Author: Steve Clow

John Albert Gardner III will be charged in connection with the disappearance of 17-year-old Chelsea King at an arraignment hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, the San Diego County district attorney’s office said. 

Authorities also announced that Gardner, a registered sex offender, has been linked to an attack in December of another young female jogger in the same park where King was last seen.

Spokesman Paul Levikow of the district attorney’s office said specific charges have yet to be announced. Gardner is being held on suspicion of murder and rape.

Hundreds of law enforcement authorities and volunteers continued searching for clues Tuesday in the hilly terrain around Lake Hodges where King, a high school senior, had gone jogging Thursday afternoon.

King’s mother, in a television news interview Monday, said authorities found her daughter’s underwear in the lake area. Gardener was arrested outside a Mexican restaurant in the lakeside community of Del Dios. His pants were damp, according to San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore.

In the December incident, a 22-year-old woman was approached by a man who tackled her and demanded money. She escaped after hitting him in the face, bloodying her elbow. San Diego police did not disclose how they linked Gardner to the attack. San Diego Police Capt. Jim Collins said DNA testing of the victim did not turn up a match to Gardner.

Gardner, 30, is registered as a sex offender and lives in Lake Elsinore in Riverside County, but he had been visiting his mother in Rancho Bernardo, just south of Lake Hodges, officials said.

Gardner served five years in connection with a 2000 attack on a 13-year-old girl, officials said. After getting out of prison, he wore a global positioning system tracking device until his parole ended in 2008, Gore said.

— Richard Marosi in San Diego

Most charitable giving goes to programs that provide a service rather than try to fix the system. But a study of Los Angeles County nonprofits found that spending on advocacy and organizing can yield major benefits for the communities that donors want to help.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy estimated that for every dollar invested in the work of a selection of advocacy groups, there was $91 in benefits to local residents.

"It is far…above the kind of bang for the buck that you get when you invest in funding direct services," said Aaron Dorfman, executive director of the Washington-based philanthropy watchdog.

Dorfman said he hopes the report released Tuesday will encourage foundations to consider investing at least 25% of their grant dollars in advocacy, organizing and civic engagement.

Between 2004 and 2008, the committee collected and verified data from 15 groups engaged in fighting poverty, improving health and education, defending minorities and other causes. It found that the $75.5 million spent by the groups on this kind of work generated nearly $6.89 billion in benefits to residents.

The report’s authors acknowledge shortcomings in their attempt to put a dollar value on advocacy work. The groups studied were often part of coalitions that also contributed funds; policymakers don’t base their decisions only on what non-profits tell them; and not all the results can be quantified.

But independent analysts said the report shows there are tangible benefits to supporting advocacy groups.

"These are the organizations that are working to make sure that money is going to people in need and that it is benefiting their communities," said Elizabeth Boris, director of the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy.

Among the examples cited in the report:

–ACORN Los Angeles helped build a coalition of labor and community groups to increase the state minimum wage by $1.25 to $8 an hour. The change generated $2.65 billion in additional income in the county over four years.

–InnerCity Struggle campaigned for the construction of two new schools in East Los Angeles at a cost of $299 million. The first is set to open in the fall.

–The Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and other groups helped persuade state legislators not to abolish programs that provide food, cash and medical aid to legal immigrants.

Nearly 3,000 charitable foundations are active in the county, providing grants totaling $2.1 billion in 2007, according to the report. But only a small portion support advocacy work.

"I think often that advocacy can be seen as a controversial thing," said Alicia Lara, vice president of community investment for United Way of Greater Los Angeles, which supports some of the groups in the report. "I’m not particularly interested in funding organizations that are just doing the adversarial, stone-throwing kind of approach."

But she said her foundation does not believe it can achieve its poverty alleviation goals without addressing "the big policy issues." Although it does much of its own advocacy work, she said it also gives 5% of its funding to community groups engaged in "problem solving."

Karin Wang of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center hopes the report will encourage others to make advocacy part of their giving.

"Otherwise, you are not addressing the root cause of the problem," she said.

–Alexandra Zavis

Three employees of Tesla Motors Inc. were killed Wednesday morning in the crash of a small plane in East Palo Alto, the electric car maker’s chief executive said in a statement.

"We are withholding their identities as we work with the relevant authorities to notify the families," Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO, said in a statement.

The plane crashed into a residential neighborhood shortly before 8 a.m., sparking house fires, downing  power lines and damaging several cars, but authorities said no one other than the plane’s three occupants were killed.

"We are working on recovery of the deceased," said Menlo Park Fire Protection Chief Harold Schapelhouman, addressing reporters down the block from where the plane crashed. "We have three dead. They were in the fuselage. There are miraculously no reports of anyone else injured."

The street where the place crashed was dotted with orange cones indicating where parts of the aircraft landed. Bodies covered with yellow blankets lay under a tree.

The Cessna 310 was registered to Air Unique Inc. of Santa Clara, owned by Doug Bourn, 57, a senior electrical engineer at Tesla Motors. It took off from Palo Alto Airport and was headed to Hawthorne, where Tesla has operations. A spokeswoman for the company said it was still seeking information about the crash and could not confirm whether the plane was traveling on company business.

The plane took off in thick fog and hit power lines and a power tower, which collapsed, authorities said. Parts of the plane were strewn over several blocks.

"As tragic as this is, we were very fortunate that no one else got hurt," Schapelhouman said.

A portion of one of the plane’s wings hit an occupied house in front of a day-care center. The center was unscathed but 50% of the house was destroyed, Schapelhouman said.

Other parts of the plane landed on a carport next door, destroying it. The engine of the plane was embedded in the garage wall of yet a third house.

A relative of a woman whose house was burned identified her as Lisa Jones-Smith, who operated a day- care center behind her home. The relative, Bre East, 44, said only one child, an 11-month-old, had arrived for child care when the plane crashed. She said she believed there were seven people inside the house; none were injured.

"Lisa was home at the time," East said. “The neighbors got her out of the house. She was trying to get her own kids to safety." East said she spoke with Jones-Smith by telephone.

"She was very shaken up," East said. "Her sentences were short and gaspy. She told me that the back end of the house is gone and the kids are safe.

"The Lord was on her side, looking out for her today. … The lucky part is everyone is safe. You can rebuild houses, but not lives."

Several hours after the crash, Smith-Jones was taken to the hospital by paramedics. A relative who would not give her name said Smith-Jones was suffering from elevated blood pressure.

The crash knocked out power for a large area, including Stanford Hospital and Clinics. A spokeswoman for the hospital said non-emergency surgeries and clinic appointments at the hospital were canceled.

— Maria L. LaGanga in East Palo Alto, Maura Dolan and Alexandra Zavis

RELATED:

3 killed aboard small plane that crashed into East Palo Alto neighborhood

Small plane crashes in East Palo Alto 

 

Despite police contentions that gang members deploy bicycle footrests as illegal metal knuckles, state law does not prohibit people from carrying footrests, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday, overturning two lower courts.

Los Angeles police stopped bicycle rider David V., 14, one afternoon in August 2007 because he was not wearing a helmet. The office found a metal bike footrest – a cylinder about 4 ½ inches long and about 1 ½ inches in diameter — in the boy’s pocket and determined it did not fit anywhere on the boy’s bike.

David was charged with illegal possession of metal knuckles. A juvenile court judge, determining that David carried the device as a weapon, sustained the petition, and an appeals court agreed.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s office, arguing in favor of prosecution, had likened footrests to clutch purses, which the fashion industry says are "worn in the hand," his office said.

The state high court dispatched its verdict in a brief, 10-page ruling, determining that footrests were not "worn on the hand" and that David had not violated the law by carrying one.

"Metal knuckles of the usual sort, which are fitted to the hand, generally with holes for the fingers, are ‘worn … in or on the hand,’" the court said, quoting the state Penal Code. "But a metal cylinder like the footrest in this case is not, in ordinary usage, said to be ‘worn’ when held in the hand."

Even if common terminology in the fashion industry considers a purse to be worn, wrote Justice Carol A. Corrigan, "it is unlikely that the Legislature would have considered it in connection with a weapons statute."

— Maura Dolan

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that residency requirements for sex offenders imposed by "Jessica’s Law," passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2006, can be applied retroactively to offenders convicted before the measure’s passage.

[UPDATED at 2:40 p.m.: The justices’ ruling on retroactive application of the law applies to registered sex offenders who committed their crimes before the law’s passage but who were paroled after it took effect.]

But the 5-2 decision also made it possible for registered sex offenders to challenge the law’s residency requirement when they are paroled to places where it is impossible to avoid living near parks and schools.

The decision rejected several constitutional challenges brought by four parolees who contended they would be forced to leave their homes and families if subject to Proposition 83’s residency requirements, which bar registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park where children regularly gather.

Proposition 83, passed by 70% of voters, makes it impossible for some registered sex offenders to live in densely populated cities. Nearly all of San Francisco is off-limits to them because of the number of parks and schools close to housing.

Before voters approved "Jessica’s Law," the state imposed such residency requirements only on offenders whose victims were children.

Justice Carlos R. Moreno, joined by Justice Joyce L. Kennard, dissented, arguing that Proposition 83 contained no language making it retroactive.

Moreno also noted that the purpose of the law was to protect children, and two of the four parolees challenging it had not committed crimes against children.

Applying the law to them "would divert scarce law enforcement resources toward enforcing a restriction that has no demonstrable effect on increasing child safety," Moreno wrote.

— Maura Dolan in San Francisco

More breaking news in L.A. Now:

Glendale’s Americana development locked down as police hunt Burbank robbery suspect

‘Jessica’s Law’ can be applied retroactively, state Supreme Court decides

Fiorina struggles to convince California conservatives she’s one of them

Man claiming to be brother of former Mexican president arrested in financial scams

State Supreme Court: Sex offenders may challenge ‘Jessica’s Law’ residency rules

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction today ordering an Eagle Rock dispensary to stop selling medical marijuana, a decision that city prosecutors believe is the first to find that state law does not give collectives the right to sell the drug.

Judge James C. Chalfant’s decision applies only to Hemp Factory V, a small outlet on Colorado Boulevard near the Glendale border, but could have enormous ramifications.

Hundreds of collectives in Los Angeles and throughout the state operate in the same way, selling marijuana to anyone who shows up with a doctor’s recommendation and signs a form to become a member. Although the state’s courts have ruled repeatedly on medical marijuana issues, they have never directly addressed whether this widespread practice is legal.

Chalfant concluded that state law does not authorize collectives to sell marijuana, but only to grow it and recoup reasonable costs. "A retail store that sells marijuana to its members simply does not satisfy the requirement of a collective to cultivate marijuana," he wrote in his decision.

Anthony Malecki, the attorney for Hemp Factory and its operator, Gevork Berberyan, did not challenge Chalfant’s conclusions in the courtroom. He said he would consult with Berberyan before deciding whether to appeal the injunction. Chalfant’s decision came in the preliminary phase of the city’s lawsuit against the dispensary. The case is likely to go to trial.

The city’s attorney, Asha Greenberg, noted that the decision was only a trial court ruling, but said it should be a warning to other medical marijuana collectives. "I think the analysis and the reasoning are very important, and they should pay attention to it," she said.

Chalfant’s decision endorses the opinion of Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, who has become one of the most outspoken opponents of medical marijuana sales in the state. He sued Hemp Factory V in his first attempt to use the courts to close a dispensary in Los Angeles, which has seen hundreds open while city officials failed to enforce a moratorium on dispensaries.

California’s 1996 medical marijuana initiative and a state law in 2003 allow patients and their caregivers to form collectives to cultivate marijuana. They do not explicitly allow marijuana to be sold, although the practice is now commonplace. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials have increasingly argued that the law allows patients to work together to cultivate marijuana, but not to sell it over the counter to anyone who signs a form.

Dispensary operators, including Berberyan, argue that they do not sell marijuana, but ask for voluntary donations that are intended to repay the costs for growing marijuana. Many, including Berberyan, also say they give the drug free to poor patients.

The debate, rooted in the law’s murky language, was one of the main reasons Los Angeles took many months to draft an ordinance. City Council members struggled with whether to explicitly outlaw sales, as Trutanich and Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley insisted. In the end, the council finessed the issue, adopting language saying dispensaries must follow state law.

Chalfant’s injunction could embolden Trutanich and prosecutors who have threatened to pursue dispensaries for selling marijuana. Officials with the city attorney’s office have suggested that they are prepared to bring additional cases, but decline to discuss their plans.

In addition to maintaining that sales are illegal, Trutanich has also pressed the novel argument that the Sherman Law, the state’s food and drug safety law, applies to sales of medical marijuana. He reached the conclusion after he had samples of marijuana from dispensaries, including Hemp Factory V, tested and found they contained pesticides, including some banned ones.

Chalfant agreed today that sales of marijuana would trigger the Sherman Law’s requirements to properly label drugs and ensure they do not contain poisonous substances.

"No one who advocates in favor of medical marijuana dispensaries could reasonably contend that marijuana that contains banned pesticides should be sold in a retail store or handed out to members of a collective," he wrote in his 16-page decision.

He noted, however, that the law would not apply to collectives that did not sell marijuana. In his order, Chalfant also barred Hemp Factory V from selling marijuana with pesticides.

— John Hoeffel at Los Angeles County Superior Court

A prominent opponent of same-sex marriage testified at a federal trial today that he believes the rights of gays and lesbians should take "second place" to the institution of marriage.

"With some anguish," David Blankenhorn testified, "I would choose children’s collective needs over the rights of same-sex couples."

Blankenhorn, who founded and heads a think tank devoted to marriage and family issues, was one of two witnesses called by defenders of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that reinstated a California ban on same-sex marriage.

No more witnesses are expected to testify in the trial that began 2½ weeks ago. The court gave both sides until Feb. 26 to submit briefs pointing to the evidence that buttressed their views, which will be followed by closing arguments at an as yet uncertain date.

Blankenhorn testified that same-sex marriage benefits gay couples and their children, but weakens the institution of marriage. He said he reconciled these "goods in conflict" by embracing domestic partnerships and civil unions for gays.

Under cross-examination today, Blankenhorn testified that he agreed that same-sex marriage might reduce prejudice and hate crimes against homosexuals, lead to higher living standards for same-sex couples and probably reduce the number of gays who marry members of the opposite sex.

Blankenhorn, who is not affiliated with a college or university, sparred frequently with David Boies, one of the nation’s top litigators representing two same-sex couples challenging the federal constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Sometimes seething, sometimes aggrieved, Blankenhorn objected to having to answer questions with a simple "yes," " no" or "I don’t know." At times the dueling was comic, producing laughter from the courtroom and even from U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is presiding over the trial.

Blankenhorn identified three principles of marriage, saying it involves opposite-sex people, is limited to two people and includes a sexual relationship.

Boies pointed out that much of the world has practiced polygamy in the past, that some societies practiced homosexual marriage and that some marriages, such as those of prisoners, are never consummated by sexual intercourse.

Blankenhorn, however, insisted that polygamy satisfied the principles of marriage because it involves a man who marries one woman at a time.

Boies asked whether Blankenhorn was testifying that a man with five wives is consistent with his rule that marriage involves two people.

Blankenhorn said yes, adding that the marriages did not occur at the same time, and "each marriage is distinct."

Walker thanked the lawyers at the close of the session for the "fascinating" trial and praised their legal skills and acumen.

— Maura Dolan at the San Francisco federal courthouse

The head of a think tank on marriage and family testified at the Proposition 8 federal trial today that same-sex marriage would weaken marriage and possibly lead to fewer heterosexual marriages, more divorces and "more public consideration of polygamy."

But under cross examination, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, acknowledged that he wrote in a book in 2007 that the U.S. would be "more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than we were on the day before."

Blankenhorn was called as an expert witness by lawyers defending Proposition 8 against a constitutional challenge by two same-sex couples. He is an author and researcher who is not associated with any university. He earned a master’s degree in history in England, where he studied the history of labor unions.

Blankenhorn testified that he later worked as a community activist in low-income neighborhoods in Massachusetts and Virginia, where he became interested in the impact of fatherless families on children.

After testifying that marriage was designed for two opposite-sex parents to bear and raise children, Blankenhorn said he decided during the last two years to support domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians as a "humane compromise."

He said he previously had feared domestic partnerships would both undermine marriage and discriminate against gays, but concluded that they were more legal arrangements than marriage.

Under cross examination by David Boies, an attorney for challengers of the ballot measure, Blankenhorn admitted he knew of no study showing that children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared worse than those raised by biological parents.

Blankenhorn also conceded that same-sex marriage would probably "improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

A spokeswoman for proponents of Proposition 8 said she did not know the context of Blankenhorn’s statement that the country would be "more American" with same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn testified that he still holds that view.

Cross-examination and redirect are scheduled for Wednesday morning.

— Maura Dolan in the San Francisco federal courthouse

Medical marijuana dispensary advocates assailed the Los Angeles City Council’s vote today to approve a medical marijuana ordinance, saying the measure was unworkable and would dramatically restrict access to patients who need the drug.

The council voted 9-3 to pass the long-awaited measure without discussion, but supporters of medical marijuana then streamed to the microphone during the time for public comment. "It’s a disaster for patients," said James Shaw, the director of the Union of Medical Marijuana Patients.

City Council members, however, expressed relief that an ordinance should soon be in place, even if it may require some changes. "I think we did our best to interpret the state law the way it is written," said Councilman Ed Reyes, who oversaw much of the ordinance’s drafting.

The ordinance will allow most dispensaries that registered with the city in 2007 to continue to operate, a number that may be around 150. But those stores will still have to comply with the location restrictions, including being at least 1,000 feet away from schools, parks and libraries.

Many operators said today that they will be unable to find suitable locations because the City Council also added restrictions to keep the stores from abutting or being across an alley from residential property. Operators also said that landlords, aware that there are very few buildings that can meet the tight location restrictions, are already jacking up rents.

Barry Kramer, who runs California Patients Alliance, a registered collective on Melrose Avenue, said that he looked for eight months for a location that was not near schools and other sensitive uses before he opened 2½ years ago. Because of the alley restriction, he said he will be forced to move. "The frustration is that we’ve tried to work so hard, 2½ years of working with everything that they’ve brought down," he said. "Now, all those good operators are going to be cast aside."

The ordinance does not take effect until the City Council approves fees that dispensaries will have to pay, but the operators that have to move, which is most of them, are already racing to find locations. "We’re scrambling right now," Kramer said. "No, we have not found anything."

Neighborhood activists, who have been vastly outnumbered at every City Council meeting, urged the lawmakers to act quickly to begin to enforce the ordinance. Lisa Sarkin, chairwoman of the Studio City Neighborhood Council land-use board, noted that there were 13 dispensaries in the area. "I can’t imagine how this could be necessary," she said.

An organization representing medical marijuana collectives that registered with the city is considering hiring a well-connected lobbyist to pressure the City Council to make changes and a lawyer to investigate whether there are grounds to sue.

Dispensary operators who did not register, many of whom opened last year, are exploring whether to sue the city or collect signatures to force a referendum on the ordinance.

"We are prepared to go forward and stop this ordinance," said Dan Lutz, who operates the Green Oasis dispensary. "I regret that we have to go this route."

— John Hoeffel in City Hall

See related story, Los Angeles City Council approves medical marijuana ordinance that will shut down hundreds of dispensaries

More breaking news in L.A. Now:

Italian sausage products recalled in 37 states

Former L.A. County assistant fire chief guilty in beating death of puppy

Sex offender arrested for allegedly soliciting children at downtown L.A. housing complex

Storm could bring more snow and closures to mountains

Former owners of medical center to pay $10-million settlement in alleged Medicare fraud scheme

79-year-old jewelry thief, subject of Halle Berry movie, arrested at South Coast Plaza

A political scientist hired by defenders of Proposition 8 admitted under cross-examination today that prejudice played a role in the passage of the 2008 anti-same-sex-marriage initiative.

"At least some people voted for Proposition 8 on the basis of anti-gay stereotypes," Claremont McKenna College professor Kenneth Miller testified during the third week of a federal trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

David Boies, who cross-examined Miller, read aloud written statements Miller made that said minorities were vulnerable to ballot initiatives, and federal courts needed to step in and protect them. One of the statements was from a paper Miller wrote in 2005.

Miller was hired by the Proposition 8 campaign to testify that gays and lesbians today have significant political power. The issue of power is important in the legal analysis over whether gays and lesbians need stronger, federal constitutional protection.

Boies pressed Miller to say that Roman Catholicism was the most populous religion in California, with about 30% of the state’s population identifying as Catholic, followed by Southern Baptists.

Trying to show that gays lack power to protect themselves at the ballot box, Boies noted that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are a "serious depravity" while the Southern Baptist Conference says homosexual acts are an "abomination."

The trial was briefly disrupted this morning by a noisy man in a yellow parka who resisted efforts by guards to remove him. "Before I leave, let no man take the family from Jesus!" he shouted as two guards pulled him from the court.

A guard also admonished a woman in the audience who kept peering at Miller with binoculars.

–Maura Dolan at the San Francisco federal courthouse

More breaking news in L.A. Now:

L.A. controller warns against using reserve fund to patch budget gap

Italian sausage products recalled in 37 states

Former L.A. County assistant fire chief guilty in beating death of puppy

Sex offender arrested for allegedly soliciting children at downtown L.A. housing complex

Storm could bring more snow and closures to mountains

Former owners of medical center to pay $10-million settlement in alleged Medicare fraud scheme

79-year-old jewelry thief, subject of Halle Berry movie, arrested at South Coast Plaza

A political scientist testified at a federal trial today that gays and lesbians enjoy wide support from the Democratic party, unions and many corporations, as do other minorities, including African Americans.

Professor Kenneth P. Miller, who teaches political science at Claremont McKenna College, was the first witness called by defenders of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Miller testified that the Democratic Party in California was on record in support of the repeal of Proposition 8. He also testified that the California Teachers Assn. contributed $1.3 million to defeat the marriage ban and that leading industries in Silicon Valley also participated in efforts to defeat Proposition 8.

Miller’s testimony portrayed California’s approval of initiatives to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples as exceptions to the state’s traditional support for gay and lesbian causes. He testified that three past ballot initiatives opposed by gays and lesbians, including one that would have subjected those who were infected with HIV to quarantine, have failed overwhelmingly.

During cross-examination, David Boies, an attorney for the challengers, got Miller to admit that the entities that support gay rights also support rights for other minorities.

Boies asked Miller for examples of official discrimination against gays. Miller mentioned the federal law banning openly gay people in the military.

Under further questioning, Miller cited a federal law that defines marriage as an opposite-sex relationship and California’s marriage ban that was enacted as Proposition 8.

"Looking at the institution of marriage, the state does treat heterosexual couples differently than same-sex couples," Miller said.

Miller took the stand after challengers of Proposition 8 rested their case. They introduced videos produced by supporters of Proposition 8 warning that same-sex marriage could lead to incest and other social ills.

The official Proposition 8 paid for satellite transmission of the videos to churches in California.

A woman, speaking in one of the simulcasts, warned that same-sex marriage would lead to incest and polygamy.

"Then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-, 7-, 8-year-olds," she predicted. "The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse after [gay] marriage was instituted in Massachusetts. He’d have to be allowed to do so. Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any, any combination would have to be allowed."

One video showed an African American expressing irritation with comparisons of bias against gays to discrimination against African Americans, noting that people were comparing "my skin to their sin." Photographs of gay men kissing each other at their weddings also were shown.

— Maura Dolan at the San Francisco federal courthouse

The California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 today that prosecutors may get around legal deadlines by filing arrest warrants based on DNA left behind at a crime.

The ruling, written by Justice Ming W. Chin, also upheld the conviction of Paul Eugene Robertson for sexual offenses even though prosecutors obtained a DNA "match" after Robertson’s DNA had been illegally placed in the state’s DNA offender database.

Sacramento prosecutors filed an arrest warrant for "John Doe, unknown male," on Aug. 21, 2000, four days before the legal deadline or statute of limitations for filing charges in the case. Prosecutors attached a DNA profile to the warrant from evidence left at the crime.

Although Robertson’s DNA had been "mistakenly" entered into the database, the errors that led to the collection of his blood did not require the court to throw out the evidence, Chin wrote.

The court majority said the use of DNA profiles to identify unknown suspects in arrest warrants was valid.

"We conclude that, when there is no more particular, accurate or reliable means of identification available to law enforcement, an arrest warrant or a complaint that describes the person to be arrested by a fictitious name and his unique DNA profile … satisfies the particularity requirements " of law, Chin wrote.

Justice Carlos Moreno, joined by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, dissented on the use of a "John Doe" warrant, calling it "a clever artifice intended solely to satisfy the statute of limitations until the identity of the perpetrator could be discovered."

"The arrest warrant that was issued a few days before the statute of limitations expired was not a true arrest warrant; it was a mere placeholder, because it did not authorize the arrest of any individual," Moreno wrote. "It was not until the warrant was amended to replace the name John Doe and the reference to the DNA profile with defendant’s name that the warrant became effective and the prosecution commenced; but this was too late, because the statute of limitations had already expired."

— Maura Dolan in San Francisco

A political scientist testified at a federal trial today that gays and lesbians had wide support in California among elected officials, unions and major corporations.

Kenneth P. Miller, who teaches political science at Claremont McKenna College, was the first witness called by defenders of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Miller said the Democratic Party in California was a strong ally of gay men and lesbians and was on record supporting the repeal of Proposition 8. He also testified that the California Teachers Assn. contributed $1.3 million to defeat the marriage ban, and leading industries in Silicon Valley joined the campaign against it.

Miller, whose testimony will continue this afternoon, took the stand after challengers of Proposition 8 rested their case. They introduced videos produced by supporters of Proposition 8 warning that same-sex marriage could lead to incest and other social ills.

"Then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-, 7-, 8-year-olds," said a person in one of the videos. "The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse. … He’d have to be allowed to do so. Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any, any combination would have to be allowed."

In a webcast developed by pastors, an African American man said he was upset that discrimination against gays was being compared to discrimination against blacks and complained that people were comparing "my skin to their sin."

Lawyers defending Proposition 8 said the videos were not made by the Proposition 8 campaign.

— Maura Dolan at the San Francisco federal courthouse