Jury convicts activist O’Connell-Nowain for disturbing Shasta County board meeting
Jenny O’Connell-Nowain has been found guilty of disturbing a public meeting after sitting on the floor during a November 2024 Shasta County board meeting.
A Shasta County jury has found Jenny O’Connell-Nowain guilty of disturbing the peace during a county board meeting last fall.
The jury deliberated for more than a day on two misdemeanor counts. On a second count that she delayed a peace officer, the jury did not reach a verdict, deadlocking 11 to 1. Deputy District Attorney Sarah Murphy said the DA’s office won’t take up that charge again. Sentencing for the first count is scheduled for Jan. 14.
The dual charges stemmed from an incident last November where O’Connell-Nowain rose from her seat to challenge statements being made by former Supervisor Patrick Jones during a county board meeting. Board Chair Kevin Crye told her to sit down, which she did, but on the floor and not in her seat. Crye called a recess, and sheriff’s deputies were contacted. They arrested her in a near-empty darkened room after forcing members of the media from the chamber. At the time, a First Amendment attorney expressed concerns about Crye’s actions that day, saying they appeared to violate state law and constitutional rights.
Jurors heard from just two witnesses in the case: Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour and a deputy with the Shasta Sheriff’s office, Charles Edwards. Larmour testified that O’Connell-Nowain’s actions led the crowd to become “raucous,” making it impossible for the board to conduct business. Edwards testified that while he didn’t see O’Connell-Nowain commit a crime, he believed she had because of statements made to him by Larmour.
Shasta County prosecutor Emily Mees told the jury that O’Connell-Nowain had attended the meeting that day with the intent of disrupting it and should be held accountable for her actions, which interrupted the public’s ability to do business — an infringement on others’ rights.
O’Connell-Nowain’s attorney, Michael Borges, painted a picture of political targeting by Crye against his client, saying her dissent was censored and her First Amendment rights violated.
He noted that the meeting was recessed and deputies called to arrest his client even though she explicitly followed Crye’s directions, saying she shouldn’t be punished for the crowd’s reactions to what occurred in the room. After O’Connell-Nowain took a seat on the floor that day, Crye called for a recess and told the room “some people didn’t get enough attention as children” after which the crowd erupted in loud noises. In his closing remarks, Borges called Crye’s words that day “shameful.”
“Standing over her, besmirching her character,” Borges orated to the jury, “Crye insulted a constituent in a public meeting. And then the crowd exploded.”
Jurors were shown county videos of the incident as well as videos of statements made to the media that day by county attorney Larmour and O’Connell-Nowain. The defendant chose not to testify on her own behalf, telling the press today that since her speech from last November was played for the jury, nothing more needed to be said.
Smiling, she told reporters she accepts the court’s judgment in her case but has no intent of being silenced. “I’m sure I’ll be here again,” she said, “because I’ll continue fighting for the First Amendment and for us to be allowed to voice our opinion without being arrested.”
O’Connell-Nowain added that community members shouldn’t be afraid to voice their opinions even when it comes with consequences. “If you know how civil disobedience works, you keep pushing until you get the answer,” she said. “And even a negative response is a response. So this was a negative response. It doesn’t mean that anything changes. It means you keep pushing forward until you get the response you want.”
Borges, who took the case pro bono, hugged her in the hallway after the verdict and thanked her for the honor of being allowed to represent her. He told the media he was happy jurors spent so much time discussing the case and respects their decision. At the same time, he said, the judgment doesn’t change his views on the case, which he continues to see as an encroachment on First Amendment rights.
“I still believe this is a content-based restriction of speech,” Borges said. “I understand the jury’s decision. But it seems pretty clear from Mr. Crye’s own words that he thinks little of Ms. Jennifer O’Connell-Nowain, which I think is shameful.”
“The jury tells us what the law is in every case,” Borges added. “We found out today what a violation of 403 of the penal code is in Shasta courts. I accept that.”
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (14)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Board majority faces off against Supervisor Plummer on liaison positions, board raises
During the board’s first meeting of 2026, Supervisor Matt Plummer was removed from a number of pivotal liaison positions.
The Doug LaMalfa I covered: Authentic, cranky and deeply caring
After the sudden death of U.S. Rep Doug LaMalfa, a CalMatters reporter who covered him for 20 years reflects on his life and legacy.
New death in custody at Shasta County Jail occurred after arrest for public intoxication
Tine Marie Elrite’s death brings the number of people who have died while incarcerated in Shasta to five in less than a year.
Some missing context:
The first time O’Connell-Nowain was arrested was after the county began the union termination process against her husband, which resulted in certain board member recusals preventing her husband from serving on an advisory committee.
The second time O’Connell-Nowain was arrested was 3+ months later when the union appeal process concluded, resulting in her husband’s firing for cause.
It is unlikely to be a coincidence that her only meeting-disrupting protests occurred shortly after her family suffered personal blows rather than at any of the big/controversial meetings affecting the community at large (canceling dominion, firing ramstrom, hiring mu, hiring toller, hiring curtis, etc)
Harry/Jay: I’m not sure how you believe you know these details but its not information we’re privy to or could confirm for readers. We can remind readers that the context of O’Connell-Nowain’s protest was an agenda item that was inflammatory enough to receive scrutiny in our reporting at the time. https://shastascout.org/as-tensions-mount-in-shasta-county/. Also,
It’s public info
July 23, 2024: Jenny is arrested for the first time after Ben’s appointment to the election commission falls through. That ultimately happened because Crye recused himself saying he could not disclose why “You’d have to ask the applicant.” ~2:57: https://shastacountyca.new.swagit.com/videos/349737
Nowain then feigned ignorance to the press about the unusual recusal, but it later made sense after he disclosed his Oct 25 firing at the Oct 29 supervisors’ meeting. He subsequently confirmed on Facebook that the union had been involved and that he had been on administrative leave for 3+ months. He claimed he was fired in retaliation for being a whistleblower about Crye.
Jenny was arrested at the very next meeting (Nov 7)
Nowain feigning ignorance at that recusal to anewscafe: https://anewscafe.com/2024/07/24/redding/deputies-carry-woman-from-board-of-supervisors-chambers-after-meeting-devolves-into-pandemonium/
“I asked Nowain to explain Crye’s “ask the applicant” statement, Nowain frowned and said he had no clue what Crye was talking about.”
Nowain’s Oct 25, 2024 Facebook post saying the termination “process started over 3 months ago” (i.e. before O’Connell-Nowain’s first arrest July 23, 2024): https://www.facebook.com/bnowain/posts/pfbid02XeeEVCrodj88oz2wvrF1TYvmbQv7XdKpX5AyRg79uhgHFvyht6C1teyhkvBfGynyl
Harry, you are saying Jenny acted out and misbehaved for personal benefit and not due to an agenda item. That would make a lot of sense. Jenny and her husband Benny are tireless self-promoters.
Both things can be true.
I think they genuinely believe in their cause and were personally fed up at various points last year, and I also think getting $7,000+ in at least 3 gofundme/spotfunds rewarded them for pushing the envelope and keeping their names in the news.
But unlike John Lewis, I don’t think they were very strategic about when/where they caused what they see as “good trouble.”
Wow Crye lives in your heads rent free! So petty
Good job Jenny! You are an example of courage. Albert einstein stated that Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. You are a great spirit! and we know who the mediocre minds are!
The facts of the “case” as accepted by both sides, makes me wonder if she is a First Amendment activist or if her activism is only her avocation.
What a joke. Yet another complete waste of time and taxpayer money by spineless and scared county puppets (DA Bridgett- I’m looking at YOU). Something is wrong when the DA turns her head at FELONIES if the people who commit them have political cover, but goes full Vladimir Putin against an alleged MISDEMEANOR! Specific examples come to mind. For instance, what about the physical assault on a reporter in Cottonwood, which resulted in wait for it…nothing! No charges for a felony. But yet, the full weight and force of the county against a misdemeanor that harmed no one. Make it make sense. Let’s vote this terrible DA out of office.
A dollar says the 12 maga hats on the jury voted for Crye. Every last one.
Can you imagine their collective rage at being ripped away from bingo and He-Haw re-runs to suffer the silent treatment from Hanoi Jenny? The Humanity!
Thank you Jenny.
..and M.Borges. Bill Kunstler smiles upon you.
Jenny is a perfect example of delusion and stupidity. Unfortunately, Ben isn’t much better.
At least she isn’t boring like Ben.