Lenient plea deal for man responsible for the death of Paul Kessler during an anti-Israel demonstration
You may recall the death of Paul Kessler two years ago, in which the 69-year-old Jewish man was struck with a megaphone by a pro-Palestinian demonstrator, fell, hit his head, and died. Now the perpetrator has been offered a plea deal rather than going to trial. The trial had been scheduled for next week, so the plea deal is very timely. But he has agreed to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter in exchange for a one-year sentence followed by probation.
The perp’s name is Loay Alnaji, described here as “a Moorpark resident” (Moorpark is an LA suburb in Ventura County). Alnaji is a naturalized citizen originally from Jordan, something the yahoo article neglects to mention, but which is noted in this Legal Insurrection piece. He also is (or perhaps was) a professor of computer science at a community college in Moorpark.
The case wasn’t one of murder, but nevertheless the low penalty is disturbing, plus now we will never get a hearing on the facts of the case. Alnaji’s counsel states the swiping with the megaphone was accidental, but whether or not that is true, or whether this was more sinister, will never be heard in a court of law. What’s more strange – to me, at least – is that the judge made this deal over the prosecution’s objections:
Senior Deputy District Attorney David Russell said both the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office and Kessler’s family opposed the judge’s offer and instead requested the maximum possible sentence of four years in state prison.
“This is over the people’s objection,” Russell told [Judge] Malan.
It’s my impression that this is highly unusual. Ordinarily it’s the prosecution offering the deal, and it’s the judge rubber-stamping it. In fact, in a search just now I can’t find a similar case, although perhaps they exist.
My guess is that the judge wanted this case to go away. The defense attorney has claimed that the judge said it was a situation in which “two old guys had a dispute and an accident happened.” Wow. Wouldn’t that be something to determine after the evidence has come out in a trial?
I thought a plea deal was made with the prosecution and then presented to the judge. I never heard of a judge talking independently to an accused person without the prosecution’s involvement. In particular, as you point out, Neo, this means the judge heard the defense’s version of what happened, but not the prosecution’s evidence.
As I recall, Alnaji crossed two four-lane roads, approached Kessler, hit him in the head with a bull horn, whereupon Kessler fell and cracked his skull. This calls for more than a slap on the wrist, in my opinion.
Another example, in case you needed one, of two things:
==
A. Our immigration system allows the importation of a lot of rubbish human beings. and
==
B. Judges have way too much discretion (in California and other places). Any plea agreement should be negotiated by the prosecutor and the defense counsel. The role of the trial judge should be to ratify the deal or reject it and send the case to trial. That’s it.
==
It’s insane for any non Muslim nation to allow mass Muslim migration.
Jon Baker-
Alot of insanity going around.
Neo, your assumption that it is “highly unusual” that a judge would impose a sentence over the objection of the prosecution is incorrect. It’s as common as grass. Generally, if the parties cannot reach a plea agreement, either the defense or the prosecution may request a conference with the judge where both parties are in attendance to make their arguments. The judge may, if he or she wishes, then indicate what sentence he or she thinks he would impose on a plea of guilty. This practice is specifically provided for in the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 12), and while I am not intimately conversant with California practice, I would be surprised if similar or more liberal procedures did not apply there. Everyone can have an opinion about what a judge “should” be able to do, as some of your commentators have expressed, but what a judge actually can or cannot do is cabined by authority (in this case, the rules). Please note, I am commenting on a procedural issue, not the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the sentence imposed in this case.
“Mercy to the guilty, is cruelty to the innocent”.
I see more abuse of/in our judicial system. If I was given a summons to appear as a Juror, I’m now feel inclined to blow it off.
James: If I was given a summons to appear as a Juror, I’m now feel inclined to blow it off.
Please don’t blow it off. I served on a jury more than 10 years ago. I remember it vividly; I can still see the courtroom, the jury room, us sitting around the table. I was deeply and lastingly impressed by the seriousness of my fellow ordinary people.
FWIW, Sweden is at last taking serious measures against its burgeoning immigrant population — which has reached 20% of the general population, along with increased crime and welfare grifting:
_________________________________
Sweden just released tough new rules to obtain citizenship — a major reversal of the country’s history of open borders.
* Foreigners must now reside in Sweden for 8 years instead of 5.
* They must speak Swedish.
* They must be able to support themselves without unemployment benefits or subsidized employment.
* They must fit in with Swedish culture, including an “honest and orderly lifestyle.”
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2026/05/04/sweden-lays-an-immigration-hammer-down-n3814586
_________________________________
Sounds good for the US and the rest of Europe too.
Robert Cosgrove:
I did a search for it, rephrasing it in about five different ways, and all I got were articles on prosecutors making deals and judges approving them. You say it happens a lot in Massachusetts; could you direct me to the portion of Rule 12 that covers that?
When I researched California, I found this link – the only link I’ve seen so far that deals explicitly with the subject. There are contradictory answers there from different people (purporting to be lawyers), but in general the answers mostly say it’s not allowed but sometimes it happens.
James Sisco on May 6, 2026 at 9:48 pm said:
“If I was given a summons to appear as a Juror, I’m now feel inclined to blow it off.”
I concur with AppleBetty that you should plan to perform jury duty when called. If you can make a coherent comment on this blog thread you are probably more qualified than most citizens to sit in judgement of your peers. You being incensed at the situation Neo describes indicates you also have a “strong sense of justice”, which is also what we want in our jurors.
If you really want to blow it off, the best solutions are to 1) become a lawyer 2) become an engineer or other highly analytical discipline 3) be a member of law enforcement 4) be over 70 years old. I recently was able to use that last one for that purpose.
I was once empaneled for a jury that was evidently so scary-looking that every defendant that day pled guilty.
Hey, only a year for killing an old Jew?
Not bad.
One might say it’s even encouraging!
(Those damn murderous…megaphones. They should be required by law to have printed on them—in HUGE—letters: NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS A WEAPON! DON’T SWING AT OTHER PEOPLE’S HEADS. Maybe at least THAT will be one positive outcome from this oh-so-unfortunate, sniff, sigh, TRAGEDY…)
This is the Lefts surge I was speaking of. It comes, just like the demise of the Democratic Party. It doesn’t mean they go away, they’ll be back under a different name..
while I am not intimately conversant with California practice, I would be surprised if similar or more liberal procedures did not apply there.
==
What you’re describing is not what happened in California.
==
Everyone can have an opinion about what a judge “should” be able to do, as some of your commentators have expressed, but what a judge actually can or cannot do is cabined by authority (in this case, the rules).
==
Are you this condescending to everyone you speak to?
“two old guys had a dispute and an accident happened.”
Reminds me of Ilhan Omar’s “some people did something” in reference to 9/11. It’s the defense attorney so he can say whatever he wants, but evidently the judge swallowed it.
That old judge best not get into an argument with a peer. Justice served cold it would be.
Jury duty is a civic responsibility. “abuse of/in our judicial system” is not a good reason to forfeit/shirk participation in that system.
With this result it won’t stop anyone to do it again. I feel very sorry for the family of Paul Kessler.
Neo, try Criminal Procedure Rule 12: Pleas and plea agreements
AD: “Are you this condescending to everyone you speak to?”
LOL