On Thursday, May 21, California Assembly Bill 1902 (AB 1902) was passed by the State Assembly with a resounding 58 yeas to 20 nays, in a huge show of bipartisan support. The bill calls for changes in several key loopholes and gaps in the current law when it comes to juvenile offenders. It’s sponsored by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin—who authored the bill—along with the California Police Chiefs Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the California District Attorney’s Association and the California Probation Officers, as well as several key politicians throughout Santa Cruz County.
AB 1902 was inspired by the case of Madyson Middleton, the 8-year-old Santa Cruz girl who was brutally raped and murdered in 2015 by convicted killer Adrian Jerry “A. J.” Gonzalez, who was 15 at the time.
“It was exhilarating to hear it passed,” said Middleton’s mother, Laura Jordan. “There was a massive sigh of relief after all the outreach that we have been doing.”
When initially arrested, Gonzalez was on a path to be tried in court as an adult due to the heinous nature of the crime. However, in 2018 then-governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1391 into law. That bill required anyone under the age of 16 at the time of the crime to be tried as a juvenile.
The current law also states that juveniles are to be aged out of the system at the age of 25 with the possibility of being released. Before his 25th birthday in 2024, the Santa Cruz District Attorney’s Office challenged Gonzalez’s release leading to a lengthy trial by jury through the early part of 2025 when a jury ruled he was still a threat to the general public and should remain in custody.
Gonzalez is currently being held in a secure youth treatment facility in Sonoma County Juvenile Hall with other offenders ages 14-24 despite being 26 years old and the nature of his crime against a minor.
“Because of the law change there are a lot of gaps,” Jordan said. “Nobody actually knows what the process is, who’s supposed to be in charge and where he’s supposed to go.”
At the present time, state law holds that in cases like Gonzalez’s, extension hearings are to be held every two years. This means he might be back in court for another possible release next year.
“Each time it’s brought up and I have to go [to court] it’s retraumatizing for my family, my friends and my community,” Jordan said. “It also traumatized the jury and I feel for them because I’ve been living with this for 11 years and knew the horrible details, but they did not.”
Shawna Spaulding—who attended Gonzalez’s 2024-2025 trial—has been a moral supporter and devoted friend to Jordan throughout the years. On April 14 she joined Jordan, Pellerin and Santa Cruz DA Jeff Rosell at the California State Capitol in Sacramento for the first round of hearings on AB 1902. That day the Assembly Public Safety Committee passed it unanimously, with one absentee vote.
“[Jordan’s] life was upended, especially in the first five years, with setback after setback with [SB] 1391,” Spaulding said.
“It was the first time in 11 years that I felt my pain and suffering surrounding the legal process—and lack of justice that has happened in this case—was acknowledged for what I’ve been through,” Jordan said of the April 14 approval.
Now that AB 1902 has passed in the State Assembly it moves onto the State Senate for approval. It needs to clear the Senate Public Safety Committee and the Appropriations Committee before it reaches the Senate floor for a vote. After that it goes to Gov. Newsom’s desk, and he will have until Sept. 30 to sign it into law. If he doesn’t it will automatically become law.
If that happens AB 1902 would change the extension period from two to four years and would clarify custodial jurisdictions. It would also allow the court to base the findings of probable cause on “certain hearsay statements.”
“[Gonzalez] needs to be in a secure facility for adults,” Jordan said. “This also opens up the avenue to have him in a state hospital.”
Jordan noted a longer extension period would also mean more time for rehabilitation.
However, if any members of the Senate want to change the language of AB 1902 then the whole process starts over, going back to the State Assembly.
“The battle is not over yet,” Jordan said. “It’s still a little nerve-wracking although it’s looking good, and I have hope they will not whittle this bill down.”
For now, AB 1902 advocates say they need “all hands on deck” from the public to pressure state officials to pass the bill so it can cross Newsom’s desk. Spaulding says the best way is to either contact state senators’ offices via email or over the phone. Supporters can also send letters through the websites JusticeForMaddy.com or SupportAB1902.com.
“The more letter-writers the better,” Spaulding said. “Because we need pressure from throughout the whole state.”
This uncritical piece by a writer who clearly knows nothing about our state’s long history of “victims rights” with its ties to our world-famous prison gulag is typical of today’s pathetic EBX. (I remember when it was a real paper with investigative journalists.) Please confine yourself to food and entertainment.
Please explain your criticism. What specifically is incorrect about this article?
It’s reflecting mostly our social obsession with vengeance. There’s no reporting on the very context of historical legislative actions that work to define, reform, and power our most monetized prison system. It appears to be a quick rewrite of a press release written by the backers of AB 1902 to seek support. Not journalism.