SANTA CLARA, Calif .– A seemingly playful argument between San Francisco 49ers cornerback Josh Norman and Arizona Cardinals coach Kliff Kingsbury in the second quarter of Sunday’s meeting quickly resulted in a costly Niners penalty and Norman’s bench press.

The mocking 10-yard penalty against Norman gave Arizona a first down on a drive that ended with a field goal that put the Cardinals at 4:02 in the second quarter at 17 in a game they would later win at 31. 17th

Norman did not return to the game after the costly violation, as veteran Dre Kirkpatrick replaced him as outside cornerback.

“I wanted him to come out right away,” said 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan. “I wanted it to cool down a bit. And then we just kept Dre in in the third quarter, which wasn’t my decision, but I was okay with that.”

The exchange actually began with a seemingly harmless back and forth between Norman and Kingsbury.

1 relatives

In a first half where defensive stops were hard to come by, the 49ers finally seemed ready to leave the field with 6:47 to go in the first half.

On the third and 18 of the 19 of the 49ers, the Niners receivers stopped Rondale Moore for a 2 yard loss, but before the game ended Kingsbury jumped onto the field to yell at the officials.

Kingsbury received a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct that would have moved the ball back to San Francisco’s 36 and set up a 54 yard field goal or punt. Instead, Norman stepped into the fight and exchanged words with Kingsbury near Arizona’s sideline.

“I like Josh, I know Josh,” said Kingsbury. “I think it was just a friendlier banter that was misinterpreted. But I shouldn’t have done the original sentence. But I’m telling you, it wasn’t anything malicious.”

As Kingsbury and Norman yelled at each other, Cardinal’s offensive tackle DJ Humphries stepped in and appeared to easily headbutt Norman, starting a chain of events that would result in a 10-yard mockery penalty.

Instead of flagging, the league rules provide that the on-field foul, in this case Norman’s, is scored first, giving Arizona a first down but moving the ball halfway from the goal. Then the foul was enforced on Kingsbury, who moved it 15 yards back, but gave Arizona a first-and-24 at San Francisco’s 25.

“I don’t even know what happened,” said 49ers linebacker Fred Warner. “I saw that there was a flag for something they did. I didn’t even know Josh was getting involved with their players. It’s a huge penalty. I didn’t know it would lead to an automatic first down . “

The Niners still managed to keep Arizona from scoring a touchdown, but the Cardinals started a 26-yard field goal four games later in a game they never left behind.

Norman, who was not available for media talks after the game, is second among the cornerbacks in the league with five penalties in his six season games.

While the penalty kick wasn’t the only reason the 49ers lost by far, it was a costly mistake in a game full of them as they dropped to 3-5 overall and 0-3 in the NFC West Division.

“It’s very disappointing,” said Shanahan. “I don’t care what happens, if the referees are right or wrong, you can’t give them a chance to be wrong. To me it doesn’t matter if you deserve it or not, it’s what you have it and it is very easy to avoid this.

The post Josh Norman’s ‘pleasant banter’ with Kliff Kingsbury results in pricey penalty in San Francisco 49ers’ loss to Arizona Cardinals appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

SAN QUENTIN (KPIX 5) – The California Supreme Court began hearing arguments on Wednesday in Donte McDaniel’s appeal on the death penalty, a case legal experts say could affect the future of the death penalty in the state.

McDaniel’s case could make it difficult for prosecutors to get people on California’s death row, and almost every inmate could be affected.

CONTINUE READING: Windsor Council nominates Vice Mayor Sam Salmon to succeed Dominic Foppoli

McDaniel, one of 700 convicted inmates in San Quentin, was convicted of two murders in 2004 at the age of 24 following a gang-related drug deal.

The inmate’s lawyers concentrate on so-called “aggravating factors”, 22 different things such as gang activities, the perpetrator’s lurking, or particularly heinous or cruel acts.

Lara Bazelon, a law professor at the University of San Francisco, said current law requires juries to agree to an aggravating factor, not a specific one.

“The lawyers say the jury must agree on the specific aggravating factors that will result in their finding death beyond doubt, and the law does not require them to do so now,” Bazelon told KPIX 5.

This is what the governor and public defenders want to change, which makes it difficult to impose the death penalty.

CONTINUE READING: East Palo Alto pledges $ 2 million to help RV park residents purchase their land

Bazelon believes the composition of the court right now means that change has a real chance.

“We now have a seat inclined to the left. There are Jerry Brown commissioners on this court. There are Gavin Newsom officers for this court, ”said the professor. “And the litigants may think that there will be a more receptive audience to attacks on the constitutionality of the death penalty.”

Bazelon said she doesn’t necessarily believe the California Supreme Court ruling would apply retrospectively and to anyone already on death row.

“You could say, ‘Yes, there is a problem with this death sentence,’ but everyone else who came before this sentence does not benefit from it, they stick with their death sentences,” she said. “It is only going forward prospectively, the defendants will benefit from it.”

The professor said it was really unclear what the court will do to make retrospective changes.

Ultimately, the district attorneys would decide whether to repeat the sentencing phase for all of these convictions. But many prosecutors have sided with the governor for this move.

MORE NEWS: A’s excluded sailors; Coach Bob Melvin wins with Oakland 800

A judgment from the California Supreme Court is expected in the next three to six months.

The post California Supreme Courtroom Hears Case That May Impression Future Of Demise Penalty – CBS San Francisco appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

As lawmaker, Rob Bonta co-sponsored a proposed election measure that would have given Californians another chance to overturn the death penalty, a repeal they narrowly opposed in 2012 and 2016.

As California’s attorney general, Bonta is still against the death penalty and believes the state is moving in the same direction.

“I think the death penalty is inhuman. It doesn’t deter. Studies show that it had different effects on defendants of color for a long time, especially when the victim is white, “Bonta said in an interview. Three weeks earlier, his former legislative colleagues had confirmed Governor Gavin Newsom’s nomination of the Alameda Democrat to succeed Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is now the US Secretary of State for Health and Human Services.

Bonta said the death penalty was both irreversible and “fallible,” citing the exoneration and release of numerous death row inmates across the country – 185 since 1973, including five in California, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The nonprofit says it has also found “strong evidence” that at least 20 prisoners executed since 1989, all in southern states, were actually innocent.

Despite the nationwide votes over the past decade, Bonta said he thought California was “on the way to ending the death penalty. I think this is the way to get there, away from mass imprisonment, over-criminalization and over-condemnation.

“The Californians said that about the people who voted them into office,” he said.

One of them was Newsom, who announced a moratorium on executions shortly after taking office in 2019. Others included Bonta’s three attorney general predecessors, Becerra, Kamala Harris, and Jerry Brown, all of whom stood against the death penalty.

But when the Californians voted directly on the death penalty, they approved it: in 1972, when they overturned a Supreme Court ruling declaring it a violation of the state constitution; 1978, when they expanded a death penalty law that legislature passed over Governor Brown’s veto; and in 2012 and 2016, when majorities of 52% and 53% rejected initiatives to reduce the maximum sentence to life imprisonment without parole.

Although Newsom and a group of prosecutors have asked the state Supreme Court to make it harder to obtain death sentences by tightening standards for jury deliberation and voting in capital cases, there is no pending death penalty appeal in California. So the only current path to a repeal seems to be another electoral measure, which proponents say won’t happen until at least 2024.

Things could change if Newsom was recalled and replaced with a Republican who would almost certainly lift its moratorium and seek execution dates for more than 20 convicted prisoners who have lost all appeals against their convictions and sentences. This would revive a legal challenge to California’s lethal injections procedures, which 15 years ago a federal judge found so flawed that they posed an unreasonable risk of prolonged and excruciating death.

The state, which has 704 inmates on death row, has not executed anyone since January 2006, while 103 convicted inmates have died in prison, mostly of natural causes – 22 since the coronavirus pandemic began last spring. Bonta said he needed more study before deciding whether to defend the current method of executing individual drugs.

“Part of my role is to be the administrator of the law,” he said, “but I will not defend something that is unconstitutional.” It has nothing to do with my personal convictions ”but rather whether there is evidence that the injection procedures could cause an“ unnecessarily slow and painful death ”.

Bonta will appear to be a more confident opponent of the death penalty than others in high office. Harris and Brown, for example, were publicly silent on the 2012 and 2016 overturn initiatives, and Harris appealed to restore the state’s death penalty law in 2015 after a federal judge ruled that the law was no longer constitutional due to arbitrary delays of 25 years or longer in crucial cases.

Bonta’s appointment “bodes well for the state and those of us who are interested in this issue,” said Mike Farrell, former “MASH” star, president of Death Penalty Focus, a Sacramento-based anti-death penalty -Group, is.

Anne Marie Schubert, District Attorney for Sacramento, is a challenger in next year’s attorney general election and says voters shouldn’t expect a strong defense of the death penalty or its implementation from an opponent like Bonta.

“Voter will should matter,” and “attitudes can have an impact,” said Schubert, a former Republican who became independent and advocated the death penalty. “You say, ‘We are going to defend the death penalty,’ but are you going to delay cases and divert resources away from the Capital Disputes Department?”

She said she was particularly concerned about a bill pending in the Legislature, AB1224, by Congregation Member Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, that would allow for a review of an inmate’s previous death or life sentence without parole. Levine was the lead author of the proposed constitutional amendment to repeal the death penalty, which Bonta endorsed in 2019.

AB1224 would allow a judge to reduce any of these sentences to life with the option of parole after considering the inmate’s age, mental health, and records of the inmate in prison. If the inmate has served at least 20 years without violence, the judge would have to reduce the sentence unless prosecutors can show that the inmate would commit violent acts in the future. Backed by public defenders and rejected by prosecutors, the move would require two-thirds approval in the Assembly and Senate and the governor’s signature to become law.

By overturning existing death or life sentences without parole, “you are destroying families who were promised by judges that these people would never get out,” said Schubert. She said such a reversal of longstanding state policy appears to be part of Bonta’s agenda.

Bonta did not take a position on AB1224, but said he would be willing to ask judges to reconsider individual death sentences – as long as all sides agree on a case.

He said he plans to “work with prosecutors and family members of victims who want to go to court together to punish an accused of the death penalty for anything else, such as life without parole or some other sentence.”

“I will show ways to advance reforms in the criminal justice system in general and in relation to the death penalty in particular,” said Bonta.

Bob Egelko is a contributor to the San Francisco Chronicle. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @BobEgelko

The post California Legal professional Common Rob Bonta sees state shifting away from dying penalty appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.