With our free press under threat and federal funding for public media gone, your support matters more than ever. Help keep the LAist newsroom strong, become a monthly member or increase your support today.
This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.
Prosecutors Will Not Retry Larry King Case As a Hate Crime, Jurors From First Trial Show Up Wearing 'Save Brandon' Bracelets
Prosecutors in Ventura County decided that they will retry Brandon McInerney, the teen who shot his gay classmate Larry King point blank at his middle school in Oxnard.
But because they had trouble winning a conviction against McInerney in the last trial, prosecutors will not charge him with a hate crime, likely a tactical move intended to win a conviction against McInerney. Although no one disputes that McInerney pulled the trigger on his classmate Larry King in 2008, the justice system has wrestled with how exactly to charge him.
The last jury deadlocked on the question of whether to convict McInerney of manslaughter or first- or second-degree murder. Many of the jurors told reporters after the trial that they thought the charges against the Oxnard teen were too harsh, because he was tried as an adult and not a teen. If he was convicted as an adult, he could be locked up for life. On the other hand, McInerney could be released from prison as early as 25 if he went through the juvenile system.
Legal experts — and the prosecutors themselves admit — that a second trial may not be any easier than the first.
"Jurors felt prosecutors overcharged and they were clearly not comfortable putting the boy away for life," Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor told the Los Angeles Times.
Some of them were so uncomfortable that they showed up at today's hearing. Three of the jurors from the first trial actually showed up at the hearing, wearing “Save Brandon” bracelets, according to the Los Angeles Times.
A pretrial hearing is scheduled for next month to decide whether or not to move the case out of Ventura County again.
At LAist, we believe in journalism without censorship and the right of a free press to speak truth to those in power. Our hard-hitting watchdog reporting on local government, climate, and the ongoing housing and homelessness crisis is trustworthy, independent and freely accessible to everyone thanks to the support of readers like you.
But the game has changed: Congress voted to eliminate funding for public media across the country. Here at LAist that means a loss of $1.7 million in our budget every year. We want to assure you that despite growing threats to free press and free speech, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust. Speaking frankly, the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news in our community.
We’re asking you to stand up for independent reporting that will not be silenced. With more individuals like you supporting this public service, we can continue to provide essential coverage for Southern Californians that you can’t find anywhere else. Become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission.
Thank you for your generous support and belief in the value of independent news.

-
Heavy rain from the early-season storm could trigger debris flows. Snow is also possible above 7,000 feet.
-
Jet Propulsion Laboratory leadership announces that 11% of the workforce is being cut.
-
The rock legend joins LAist for a lookback on his career — and the next chapter of his music.
-
Yes, it's controversial, but let me explain.
-
What do stairs have to do with California’s housing crisis? More than you might think, says this Culver City councilmember.
-
Doctors say administrator directives allow immigration agents to interfere in medical decisions and compromise medical care.