How can Newsom allow this?
A retired California judge is raising serious concerns about public safety in the state after a convicted criminal approved for release under California’s controversial “elder parole” program was immediately linked to new criminal allegations.
The incident has reignited debate over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s criminal justice policies and whether recent reforms are putting dangerous offenders back on the streets.
Maryann Gilliard, who served nearly 27 years as a Superior Court judge in the Sacramento region, says the situation reflects what she believes are growing problems with California’s approach to crime and punishment.
“At this point in time, California needs to be placed into a conservatorship because the person in charge, Gavin Newsom, is a danger to others,” Gilliard said during remarks criticizing the governor’s criminal justice policies.
Her comments quickly drew attention as the case involving the convicted offender raised new questions about the state’s parole system.
Convicted Criminal Approved For Release
The controversy centers around David Allen Funston, a 64-year-old man convicted in the 1990s of multiple child assault offenses and sentenced to three life terms in prison.
Despite those sentences, Funston became eligible for release through California’s Elderly Parole Program, which allows certain long-term inmates to be considered for parole after reaching a specific age and serving decades behind bars.
According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Funston was scheduled for release on February 26.
However, authorities say that on the same day he was due to walk free, law enforcement officials issued a Placer County arrest warrant related to new criminal allegations. Instead of being released into the public, Funston was immediately transferred to local authorities.
The unusual chain of events has intensified criticism from law-and-order advocates who argue the situation shows serious flaws in California’s parole policies.
California’s Elder Parole Law Under Fire
California’s Elderly Parole Program was formally written into law in 2018 as part of broader criminal justice reforms.
The program allows inmates who have served long prison terms to request parole once they reach a certain age and meet eligibility requirements.
But in 2021, lawmakers expanded the policy when Assembly Bill 3234 lowered the qualifying age to 50 for inmates who have served at least 20 consecutive years in prison.
Supporters argue that older inmates are statistically less likely to commit new crimes and that the policy helps address overcrowded prisons.
Critics say the expansion goes too far and allows serious offenders—including violent criminals—to potentially gain early release.
Gilliard mocked the lowered age requirement while highlighting the case that sparked the controversy.
“At 50 years old with a long criminal record, you may qualify for elderly parole—but you’re still not old enough to order from Denny’s senior Grand Slam menu,” she said.
She also warned that criminals originally sentenced to life in prison are increasingly being granted parole despite the seriousness of their crimes.
“Criminals who were ordered to serve life terms are being paroled because Gavin Newsom and his Board of Parole have given the green light without regard to public safety,” Gilliard said.
Mental Health Diversion Law Raises More Concerns
The retired judge also criticized another controversial California policy signed into law in 2023.
That law, Senate Bill 1223, expanded the state’s mental-health diversion program, which allows defendants with certain mental health diagnoses to receive treatment programs instead of prison sentences.
Under the updated law, courts may presume that a diagnosed mental disorder contributed to a criminal offense unless prosecutors prove otherwise with clear and convincing evidence.
Supporters say the policy helps direct individuals with mental illness toward treatment rather than incarceration.
But critics argue it creates loopholes that could allow offenders to avoid responsibility for violent crimes.
Gilliard warned the law could lead to troubling outcomes in courtrooms across the state.
“If you pistol whip an 80-year-old woman but you’re labeled with cannabis use disorder, all you have to do is appear in the DSM-5 and it’s presumed that was the cause of the conduct,” she said.
Newsom’s Office Defends The Policies
Officials in Gov. Newsom’s administration strongly dispute claims that the state’s reforms are putting Californians at risk.
A spokesperson for the governor pointed to recent statistics showing that crime rates have declined across the state.
According to the California Department of Justice’s annual crime report, California’s violent crime rate fell 6 percent in 2024, while property crime dropped 8.4 percent.
Newsom’s office also said elder parole decisions go through a strict review process and that mental-health diversion programs are designed to reduce repeat offenses by addressing underlying problems.
Still, critics remain skeptical that the policies are improving safety.
“The biggest crime scene in Sacramento is at the state capitol, and someone ought to tape it off,” Gilliard said.