Jury trial begins in county’s case against protester Jenny O’Connell-Nowain
The case will continue next week. It’s not yet clear whether O’Connell-Nowain will testify. She’s been charged with disruption for her protest during a county board meeting in 2024.
Shasta County’s lead attorney, Joseph Larmour, took the stand for much of the day yesterday in a case against community member Jenny O’Connell-Nowain. She’s been charged with disrupting a public meeting and resisting, delaying or obstructing a police officer after her protest action during a county board meeting on Nov. 7, 2024.
Responding to statements being made by former supervisor Patrick Jones that day, O’Connell-Nowain rose from her seat, walked up to supervisors and began calling out to them. When she was told to sit she did so, but on the floor in front of the supervisors, not in her seat. Chair Kevin Crye recessed the meeting and cleared the room while Sheriff’s deputies were contacted. They arrested her after she failed to leave the room when asked.
Under questioning yesterday, Larmour testified before Judge Thomas L. Bender and the jury about the county board’s policies regarding conduct during a public meeting. He explained his actions on the day of the defendant’s protest and answered questions about the process of keeping order during a meeting.
O’Connell-Nowain is being represented pro bono by private defense attorney Michael Borges. He told the jury during his opening statement that the case was about the Shasta County Board’s attempts to silence dissent. The attorney for the prosecution, Chief Deputy District Attorney Emily Mees, portrayed the case differently, as a situation where O’Connell-Nowain’s frustrations had reached a boiling point resulting in disruptive actions that left Board Chair Kevin Crye with no alternative but to recess the meeting in response.
In addition to Larmour, the prosecution called Shasta Sheriff’s Deputy Charles Edwards, who arrested O’Connell-Nowain last November in the darkened county chambers after even the media had been pushed from the room. Under direct examination, Edwards said he had arrested the defendant because her protest had disrupted the meeting, admitting under cross examination that he had made the decision that her arrest was required for the board to continue its meeting due to what he was told by Larmour.
Whether or not O’Connell-Nowain’s disruption of the meeting was enough to necessitate pausing the meeting is one of several key questions that arose yesterday. Under California law known as the Brown Act, community members may express their viewpoints during public meetings but may not conduct themselves in a way that “renders infeasible” the meeting’s orderly conduct.
Borges questioned witnesses about whether the defendant’s conduct actually made it impossible for Crye to continue to conduct the meeting. He pointed out that O’Connell-Nowain was told to sit down before the meeting was paused, which she did quietly, although not in her chair. When Larmour brought up the crowd’s “raucous” reaction to her actions, Borges said in essence that the defendant was the one on trial, not the crowd.
In statements to Judge Bender after the jury was dismissed late yesterday, Borges highlighted two key ideas that came up during Larmour’s questioning: first, that a violation of one of the board chamber rules is not necessarily a violation of penal code and second, that the rules of the board chambers have, at times, been unevenly enforced.
California’s Brown Act requires the county board to protect public speech at meetings but also places limits on that speech in order to protect the public’s ability to conduct business. Those limits must be enforced equally, in order to avoid intentionally or inadvertently discriminating against particular individuals or viewpoints.
In his comments to Judge Bender, Borges referenced a 1970 California Supreme Court ruling in favor of a person who had been charged with disrupting a meeting. In that case — also a protest incident — the court said that while the defendants had made a lot of noise at a public meeting, their actions did not substantially impede the public business at hand.
“Audience activities, such as heckling, interrupting, harsh questioning, and booing, even though they may be impolite and discourteous, can nonetheless advance the goals of the First Amendment,” the court wrote, noting that “the Constitution does not require that the effective expression of ideas be restricted to rigid and predetermined patterns.”
Judge Bender agreed to the defense’s request to continue the trial to Tuesday, Dec. 16 at 9 a.m. He also addressed O’Connell-Nowain, explaining that if she chooses to testify next week she should be aware that her testimony could be used to incriminate her.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (18)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Recent flooding closed Cal’s Books. This group of young people is working to bring it back
In December, after Cal’s Books was flooded with two feet of water — and thousands of books were damaged — its owner decided to close the store permanently. Now a team of 20-year-olds has a plan to save the beloved store.
Board majority faces off against Supervisor Plummer on liaison positions, supervisor 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.
This case should never have come to a jury trial, a simple fine for disturbing the peace or trespass…..waste of taxpayer money!
Funny how Jenny gets arrested for not shutting up and now refuses to speak and take the stand. I guess she only wants to exercise her first amendment when it suits her.
Laura, that is precisely what the first amendment is all about. The right to speak freely or Not speak, the choice is that of person. Much like it is your right to reiterate something so obvious, and it is my right right call you out on it.
POWERED by #STRAWBERRY
Jenny always was one to act out first and think of the consequences later. She was quite the wild child in Burney.
Although I haven’t been to the trial I hear things are leaning against Jenny. Jenny needs to take the stand and stick up for herself. In My Opinion
Why is it appropriate to disrupt a public meeting. That is very inconsiderate to the other attendees. Jenny, please reflect on my comments.
You came on here to say that?
Attention seeking much?
My previous comment was directed at ‘Penny’.
Jenny Nowain used to date my brother. He said he is not surprised by her behavior.
So we are making things up now? My wife dated one person other than myself, and they weren’t related to you.
Bro.. relax. What happens in Burney stays in Burney.
Bruh, did you really come on here to just say that?
If he’s calling people out, relax man.
Shouldn’t affect you in the least although it seemed to get you agitated enough to come here to make a comment about it.
Let the people party man. Let them do what they want.
I find the details offered by Ben to defend his wife hilariously unecessary. And i always encourage a party.
You both not only look like clowns but act like them too. You both never received the attention in high that you wanted so now you want to disrupt county business to make sure you get that attention. Well now you got it but you will be paying for it now. Good thing the circus is hiring you gonna need it…
Ms, nowain AKA, me, dated only one other person besides her husband, and he was an only child, and all of burney knows that, and can cooperate, so who are you?
What a ridiculous comment. You came here to post this drivel.
Seriously!
This post says a lot. more about you and your brother, than Jenny.
Delicious gossip.