Newsom Says ‘Independent’ Board Granted Parole To Serial Child Molester. Former DA Rips Into Him.

The impending release of David Funston, a 64-year-old serial child molester described by a judge as “the monster parents fear the most,” has ignited a firestorm in California.

At the center of the conflict is a clash between the administration of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and law enforcement officials, most notably Sacramento ounty Sheriff Jim Cooper and former District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert.

In 1999, Funston was convicted of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation from crimes committed in 1995 and 1996.

Under California’s “Elderly Parole Program,” certain inmates become eligible for parole after reaching age 50 and serving at least 20 years in prison. The elderly parole process was created by a federal three-judge panel in 2014.Before the policy was expanded in 2021, the threshold had been age 60 and 25 years served. AB 3234, which Newsom signed in 2020,  adjusted the age and time-served thresholds but did not create the program. Newsom’s office contends that the changes under Newsom were not material to Funston’s eligibility, and that under long-standing state law, individuals who have served 25 years are eligible for a parole hearing regardless.

Sheriff Cooper, himself 62, argued that the law is “dead wrong,” particularly for a predator who kidnapped and brutalized children as young as three.

Funston was originally sentenced to three consecutive life terms — a sentence effectively ensuring he would spend the remainder of his life in prison.

In the face of public outcry, Gov. Newsom’s office said the parole board operates as an “independent agency” under state law. It dismissed criticism tying Newsom to the decision as “MAGA MISINFORMATION,” adding that while Newsom requested a re-review of the case and personally disagreed with the outcome, he has “no authority to reverse” the board’s decision.

🤥MORE MAGA MISINFORMATION!

The Board of Parole hearings is an independent agency and made this decision. The Governor asked for them to re-review its decision. The Governor doesn’t agree with the outcome and has NO authority to reverse this independent decision per state law. https://t.co/RuTMoYVrF5

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) February 24, 2026

Schubert, the prosecutor who originally put Funston away and famously identified the Golden State Killer, issued a scathing takedown of the Governor’s defense.

Dismissing his claims of powerlessness as a “joke,” Schubert claimed that Newsom signed the state law allowing some inmates to be eligible for the “Elderly Parole Program” when they reach age 50 and appointed individuals on the board who deemed Funston suitable for early release.

What a joke. Newsom not only SIGNED the law allowing early release at 50…he appointed these people.

I prosecuted Funston. He earned his 3 life terms.

No rational human being would think releasing him is a good idea.

Yet…Newsom’s parole board did. Let that sink in. https://t.co/nSBZXSnfNw

— Schubert Strategies (@schubertstrat) February 25, 2026

Newsom’s office stated that the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) is an independent body under state law. The decision in this case was made by the Board — not Newsom, that Newsom did not agree with the outcome and formally asked BPH to re-review its decision, and that under state law, because this is not a murder case, the Governor does not have the authority to reverse the Board’s determination.

The Funston case highlights a broader trend in California, including the passage of Propositions 47 and 57, which critics argue have eroded public safety by expanding parole eligibility and reducing penalties for some offenses.

Law enforcement officials argue that Sacramento already has a substantial number of registered sex offenders living in the community, and they contend that expanding eligibility for the state “Elderly Parole Program” puts public safety at risk. Cooper and Schubert have slammed what they describe as a system that gives violent offenders additional opportunities for early release — one that they argue comes at the expense of victims, who are left to live with the consequences.

Newsom’s office stated that the board grants parole in fewer than 12% of scheduled hearings; more than 97% of individuals released after a grant of parole successfully transitioned to the community without a new conviction within three years; 2.5% were convicted of a new misdemeanor or felony within three years; 0.5% were convicted of a new felony against a person within that same period, and that for individuals released through Elderly Parole specifically, the conviction rate for any crime within three years is 1.8%.

Of the 221 individuals paroled through the Elderly Parole Program in FY 2019-20, four were convicted of any crime within three years (one felony against a person and three misdemeanors not against persons),” Newsom’s office stated.

This article has been updated with comments from Governor Newsom’s office.