Free Speech or Willfull Disturbance? Jury Weighs Case Against Shasta County Protester

December 16, 2025 - Redding, CA – Shasta County Superior Court, Case No. 25M-02227 Judge Thomas L. Bender, Department 64

The second day of the jury trial against Jennifer O’Connell-Nowain ended with closing arguments and jury instructions. The jury began deliberating briefly before being dismissed at approximately 4:30 p.m.; deliberations will resume on December 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

O’Connell-Nowain faces two misdemeanor charges stemming from an incident on November 7, 2024, during a Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting. She pleaded not guilty, declined a plea offer from the District Attorney’s Office, and chose a jury trial, asserting First Amendment protections. She is represented pro bono by attorney Michael Borges. The case is being prosecuted for The People by Chief Deputy District Attorney Emily Mees.

The Charges

• Willful disturbance of a public meeting (California Penal Code §403) – punishable by up to six months in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000.

• Willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (California Penal Code §148(a)(1)) – punishable by up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000.

  
  

The charges arose after O’Connell-Nowain and her husband, Benjamin Nowain, sat on the floor in front of the supervisors’ dais while holding signs critical of then-Supervisor Patrick Jones. While seated, she continued speaking to the press and voicing her opinions. Video evidence showed her telling the board, “I want you to stop it. I’m not going to listen to this anymore!” as supervisors attempted to conduct business.

Board Chair Kevin Crye repeatedly asked her to sit down: “Please, please, please Jenny sit down.” and, in frustration, made a remark about some people not receiving enough attention as children.  Following advice from County Counsel Joseph Larmour, Crye issued a formal warning. When O’Connell-Nowain refused to comply, Crye called a five-minute recess and ordered the room cleared.

Video also showed that earlier in the same meeting, she had stood up, was asked to sit down, and complied that time.

According to the testimony of Deputy (now Detective) Charles Edwards, she refused multiple orders to leave during the recess. Then he arrested her to allow the meeting to resume. The public and media waited outside for approximately 45–50 minutes, during which county staff costs continued to accrue and sheriff’s deputies were diverted from regular patrol duties.

Prosecutor Mees emphasized that the board must maintain control of the room for safety and order. She noted that when O’Connell-Nowain refused to comply, others in the audience began shouting, creating a disruptive and raucous atmosphere. Rules of conduct are read at the start of every meeting by the Clerk of the Board, and O’Connell-Nowain—having attended at least 60 such meetings—was well aware of them, including restrictions on where the public may sit or stand and when they may address the board.

Defense attorney Borges argued that his client had a right to be present in the public building and was simply exercising her free speech rights. He presented video of a separate incident at another board meeting in which a member of the public sat in front of the dais without disrupting the proceedings or facing charges. In rebuttal, Mees countered that access to county buildings is not unlimited and that the board has a duty to conduct meetings in an orderly fashion to ensure public safety.

O’Connell-Nowain elected not to testify. Key witnesses included County Counsel Joseph Larmour and Detective Charles Edwards.

This marks the second time O’Connell-Nowain has been removed from a supervisors’ meeting; an earlier incident in July 2024 resulted in no charges. The case has spotlighted ongoing debates in Shasta County over free speech, protest rights, and decorum at public meetings.