Category Archives: Uncategorized
Court Grants Van Houten Parole
Tuesday, May 30th, 2023
APPELLATE COURT’S RULING ON VAN HOUTEN PAROLE
May 30 – The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The Governor’s decision reversing the Board of Parole Hearings’ July 2020 decision finding Leslie Van Houten suitable for parole is vacated, the grant of parole is reinstated, and the Board of Parole Hearings is directed to conduct its usual proceedings for a release on parole. (See In re Lira (2014) 58 Cal.4th 573, 582.)
– Bendix & Chaney.
I conclude the record contains some evidence Van Houten lacked insight into the commitment offense. Coupled with the heinous nature of that crime, this is sufficient under Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1214, to provide some evidence of current dangerousness and support the Governor’s decision. Accordingly, I would deny Van Houten’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
According to Mary Xjimenez, from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation:
Appellate court decisions become final after 30 days, and then there are 10 days where review can be sought in the California Supreme Court. (Cal. Rules Ct., rules 8.490, subd. (b)(2); 8.500, subd. (e).) The Governor may seek review for such court decisions, or the court can review such decisions on its own motion. (Cal Rules Ct., rule 8.512.).
If an appellate court’s decision becomes final, the case will be returned to the Board of Parole Hearings to consider any recent developments that might justify rescinding the parole grant. (In re Lira (2014) 58 Cal.4th 573, 582.). If there is no such change or new information, the Board will issue a release memo and CDCR will process the person for release.
Appellate Court to Hear Van Houten Case
Thursday, January 26th, 2023
Jan. 26 –An appellate court panel has granted Leslie Van Houten a hearing regarding Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her July 2020 parole recommendation. The hearing will take place in Los Angeles on March 16, with a three-justice panel hearing arguments from Van Houten’s attorneys and the Attorney General.
The California Board of Parole Hearings found Van Houten suitable for parole on July 23, 2020. Governor Gavin Newsom reversed the decision four months later, stating:
“Given the extreme nature of the crime in which she was involved, I do not believe she has sufficiently demonstrated that she has come to terms with the totality of the factors that led her to participate in the vicious Manson Family killings.”
Van Houten’s attorneys petitioned the Superior Court to throw out Newsom’s reversal, arguing the Governor failed to prove Van Houten currently posed an unreasonable risk.
Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Coen denied Van Houten’s petition and upheld Newsom’s reversal, saying the record contained some evidence to support Newsom’s decision; the nature of the commitment offense, an unsupportive psychological evaluation, lack of insight and minimization.
Van Houten’s attorneys took the matter to the appellate court, filing a petition arguing that Newsom’s reversal violated her due process; failed to assess her overall record; relied heavily on the gravity of the commitment offense; and that it established a parole standard that Van Houten could never meet, turning her sentence into a de facto sentence of life without parole.
According to Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Heinisch, Van Houten is asking the court to discount the Governor’s conclusions while giving greater weight to the positive aspects of her record.
“The Governor’s decision is the result of his independent assessment of Van Houten’s individual public safety risk and his determination that her inconsistent responses to the Board and evaluators, even decades after the Manson Family murders and significant efforts in rehabilitation, demonstrate ‘gaps in [her] insight or candor, or both.’” wrote Heinisch, in a brief filed with the court on January 20. “The Governor’s findings are reasonably supported by some evidence in the record.”
Van Houten, was sentenced to death in 1971 for her part in the August 10, 1969 murder deaths of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. The following year, Van Houten saw her sentence commuted to life after the California supreme court outlawed the death penalty, stating it was unconstitutional. In 1976, an appeals court ruled Van Houten was denied a fair trial because her attorney, Ronald Hughes, disappeared while the trial was in progress.
Van Houten was retried in 1977, resulting in a hung jury. She was retried the following year and again convicted, this time sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Because of time served on her original sentence, Van Houten was already eligible for parole when she returned to prison in August of 1978.
Since then, she has been denied parole 19 times. She has been recommended for parole in her last five consecutive parole hearings. All five of Van Houten’s parole recommendations have been reversed by the Governor.
Last November, Van Houten elected to waive her parole hearing for one year, deciding to wait for the courts to rule on her 4th and 5th reversals.
Her next parole hearing is tentatively scheduled for May of 2024.
Updated 2/3/23 – The People’s 1/30/23 Supplemental Return: In Re Palmer
Updated 2/24/23 – Van Houten’s 2/17/23 Traverse to Respondent’s Reply to the Order to Show Cause
Updated 3/8/23 – Van Houten’s 3/2/23 Supplemental Return Reply: In Re Palmer
Updated 3/13/23 – With instructions on how you can watch the hearing.
Newsom Reverses Krenwinkel’s Parole Grant
Friday, October 14th, 2022
GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S RULING ON PATRICIA KRENWINKEL’S 2022 PAROLE RECOMMENDATION
Oct. 14 – In 1967, 19-year-old Patricia Krenwinkel met 33-year-old Charles Manson and became his girlfriend and a member of his cult, “the Family.” The cult believed that an apocalyptic race war, which they called “Helter Skelter,” was imminent. They planned to hide in the desert until it ended, at which point they planned to seize control of the world. In 1969, Mr. Manson decided it was the cult’s responsibility to initiate Helter Skelter by killing white victims, thereby inciting retaliatory violence against Black people.
On August 9, 1969, Ms. Krenwinkel, who was then 21 years old, and three other Family members drove to the home of actress Sharon Tate where she was hosting three guests: Abigail Folger, Wojiciech Frykowski, and Jay Sebring. Ms. Krenwinkel and her crime partners broke into the home and one of Ms. Krenwinkel’s crime partners shot Mr. Sebring in the head. Ms. Folger and Mr. Frykowski tried to escape but Ms. Krenwinkel and a crime partner chased them, and Ms. Krenwinkel caught Ms. Folger and stabbed her 28 times, killing her. A crime partner then fatally shot Mr. Frykowski. Ms. Krenwinkel or one or more of her crime partners tied ropes around the necks of Mr. Sebring and Ms. Tate and her two crime partners stabbed them repeatedly, killing them. Ms. Tate was eight months pregnant when she was killed. The group wrote “pig” in blood on the front door before fleeing.
The next night, Mr. Manson, Ms. Krenwinkel, and four crime partners drove to the home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Mr. Manson entered the home, then he left. One crime partner put a pillowcase over Mrs. LaBianca’s head and attempted to strangle her with an electrical cord. Ms. Krenwinkel stabbed Mrs. LaBianca in the neck and struck her collar bone, which bent the knife’s blade. Ms. Krenwinkel’s crime partners then repeatedly and fatally stabbed Mrs. LaBianca. Ms. Krenwinkel’s crime partners also fatally stabbed Mr. LaBianca. Before leaving the crime scene, Mr. Manson had told Ms. Krenwinkel to do something “witchy,” so she stabbed Mr. LaBianca’s body with a fork and used blood to write “Death to Pigs,” “Rise,” and “Healter [sic] Skelter” on the walls. The next morning, Mrs. LaBianca’s teenaged son discovered Mr. LaBianca’s body with a knife stuck in his neck, a carving fork protruding from his stomach, and the word “war” carved into his skin.
After the murders, Ms. Krenwinkel fled to Alabama until she was extradited to California in February 1970.
The Board of Parole Hearings (The Board) has conducted 16 parole hearings for Ms. Krenwinkel since she became eligible for parole in 1977. The Board has found Ms. Krenwinkel unsuitable for parole 14 times and she stipulated to unsuitability once in 2002. The Board found her suitable for parole at her hearing on May 26, 2022. This decision follows.
The California Constitution grants me the authority to review proposed decisions of the Board. (Cal. Const. art. V, § 8, subd. (b).) I am given broad discretion to determine an inmate’s suitability for parole and may affirm, reverse, modify, or refer back to the Board any grant of parole to a person convicted of murder serving an indeterminate life sentence. (Id.; Pen. Code, § 3041.2; see In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 625-26; In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1080, 1082, 1088.) I am authorized to identify and weigh all “factors relevant to predicting ‘whether the inmate will be able to live in society without committing additional antisocial acts.’” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1205-06, quoting In re Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 655.)
When the Board proposes that an inmate convicted of murder be released on parole, I am authorized to conduct an independent, de novo review of the entire record, including “the facts of the offense, the inmate’s progress during incarceration, and the insight he or she has achieved into past behavior,” to determine the inmate’s suitability for parole. (In re Shaputis II (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 221.) My review is independent of the Board’s authority, but it is guided by the same “essential” question: whether the inmate currently poses a risk to public safety. (Cal. Const. art. V, § 8, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 3041.2; In re Shaputis II, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 220-21.)
The circumstances of the crime can provide evidence of current dangerousness when evidence in the inmate’s pre- or post-incarceration history, or the inmate’s current mental state, indicate that the crime remains probative of current dangerousness. (In re Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1214.) In rare cases, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole, even when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness exists. (Ibid.)
I am also required to give “great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner” when determining a youthful offender’s suitability for parole. (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).) I further must afford special consideration to whether age, the amount of time served, and diminished physical condition reduce the inmate’s risk of future violence. (See Feb. 10, 2014 order issued in Coleman v. Brown, Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK-DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal.) and Plata v. Brown, Case No. C01-01351 TEH (N.D. Cal.).)
After an independent and thorough review, the evidence establishes that Ms. Krenwinkel is not suitable for parole and cannot be safely released from prison at this time. She currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
In the cases of inmates who commit their crimes when they are under 26 years old, I am required to review the record for evidence of factors relevant to their diminished culpability as youthful offenders and any subsequent growth and increased maturity. Ms. Krenwinkel was 21 years old when she committed the life crimes. She had graduated high school and completed a semester of college. She left school, started to use drugs, and decided to follow Mr. Manson. The psychologist who evaluated her in 2022 wrote that Ms. Krenwinkel “exhibited several hallmark features of youth,” including “impulsivity, immaturity, excessive risk taking, recklessness, low self-control, an imperviousness to negative outcomes, a susceptibility to Mr. Manson’s influence, coercion, and abuse, indoctrination into a cult, and a lessened ability to extricate herself from her environment at home and in the Manson group.”
I have also examined the record for all evidence of Ms. Krenwinkel’s subsequent growth and increased maturity in prison as set forth in youth offender laws. Ms. Krenwinkel has demonstrated positive institutional conduct. She has never been disciplined while in prison and only twice cited for minor infractions, last in 2005 for violating a posted housing unit rule. Ms. Krenwinkel has also engaged in considered reflection on her crime. During her risk assessment and at her parole hearing she demonstrated effusive remorse for her leadership role in the Family that empowered Mr. Manson, and her violent criminal conduct. Ms. Krenwinkel has also made efforts to improve herself in prison. She earned an associate degree and a bachelor’s degree in prison and completed four vocations, including recently earning a certificate in dog training. She has engaged in significant self-help programming. Since her last parole denial in 2017, she has focused on programming that addresses her history of antisocial thinking.
After assessing Ms. Krenwinkel and giving great weight to the relevant youthful offender factors, I conclude that these mitigating factors are outweighed by negative factors that demonstrate she remains unsuitable for parole at this time. While Ms. Krenwinkel has matured in prison and engaged in commendable rehabilitative efforts, her efforts have not sufficiently reduced her risk for future dangerousness.
Specifically, Ms. Krenwinkel has not developed sufficient insight into the causative factors of her crime and her triggers for antisocial thinking and conduct in the context of maladaptive relationships. Ms. Krenwinkel committed her life crimes in the context of a romantic relationship with Mr. Manson, which was marked by coercive control and violence. The psychologist who evaluated Ms. Krenwinkel in 2022 wrote, “Ms. Krenwinkel had historical problems with relationships and traumatic experiences, both of which are highly relevant to mitigating risk of future violence…. Her relationship with [Mr.] Manson involved abuse and manipulation on his part as well as infidelity, all of which she permitted and tolerated.” Ms. Krenwinkel fully accepted Mr. Manson’s racist, apocalyptical ideologies, and told the psychologist, “He was a survivalist to the max…racist to the max…we all accepted that. I believed in him…. I was in it completely. I was whatever he wanted it to be, was what I wanted it to be so I could be accepted.” She told the psychologist, “I felt he had control and I let him. I was completely dependent on him. I had no idea where we were going to or what we were doing. I let him take the wheel.” She asked why she stayed involved with the Family after Mr. Manson started exhibiting violent and disturbing conduct, she said, “It was tangled up with love…. I never felt strong enough to stand up to it. He would shut down feelings I had.” Ms. Krenwinkel demonstrated inadequate insight into why she was drawn to Mr. Manson, and so willing to follow him.
Ms. Krenwinkel was not only a victim of Mr. Manson’s abuse. She was also a significant contributor to the violence and tragedy that became the Manson Family’s legacy. Beyond the brutal murders she committed, she played a leadership role in the cult, and an enforcer of Mr. Manson’s tyranny. She forced the other women in the cult to obey Mr. Manson, and prevented them from escaping when they tried to leave. As Ms. Krenwinkel told her evaluating psychologist, “No one can be a leader unless someone props them up. I’m responsible for that…propping this man up, for giving him power. By agreeing and saying yes, I created this monster. I’m responsible.”
Ms. Krenwinkel’s candor about the corrosive dynamics of her relationship with Mr. Manson is an encouraging sign of her developing insight. It also, however, reveals the extreme degree to which her distorted thinking in toxic relationships and her susceptibility to negative influences remain highly relevant risk factors. Given the close nexus between these risk factors and her violent conduct, Ms. Krenwinkel’s current gaps in insight into these risk factors, and lack of related coping skills, make her unsuitable for parole at this time.
At her parole hearing, Ms. Krenwinkel accepted responsibility for her direct crimes, yet she continued to shift disproportionate blame to Mr. Manson for decisions and conduct within her control. When the psychologist asked Ms. Krenwinkel, “Did you plan the murders? Was there any premeditation at all?,” she responded, “No. I didn’t premeditate what we were going to do. I was not taken into the conversation.” Ms. Krenwinkel’s statement that she did not premeditate these murders is inaccurate. While Ms. Krenwinkel may not have been physically present for the discussions about these particular crimes, she admitted that, in the months before the murders, she willingly participated in weapons training in order to perpetrate a race war. The night after the murders at the Tate home, Ms. Krenwinkel willingly traveled to the LaBianca home where the intent was to inflict extreme violence on innocent people. This amounts to premeditation, and her statements to the contrary demonstrate that Ms. Krenwinkel continues to minimize her role in these crimes.
Ms. Krenwinkel’s account of her time in the Family reflects a significant lack of insight into her own internal processes that led to her decision to join, support, and help execute Mr. Manson’s terror campaign. During her evaluation, the psychologist asked Ms. Krenwinkel, “Did you know what you were doing when you stabbed the victims?” She responded, “Yes, I knew I was stabbing, I just didn’t care about anyone else’s lives. I didn’t have/hold anything sacred. I was a monster. I had nothing in me.” Ms. Krenwinkel summed up her time with the Family to the Board by saying, “I just kept accepting and allowing myself to go all along for the ride.” The deputy commissioner at her hearing summed up her response by describing her as a “homicidal robot.” However, Ms. Krenwinkel was not a homicidal robot—she was an adult who catered to the will of a violent and disturbed man. She made a series of conscious decisions over several years to continue her relationship with Mr. Manson, help him consolidate his power, and carry out acts of violence, even when he was not present to enforce them. Ms. Krenwinkel cannot be safely released until she improves her understanding of the internal processes that drew her to Mr. Manson and allowed her to remain in the harmful relationship for several years.
Ms. Krenwinkel also externalizes and shifts blame to Mr. Manson for her drug and alcohol use, which is another causative factor of her crime. When asked why she used drugs and hallucinogens, Ms. Krenwinkel replied, “I had to do it. I couldn’t get away from doing it. We had to take it as a group. It was part of accepting being there…part of the cult…you would take it. It wasn’t asked if you wanted to or not.” Ms. Krenwinkel, however, has also reported that she had used drugs since she was 15 years old. She told the psychologist that she had used alcohol, Benzedrine, and marijuana in high school and discussed how a friend visiting her during her junior year of high school introduced her to LSD. Ms. Krenwinkel’s drug use is a relevant risk factor especially because she had a prior history of drug abuse separate and apart from her relationship with Mr. Manson. Ms. Krenwinkel may benefit from additional self-help programming in order to better understand her substance abuse history, a key factor in preventing relapse.
Ms. Krenwinkel’s gaps in insight also bear on her ability to manage the unique stressors and public safety challenges she will face on parole. Ms. Krenwinkel committed crimes that were among the most fear-inducing in California’s history. While the crime facts are a static factor, Ms. Krenwinkel’s ability to manage the consequences of committing a notorious crime remains a highly relevant risk factor. Ms. Krenwinkel has acknowledged the challenges of living in the community as former Manson Family member. She has indicated, for example, that she would possibly need to change her name if released on parole. She did not, however, demonstrate an adequate understanding of, and strategies for handling, the significant challenges she will have to navigate.I have concluded that she must do additional work to identify these challenges and develop the skills and parole plans to address them in a prosocial way.
I have also given special consideration to the Elderly Parole factors for inmates convicted of murder who are older than 60 and who have served more than 25 years in prison. Ms. Krenwinkel is 74 years old and has served approximately 53 years in prison. The evaluating psychologist analyzed Ms. Krenwinkel’s elderly parole factors and determined, “There is little to no evidence in the medical record suggesting Ms. Krenwinkel has experienced a significant decline in cognitive abilities with age…. She has experienced a decline in physical capacity due to comorbidities but remains mentally and physically capable of committing crimes similar to the instant offense.” While Ms. Krenwinkel’s life crime involved direct acts of brutal violence, as discussed above, her current physical condition is not the most relevant indication of her current risk level. Ms. Krenwinkel poses a risk to public safety because she lacks the insight and coping skills she will need to avoid maladaptive relationships and external influences. Any diminishment of her physical strength does not alone sufficiently mitigate her risk factors for antisocial conduct. Accordingly, the elderly parole factors in this case do not outweigh the other evidence that she remains unsuitable for parole at this time.
When I consider all of the evidence, as a whole, I find that Ms. Krenwinkel still poses an unreasonable danger to society if paroled at this time. Therefore, I reverse the decision to parole Ms. Krenwinkel.
October 14, 2022
Governor, State of California
Anthony DiMaria’s Letter To Gavin Newsom, Re:Krenwinkel
Sunday, August 21st, 2022
Dear Governor Gavin Newsom,
My name is Anthony DiMaria, nephew of Jay Sebring (one 8 killed by Patricia Krenwinkel and the so-called Manson family…. I include Sharon Tate’s unborn son among the 8 victims).
My family and I ask that you reverse parole of inmate Krenwinkel due to the rare, severe, egregious nature of her crimes as defined In Re Lawrence, minimization and lack of insight into her atrocities as defined In Re Shaputis and the convicted killer’s current dangerousness to society.
As defined In Re Lawrence, in rare and particularly egregious cases, the fact that the inmate committed the offense can provide an indication of the inmate’s potential for future danger, despite strong evidence of rehabilitation in the record. (Lawrence, supra, 44 Ca1.4th at pp. 1181, 1211, 1213-14.)
On the nights of August 8th and 10th, 1969 Patricia Krenwinkel’s victims unspeakably suffered 7 gunshots, 169 stabbings, bludgeoning, torture and mutilation. Ms. Krenwinkel horrified the nation splattering messages in her victims’ blood (“Healter Skelter”, “Death to Pigs”) at her crime scene thus inciting the entire Helter Skelter legacy that has caused permanent historical scars as evidenced in the horrific murders of Vivian French and Jason Sweeney (which I’ll address later in this plea).
MINIMIZATION/IN RE SHAPUTIS
After decades of rehabilitation, Patricia Krenwinkel still minimizes and lacks insight into her crimes. At her last hearing the petitioner posits “I’ve spent the last 50 years really looking at how I ever got involved in that kind of a thing, allowing other people to make decisions for me, to think for me.” [pp.59 ll. 22-25]
Then, “I had psychiatrists that I worked with to try and locate what would allow me to ever allow someone to take over my life like that.” [p.42 l.24]
“I just kept accepting and allowing myself to go along for the ride.” [p.28 ll.2-4]
-Governor, these statements from the petitioner are glaring, shocking and a hell of a way to characterize the killings of seven people and an unborn child.
As I stated at the May 26 parole, “At today’s hearing, Ms. Krenwinkel describes ‘allowing’ and ‘allowed’ as in ‘I allowed these things to happen’ & ‘I allowed to lead me in this direction.’
After having lived with the loss and suffering caused by Patricia Krenwinkel for decades – any use of the words “allow”, “allowed”, “allowing” is quite disturbing and lacks any crumb of insight into these crimes.” Frankly Governor Newsom, these statements are perverse and sociopathic.
As established In Re Shaputis, even when an inmate states that her conduct is “wrong” and that she feels some remorse for the crime, her failure “to gain insight or understanding into either her violent conduct or her commission of the commitment offense” provide “some evidence in support of the Governor’s conclusion that petitioner remains dangerous and is unsuitable for parole.” (In re Shigemura (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 440, 453-454 citing In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Ca1.4th 1241, 1260.)
CURRENT DANGER TO SOCIETY
If ever murders could be described as “Crimes of the Century,” Ms. Krenwinkel’s actions embody this heinous standard. The unspeakable number of stab wounds, mutilations, Ms. Krenwinkel’s threats smeared in her victims’ blood of DEATH TO PIGS and HELTER SKELTER on the walls at her crime scene terrified the nation. Patricia’s obscene behaviors throughout her trial not only spit on the memory of her victims and tormented our families, but directly created the destructive Manson family mystique, causing permanent scars on American history.
The severity of her actions are so profound that her lethal legacy has been influential in similar horrific murders well after her incarceration.
Detective Don Ryan describes the crime scene of Vivian French’s murder March 7, 1977: “As I entered the residence I could hear ‘The Pigs Are Coming’ song that was playing over and over again. When we walked in, I observed a white female, later identified as Vivian French, lying on her back. She was nude and I noticed what appeared to be a black handled knife in her right side just above the breast. I noticed on the wall there were some things written in blood: ‘Helter Skelter’ and ‘All Pigs Must Die’…”
“HELTER SKELTER” & “ALL PIGS MUST DIE” – the same words written by Patricia Krenwinkel in her victims’ blood at the LaBianca crime scene.
On May 30, 2003, Jason Sweeney was murdered by four teenagers, ages 15 to 17. The weapons used to massacre the young man were a hammer, a hatchet, and several large rocks. At one point during the attack there was a hammer blow so severe that it remained protruding from Jason’s skull, as he continued to fight for his life.
During the trial, the teenaged killers testified listening to “Helter Skelter” over and over repeatedly for several hours before committing the murder. “Helter Skelter”…
The prosecuting attorney, Jude Conroy, stated, “It is really amazing that teenagers in Philadelphia, Memorial Day weekend, are attuned to the whole Helter Skelter mythology. It’s a sad testament to the twisted, brutal legacy those murders have left behind such that it attracts 15, 16, 17-year-olds. Over forty years later. 3,000 miles across the country. It is a powerful legacy.”
Charles Manson did not write HELTER SKELTER in blood, Patricia Krenwinkel did. Patricia Krenwinkel is the author that ignited what would become an endless cultural cancer with sinister and deadly consequences even as you read this Governor.
The nexus of current dangerousness, and the threat of Patricia Krenwinkel and her crimes to society today — direct, symbolic and cultural — is permanent, malignant and CURRENT.
Governor Newsom, as you acknowledge the rare, severe nature of Patricia Krenwinkel’s crimes as defined in Lawrence, her minimization and lack of insight as addressed in Shaputis and her current dangerousness to society- we ask that you reject parole for Patricia Krenwinkel.
Bruce Davis Denied Parole
Friday, July 8th, 2022
Jul. 8 – Bruce Davis was denied parole at a hearing held today at San Quentin.
Davis, 79, is serving a term of seven years to life for the murders of Gary Hinman and Donald “Shorty” Shea.
Davis has been denied parole 27 times since becoming eligible in 1977. He was recommended for parole in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021, but each grant was reversed during the executive review.
Davis will not have another hearing until 2025.