison. She was freed after the governor decided not to appeal the ruling.
'The only factor that can explain this veto (of Van Houten's parole) is political optics, and California law does not allow governors to veto people's parole because it will look bad,' said Hadar Aviram, a professor at UC College of the Law San Francisco and author of the 2020 book 'Yesterday's Monsters: The Manson Family Cases and the Illusion of Parole.'
And she said the same thinking will most likely affect Newsom's upcoming decision on Krenwinkel, once the parole board's decision becomes final in 120 days.
'What does he think people have an appetite for in this political reality?' Aviram asked, noting California voters' approval last November of Proposition 36, which increased some sentences for drug crimes. 'It costs him nothing to oppose (her release). In the worst-case scenario, the court overrules him again and she gets out.'
Manson ordered seven of his followers, including the 21-year-old Krenwinkel and two other young women, to kill nine people in three gruesome attacks in the Benedict Canyon area of Los Angeles in July and August 1969.
During her trial, Krenwinkel admitted chasing Abigail Folger, heiress of the Folger coffee family, and stabbing her 25 times in the home of actress Sharon Tate, another murder victim, and then helping to kill grocery store executive Leno Bianca and his wife, Rosemary, and using their blood to scrawl 'Death to pigs' on a wall.
Convicted of seven murders, Krenwinkel was sentenced to death along with Manson and three others in 1971. But the sentences were reduced to life with the possibility of parole after the California Supreme Court overturned the state's death penalty law in 1972.
The voters passed a new law in 1977 making capital crimes punishable by death or life in prison without the possibility of parole, but those sentenced under the earlier law, including Krenwinkel, remained eligible for parole. Another ballot measure, approved by the voters in 1988, authorized the governor to veto decisions by the parole board.
In prison, Krenwinkel has a clean disciplinary record, earned a college degree and has taken part in community-service programs, working to support other inmates with mental illnesses. At her 2022 parole hearing, she said that after dropping out of school and becoming an infatuated member of Manson's so-called family at age 19, 'I allowed myself to just start absolutely becoming devoid of any form of morality or real ethics.'
In a statement released by Krenwinkel's lawyers, Jane Dorotik, a former inmate and now part of the support group California Coalition for Women Prisoners, said, 'Those of us who served time with her came to know her as a thoughtful, gentle, and kind person – someone deeply dedicated to creating a safe, caring environment.'
Relatives of the murder victims have not been persuaded.
'I beg the board to consider parole for Patricia Krenwinkel only when her victims are paroled from their graves,' Anthony Demaria, a nephew of victim Jay Sebring, testified at one of her hearings.
And Patrick Sequeira, a prosecutor in the murder cases, told the board that if Krenwinkel 'truly understood her crimes and the horrific nature of it, she wouldn't be here at a parole hearing. She would just accept a punishment.'
Not so, said her lead attorney, Keith Wattley, executive director of UnCommon Law, an Oakland-based firm that represents inmates seeking parole.
'Pat has fully accepted responsibility for everything she did, everything she contributed to, every twisted philosophy she embraced and endorsed and, most importantly, every life she destroyed by her actions in 1969,' Wattley said in a statement after the board's latest decision.
'Now it's the Governor's turn to show that he believes in law and order when the law requires a person's release despite public outcry.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California can never win a race to the bottom with Trump on redistricting
If California's ruling Democrats were wise, they'd use this moment to introduce reforms that would enhance democracy — and even boost Republican representation in California's Legislature and congressional delegation. But they're not that smart. Instead, Gov. Gavin Newsom is leading his state and the national Democratic Party into a contest of anti-democratic tactics with MAGA Republicans. For starters, this is a competition over which side can best exploit the legislative redistricting process to lock up Congressional seats in the 2026 election. That's a contest that Californians simply can't win. We're never going to out-autocrat or out-authoritarian President Donald Trump. Why would we ever want to? Newsom answers that question with what he and other Democrats claim is hard-headed realism. Trump is trying to gerrymander Texas and GOP states to steal U.S. House seats and retain MAGA control of Congress. So, Newsom says, blue states must 'fight fire with fire' and gerrymander to steal additional seats of their own. Fighting Trump is righteous, but this strategy is a loser, for several reasons. The first is practical: It won't work. Republicans control more state legislatures (28) than Democrats (18), and thus have more opportunities to gerrymander more seats in their favor. Escalating the gerrymandering fight will produce more Democratic losses. Second, it's legally and constitutionally risky. California's independent citizens redistricting commission, which draws lines based on keeping communities together (rather than politics), was approved by voters and is popular. Newsom, by gerrymandering, would replace the commission's map with legally dubious ones. California's own courts could find Newsom's move unconstitutional. And California voters could block the maps in a special election — and then punish the Democrats for their anti-democratic behavior in the 2026 election. Even worse, using anti-democratic tactics against Trump validates his authoritarianism. The fight against Trump shouldn't become just another partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans. Instead, it must be framed as a fight between democratic self-government and a would-be dictator. To win that contest, California must demonstrate that it is a leader — a major global actor, relentlessly committed to freedom and democracy, despite attacks from the fascist American government. But Newsom's gerrymandering gambit diminishes California, making us just another large state with a dominant political party using its might to determine election outcomes. So, what should California do instead? The only way to beat the awful MAGA authoritarians is by enhancing democracy — and showing a commitment to empowering the people, even if it brings your side political costs. A true democracy is one where even political losers feel like winners. Which is why Newsom and state leaders should make California more democratic, not less. And they should demonstrate that with reforms that would give Republicans more democratic representation in California. First, California and its Democrats should enact proportional representation, the fairest way to divide up legislative seats. Right now, Republicans get about 40% of the votes for Congress and the Legislature in California, but they have less than one-quarter of the representatives. That's because the current winner-take-all system awards each legislative district only one representative. A proportional system would allocate representation based on voting percentage and would likely give the GOP 40% of the seats, nearly doubling the percentage of today's Republican minorities in the Legislature and Congress. National Democrats would go crazy at boosting Republicans. But so what? National Democrats never get strategy right. Right now, turning the other cheek — enhancing democracy instead of engaging in anti-democratic war — would be the real gangster move. It would awaken a country all too accustomed to endless political escalations. And it would demonstrate that California, at least, is dedicated to fighting for democratic representation for all. Even some Republicans would be impressed and appreciative. Second, California should combine proportional representation with the elimination of rules that make it hard for smaller political parties to form and compete in politics. This change would reduce the power of MAGA because Republicans who don't like Trump could form separate parties. Dividing Californians into more parties would inspire political coalition-making. And it would avoid a war over redistricting that distracts from the righteous fights we need to have. While Democratic politicians obsess about gerrymandering and their own seats, they are failing to provide Californians the protections we need right now. The state has done far too little to mitigate against Trump's budget cuts and dismantling of federal agencies. California law enforcement is failing to investigate and hold accountable the federal agents acting as secret police on our streets. When will California leaders go on offense? Why aren't we taking the fiscal fight to Trump by seizing federal property or organizing tax strikes? Where are the initiatives to establish legal autonomy or even nationhood for California? Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Will UCLA wilt like an Ivy? Trump extortion threat is the ultimate test
California's public universities have the chance to do something elite Ivy League schools didn't have the guts to: stand up to Donald Trump's latest extortion plot. Trump is demanding $1 billion in California taxpayer dollars to avoid a lawsuit over the administration's finding that the campus broke the law in its handling of antisemitism claims last year. Presumably the payout would mean the administration would also agree to restore hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding it recently yanked. (Californians already pay $83 billion more in taxes than we receive in federal benefits as a state.) Plus, according to terms of the proposed settlement as CNN reported Friday, Trump wants to prohibit overnight demonstrations, require UCLA to discontinue race- and ethnicity-based scholarships, and provide a resolution monitor with admissions data. UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk said in a letter to the university community this week that $584 million 'is suspended and at risk.' The loss of those funds, Frenk said, would 'be devastating for UCLA and for Americans across the nation.' The Trump administration has already blocked more than $5 billion in funding from at least seven private universities: Harvard ($2.3 billion), Cornell ($1 billion), Northwestern ($790 million), Brown ($510 million), Columbia ($400 million), Duke ($108 million) and the University of Pennsylvania ($175 million). San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, a Harvard Law grad, assessed the situation best. He described Trump's shakedown as 'classic mob boss behavior' and said 'far too many major institutions are caving to this fascist.' 'The idea that UCLA would pay Trump tribute (California taxpayer dollars), adopt his bigoted policies, or give him even an ounce of control of the University's operations turns my stomach and should turn the stomach of every Californian. I'm confident UCLA will not enter into such an agreement, since doing so would violate California law, would violate our state's core values, and would be straight up morally unacceptable,' Wiener wrote in a statement. Gov. Gavin Newsom also urged the UC to stay strong, unlike the paper tigers of the Ivy League, against what he described Friday as Trump 'threaten(ing) us through extortion with a billion-dollar fine unless we do his bidding.' 'We're not Brown, we're not Columbia, and I'm not going to be governor if we act like that, period full stop,' Newsom said Thursday in San Francisco when I asked him whether the UC should cut a deal with Trump. 'I will fight like hell to make sure that doesn't happen. There's principles, there's right and wrong, and we'll do the right thing. And what President Trump is doing is wrong, and everybody knows it.' On Friday, after the DOJ floated the $1 billion ransom, Newsom doubled down: 'We will not be complicit in this kind of attack on academic freedom, on this extraordinary public institution. We are not like some of those other institutions that have followed a different path.' California has always billed itself as a backstop against Trump. But it's hard to imagine a more clear and urgent test of whether it will live up to that role. There is a lot at stake here, as all 10 UC campuses rank among the top research universities in the world, according to the U.S. News & World Report 2025-26 Best Global Universities ranking in June. UC researchers produce four new inventions a day and the system is home to nearly 300 of the world's top researchers. Fueled by federal funding, UC researchers conduct 8% of all academic research in the U.S. (Full disclosure: I'm the very proud father of a UC Davis graduate. Go, Aggies!) Top UC campuses usually land near the Ivies in rankings of top colleges and compete for the nation's elite students. They frequently outperform the more expensive Ivies in terms of a financial return on investment, according to a 2022 study by Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce. 'They have the power and the position and the funding to hold the line and serve as an example to universities,' Veena Dubal, a professor of law at UC Irvine and general counsel to the American Association of University Professors, told WBUR. Ivy Leaguers, meanwhile, love to brag about how many A-list lawyers they mint — including eight of the nine current Supreme Court Justices. But what good is all that power if they couldn't tap their elite alums to fight back against Trump? Instead, they wilted. They did what the wealthy often do when confronted with a difficult situation: They bought their way out. Columbia paid $220 million in 'tribute' to Don Donald. Brown paid $50 million to the state of Rhode Island, adopted the federal government's definition of 'male' and 'female,' and promised to remove any consideration of race from the admissions process, according to NPR. Harvard is willing to pay up to $500 million, the New York Times reported, a figure Harvard denied. The Ivy grads among you might be asking: Why doesn't the UC just pay Trump to go away? First, UC, which relies heavily on public funding, doesn't have the deep pockets the privately funded Ivies do. And there are strict rules on what the UC can tap its endowment for. (Paying off mob bosses is not on the list.) 'Withdrawals are limited to a portion of interest earnings from the funds and only a limited amount of annual earned income can be withdrawn and spent in any given year. Those funds are not sufficient to replace the state and federal funds that UC relies on for its day-to-day operating costs,' according to the UC. But there's a more existential reason the system cannot pay this ransom: As anyone familiar with a mob shakedown knows, once you start paying for 'protection,' you can't stop. Even more insidious is that Trump is cloaking his shakedown in the guise of addressing antisemitism on campus. To appease him, the Ivy League agreed to take certain Trump-approved steps to address such allegations. 'Trump is now using Jews as human shields to achieve political goals having nothing to do with antisemitism,' said Wiener, a co-chair of the Legislative Jewish Caucus who has faced antisemitic attacks while in office. 'Trump doesn't give a damn about Jews or antisemitism. He has antisemites in his Administration, he tried to elect a Nazi-aligned government in Germany, he dined with Nazi Nick Fuentes, and he spread antisemitic conspiracy theories. … Revoking science research funding in the name of the Jews is utterly is making Jews less safe, and he's making it harder for us to fight actual antisemitism.' So the next move is yours, UC. The system has long competed with the Ivies for students, talent and prestige. Now it could have the ultimate, well, trump card: It could say it refused to buckle when the very future of higher education was on the line.
Miami Herald
15 hours ago
- Miami Herald
With TX lawmakers in toe, CA Dems tie redistricting efforts to Trump opposition
Six Texas state Democrats appeared in Sacramento on Friday, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and said despite legal threats, they would not back down from their efforts to retaliate against Republican efforts to recarve congressional districts. In June, Trump began pressing Texas Republican leaders to consider redrawing their congressional districts to ensure the GOP retained its razor-thin House majority in the 2026 midterms. Dozens of Texas Democrats fled Austin Sunday to California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts to break the Republicans' quorum and stop them from moving forward. In response, Texas GOP leaders have issued arrest warrants, issued the lawmakers $500 daily fines, and filed lawsuits to force them from office. 'We are running from nothing,' Texas Rep. Ann Johnson said during a press conference with Newsom, Pelosi, and other California Democrats. 'We are running to the front lines to stand with other Democrats across the state of Texas, across the state of California, across this nation, to ensure that each and every individual has the opportunity to pick, to decide that government is for the people by the people, and not the politicians selecting them.' Newsom has become the Democrats' most public champion to respond in kind by asking the legislature to approve a November special election that would ask California voters to temporarily approve new congressional boundaries. He and state leaders tied their efforts, which would move more liberal voters to five districts currently held by Republicans, to voters' growing discontent with Trump on issues like immigration enforcement, tariffs, and a $1 billion fine that his administration levied on UCLA this week, which Newsom called 'extortion.' 'That's what's at stake with this all about elevating the deeper consciousness of the line that Donald Trump continues to cross,' Newsom told reporters. 'It's not about him playing by a different set of rules. There are no rules for Donald Trump. This is a serious moment in American history.' Pelosi compared the absconding Texas Democrats to the Founding Fathers, calling them 'defenders of democracy.' 'We thank you not only for your courage, but for your patriotism,' she said. 'At the beginning of our country, Thomas Paine said, 'The times have found us.' And now the times have found us, especially our Texas delegation, to save our constitution.' Legislative Democrats overcame their initial reticence and have thrown their weight behind Newsom, who has asked that new maps be drawn for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles. If he succeeds, congressional redistricting power would revert back after 2030 to the independent Citizen Redistricting Commission. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said Friday that the map would come out next week, ahead of the Aug. 22 deadline that Secretary of State Shirley Weber set for lawmakers to decide if the election will take place. The Legislature returns from summer break on Aug. 18, and is expected to immediately begin work on related legislation. The Republican effort to redraw districts in their favor has now expanded to Indiana, Missouri, and Florida, all states where redistricting power lies with Republican-held legislatures, making it likely that even if California successfully redistricts, it won't be enough to offset the GOP's gains. Newsom said few other states could act with the 'scale and scope' of California: 'It's always the right thing to do the right thing.' 'California has to be prepared to respond. It is our sacred responsibility to California, to our country, and we know that there is no bottom to Trump's dystopian plan,' said Senate President pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Santa Rosa. 'I'm firm in my belief that if the legislature puts a redistricting initiative on the ballot, I believe the people of the Golden State will do the right thing. I trust the voters of California more than I would ever trust Trump and his lackeys in Texas.'
