ReportWire

Tag: Bill Lee

  • Donald Trump suffers two major legal setbacks within hours

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump faced two major legal setbacks on Monday as courts in New York and Tennessee moved to constrain key parts of his domestic enforcement agenda.

    Within hours, a federal judge upheld New York’s limits on courthouse immigration arrests, while a state judge in Nashville blocked the deployment of Tennessee National Guard troops to Memphis.

    Newsweek contacted the DOJ and the office of the governors of the states for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Tuesday.

    Why It Matters

    Within the span of a few hours on Monday, President Donald Trump’s domestic enforcement agenda was hit by two separate court rulings that underscored growing judicial resistance to the administration’s attempts to expand federal authority in states that push back.

    A federal judge in New York upheld a state law restricting civil immigration arrests at courthouses, while a Tennessee judge blocked the deployment of National Guard troops to Memphis, finding the move likely violated state constitutional limits.

    Together, the decisions highlight the legal constraints confronting Trump as he seeks to intensify immigration operations and broaden the use of military force in U.S. cities over state objections.

    What To Know

    I. Judge Upholds New York Law Barring Immigration Arrests at Courthouses

    President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda encountered a significant legal setback on Monday after a federal judge rejected the administration’s attempt to strike down a New York law restricting civil immigration arrests in and around state courthouses.

    U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging the 2020 Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) and related state executive orders.

    In a 41-page ruling, D’Agostino concluded that the federal government’s suit amounted to an improper effort “to commandeer New York’s resources to aid in federal immigration efforts” according to the decision.

    The court held that New York acted within its rights in limiting where federal agents may conduct civil immigration arrests.

    The Trump administration had argued that the state law violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and unlawfully restricted federal enforcement authority.

    Federal lawyers also sought to compel state and local law enforcement agencies to share information with federal immigration officials. D’Agostino rejected those claims, writing that New York was exercising “its permissible choice not to participate in federal civil immigration enforcement.”

    POCA, enacted in 2020 in response to a sharp rise in courthouse arrests under Trump’s first term, prohibits civil immigration arrests of individuals traveling to, attending, or leaving state court proceedings unless agents hold a judicial warrant.

    The measure was intended to limit disruptions to court operations and ensure that parties and witnesses could appear in court without fear of apprehension.

    In recent months, federal immigration agents had intensified courthouse operations in New York and other cities as part of the administration’s broader strategy to increase removals of undocumented immigrants.

    That posture led to renewed friction with states that maintain restrictions on local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

    Monday’s ruling marks a notable setback for the administration’s efforts to expand civil immigration arrests in sensitive locations.

    The case, United States v. New York, challenged both POCA and executive orders issued during former Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration that limited state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

    D’Agostino dismissed the suit in its entirety.

    The ruling is likely to serve as a reference point for similar disputes arising in other states where federal immigration enforcement priorities clash with local laws or policies restricting cooperation with federal agencies.

    II. Nashville Judge Blocks Memphis National Guard Deployment

    Just hours after the New York ruling, the Trump administration suffered a second legal blow—this time in Tennessee, where a state court halted the deployment of National Guard troops to Memphis.

    Davidson County Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal issued a temporary injunction blocking Republican Governor Bill Lee from continuing the activation of Tennessee National Guard personnel for participation in President Trump’s Memphis Safe Task Force.

    The deployment, requested by the administration under Title 32 authority, was intended to supplement federal and local law enforcement operations in response to high violent-crime rates in the city.

    In her order, Moskal found that the plaintiffs—including Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, local commissioners, and several state lawmakers—had demonstrated sufficient immediate harm to justify halting the deployment.

    The judge wrote that the state’s militia law requires the Tennessee General Assembly to authorize National Guard activation for public-safety purposes and that crime conditions in Memphis did not constitute a “grave emergency” or “disaster” that would permit unilateral deployment by the governor.

    The order temporarily restrains Governor Lee and Major General Warner Ross III “from implementing and continuing the activation and deployment of Tennessee National Guard personnel” under the presidential memorandum.

    The injunction does not affect the presence of federal law enforcement officers already operating in the city.

    In a public statement, Mayor Harris called the ruling “a positive step toward ensuring the rule of law applies to everyone, including everyday Tennesseans and even the governor.”

    The state has five days to appeal the ruling.

    The lawsuit argues that deploying National Guard troops for routine law-enforcement functions violates both the Tennessee Constitution and state statutes, which strictly limit the circumstances under which the militia may be mobilized.

    The Memphis Safe Task Force, created by a September presidential memorandum, aims to increase law-enforcement presence and coordinate multi-agency operations across Memphis.

    Plaintiffs contend that the National Guard deployment exceeded both federal and state legal authority.

    The Tennessee ruling adds to a series of mounting legal challenges to the Trump administration’s domestic troop deployments, several of which are already moving through federal courts.

    What People Are Saying

    Kathy Hochul (Governor of New York) said: “Masked ICE agents shoved and injured journalists today at Federal Plaza. One reporter left on a stretcher. This abuse of law-abiding immigrants and the reporters telling their stories must end. What the hell are we doing here?”

    Bill Lee (Governor of Tennessee) who had approved the deployment of an undetermined number of Tennessee National Guard troops to Memphis, said: “I think [AG] General Skrmetti’s a brilliant lawyer who understands constitutional law, and I suspect he’s got the right answer on it.”

    What Happens Next

    Both rulings are likely to move quickly into appeals, with the Trump administration expected to challenge the New York decision in the Second Circuit and Tennessee Governor Bill Lee poised to seek an emergency stay and appellate review of the injunction blocking his National Guard deployment.

    New York’s courthouse-arrest restrictions will remain in effect during the federal appeal, while the Memphis deployment is paused unless a higher state court reverses the ruling.

    Together, the cases set up parallel legal battles over the limits of federal immigration enforcement and the circumstances under which state-controlled military forces can be used for domestic policing—disputes that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After court OKs guns in parks, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, attorney general file appeal

    [ad_1]

    Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti are appealing a recent court decision that abolished two laws imposing gun restrictions in Tennessee, with Skrmetti saying the ruling “goes too far.”

    The decision, made by a three-judge panel in late August, invalidated two Tennessee laws. One made it illegal to carry a gun in a park or a similar area without a permit to carry a handgun. The other outlawed the more ambiguous offense of carrying a firearm “with the intent to go armed.”

    The ruling was hailed by pro-gun groups like the ones who challenged the laws, but some people, like Memphis Sen. London Lamar, a Democrat, felt abolishing the laws puts people in danger and removing the “intent to go armed” law specifically leaves police officers waiting “until a crime has already been committed.”

    Skrmetti argued in a statement the invalidated laws are constitutional in some situations.

    Tennessee attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti, center, speaks on a panel with Brent Leatherwood, left, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, during the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in Dallas.

    More: Three-judge panel finds Tennessee’s guns in parks prohibition violates Second Amendment

    “For example, it’s obviously constitutional to prohibit a ten-year-old from bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a rec league basketball game or a drunk with a shotgun from staggering down Broadway or through Market Square or across Shelby Farms. But the Court’s ruling appears to legalize this in Tennessee,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “We look forward to the appellate courts providing clarity for citizens and law enforcement.”

    News of the appeal prompted sharp rebuke from some conservative lawmakers. Tennessee Rep. Monty Fritts, R-Kingston, called it “the most Constitutionally repugnant action committed in the past decade, or longer in Tennessee.” Rep. Todd Warner, R-Chapel Hill, directed fire at House Republican leadership’s “silence,” “while our freedoms are being shredded.”

    Several Republicans had urged Lee and Skrmetti to let the lower court decision stand. In a Sept. 2 letter to Skrmetti, Fritts made a last minute plea, arguing that the law outlawing carrying a weapon “with the intent to go armed” runs counter to the principle of innocent until proven guilty by criminalizing a person’s intent rather than actions. Eleven other state lawmakers signed onto Fritts’ letter. Others, including Sen. Page Walley, R-Savannah, wrote their own.

    Brandon Puttbrese, press secretary for Tennessee Senate Democrats, was also concerned the ruling removed a legal mechanism for police to investigate suspicious people carrying weapons, arguing the decision “ties their hands.”

    Puttbrese said he hopes common sense prevails on appeal but that he does not have confidence in the courts.

    The Tennessean left a voicemail seeking comment with John I. Harris III, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the case. The plaintiffs include three gun owners and “no-compromise gun lobby” Gun Owners of America and its associated nonprofit Gun Owners Foundation. The Tennessean also sent an email seeking comment to Lee’s press secretary Elizabeth Johnson.

    Have questions about the justice system? Evan Mealins is the justice reporter for The Tennessean. Contact him with questions, tips or story ideas at emealins@tennessean.com.

    This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Tennessee gov, AG appeal ruling that OKs guns in TN parks

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In gun law push, Tennessee governor’s office memo says NRA prefers to ’round up mentally ill people’

    In gun law push, Tennessee governor’s office memo says NRA prefers to ’round up mentally ill people’

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s administration accused the National Rifle Association of wanting to use involuntary commitment laws “to round up mentally ill people and deprive them of other liberties,” according to documents drafted by the Republican’s staffers as part of their initial attempt to pass a gun control proposal earlier this year.

    The memos, provided by Lee’s office as part of a public records request, reveal a rare criticism of the powerful gun lobby made by the Republican governor. Lee has previously praised the NRA’s efforts to protect the Second Amendment. But he has since faced opposition from the group as he works to pass gun control legislation in response to a deadly Nashville school shooting that took place in late March.

    So far, Lee has proposed keeping firearms away from people who could harm themselves or others. He is currently facing pushback from both the GOP-dominant General Assembly and firearms rights advocacy groups, including the NRA, that are wary of increasing gun restrictions in ruby red Tennessee. The NRA’s opposition is particularly notable because the group was a crucial player in Lee’s successful push in 2021 to pass a law that allows people 21 and older to carry handguns without a permit in Tennessee.

    That means Lee has been forced to go on the defensive, arguing that what he has proposed is not, in fact, a so-called red flag law like those adopted by other states in the wake of tragedies. Instead, the talking points show he is attempting to sell his proposal as “the most conservative in the nation” and the best plan for “Second Amendment advocates.” He also is taking aim at advocates who want to focus on Tennessee laws that allow committing people without their permission if they pose “a substantial likelihood of serious harm” due to a “mental illness or serious emotional disturbance.”

    “Not only is the NRA’s proposal impractical — it would drastically expand the scope of government,” one of the memos reads.

    In announcing his plan publicly in April, Lee acknowledged the proponents of involuntary commitment, but did not name the NRA.

    “Some advocates of the Second Amendment say something called ‘involuntary commitment’ is the answer, but that would restrict all kinds of constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment,” Lee said at the time. “It’s not the best way.”

    Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, House Speaker Cameron Sexton further lowered expectations that Lee’s proposal has a chance to pass, saying he doesn’t think he and fellow Republican lawmakers support red-flag-esque laws. He said some other areas of policy could be considered: involuntary commitment, more mental health in-patient beds, better database updating for background checks, a new state-level offense beyond the federal law prohibiting felons from having a certain amount of ammunition, and broadening state law so more types of violent threats could be considered a crime.

    “When you look at what the NRA is saying, is you currently have laws on the books — emergency, involuntary commitment,” Sexton told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “And so, use what you have.”

    The governor initially unveiled his legislation just weeks after six people — including three young children — were killed in a Nashville school shooting. Lee’s wife, Maria, was friends with the head of the school and a substitute teacher who were among those killed.

    Despite Lee’s urging for lawmakers to pass his proposal, GOP leaders have resisted. The Legislature adjourned without taking up the issue in April, but Lee has since called them to come back to address the matter in late August.

    The documents reviewed by AP show that Lee’s administration drafted the talking points in April. They tout the governor’s proposal as “more targeted and more limited” than what the NRA currently supports. It’s unclear where the memos were circulated or how many people outside Lee’s office received them.

    In the memo, Lee’s office wrote that the NRA’s plan “does not get at the heart of the problem, as it fails to address unstable individuals who suffer from mental health issues but do not qualify for involuntary commitment to a facility.”

    “Gov. Lee believes the best path forward is practical, thoughtful solutions to keep communities safe and protect constitutional rights,” his spokesperson, Jade Byers, said in an emailed statement. “He looks forward to speaking with key stakeholders, including the NRA, and working with legislators on proposals in the months ahead.”

    In an April memo, the NRA’s lobbying arm urged its supporters to oppose Lee’s plan. The group noted that “Tennessee already has broad civil commitment laws” and added that the state could improve access to emergency mental health services.

    Asked about the governor’s office talking points about their group, NRA spokesperson Amy Hunter didn’t address the claims, saying in a statement that the group is focused on “preserving and advancing the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Tennessee.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Tennessee’s Anti-Drag Law

    Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Tennessee’s Anti-Drag Law

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked Tennessee’s first-in-the-nation law placing strict limits on drag shows just hours before it was set to go into effect, siding with a group that filed a lawsuit claiming the statute violates the First Amendment.

    The decision comes after Memphis-based Friends of George’s, an LGBTQ+ theater company, filed the federal lawsuit Monday against Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy and the state.

    U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker issued the temporary injunction after hearing arguments on both sides Thursday.

    Parker wrote that the state has failed to make a compelling argument as to why Tennessee needed the new law, adding that the court also agrees the statute is likely vague and overly broad.

    The word “drag” doesn’t appear in the new law, which instead changed the definition of adult cabaret in Tennessee to mean “adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors.” Furthermore, “male or female impersonators” are now classified as a form of adult cabaret, akin to strippers and topless, go-go and exotic dancers.

    The law banned adult cabaret performances from public property or anywhere minors might be present. Performers who break the law risk being charged with a misdemeanor or a felony for a repeat offense.

    “The law prohibits a drag performer wearing a crop top and mini skirt from dancing where minors might see it, but does not prohibit a Tennessee Titans cheerleader wearing an identical outfit from performing the exact same dance in front of children,” the initial complaint contends.

    Parker also listed concerns aligning with the group’s argument that the law was overly broad, questioning the location specifications of a cabaret entertainment venue that might be viewed by a minor.

    “Does a citizen’s private residence count? How about a camping ground at a national park?” Parker wrote. “Ultimately, the Statute’s broad language clashes with the First Amendment’s tight constraints.”

    The complaint also details the efforts last year to block a drag show at a park in Jackson, west of Nashville, as part of a Pride festival. A legal complaint spearheaded by Republican state Rep. Chris Todd and Republican state Sen. Ed Jackson sought to prevent the show, forcing organizers to reach a settlement to hold the event indoors with an age restriction.

    “After abusing the state courts to violate the First Amendment rights of Jackson Pride, Rep. Todd ‘was asked to come up with legislation that would make this much more clear’ — that drag performances in front of children are a violation of Tennessee law,” the complaint argues.

    Parker referenced Todd’s actions in his Friday decision, saying the state attorney general’s office failed to give a clear answer on the purpose of the new law given Tennessee’s current obscenity laws.

    During Thursday’s hearing, Mulroy told the judge that he didn’t object to a temporary restraining order.

    “There has been much concern and confusion about the law from the community,” Mulroy said in a statement to The Associated Press. “This will allow the court to clarify the scope, application, and constitutionality of the statute. It’s important to understand the scope of this law so that it doesn’t have a harmful effect on constitutionally protected expression.”

    A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office did not immediately reply to a request for comment on Friday.

    The Tennessee drag law marks the second major proposal targeting LGBTQ+ people passed by state lawmakers this year. Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed into law GOP-backed legislation banning most gender-affirming care.

    Lee has faced criticism for approving the anti-drag show law, particularly since a photo surfaced of him as a high school senior dressed in women’s clothing in 1977.

    Lee called comparing the two issues “ridiculous.” When asked for specific examples of inappropriate drag shows taking place in front of children, Lee did not cite any, but said he was concerned about protecting children.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As Tennessee, others target drag shows, many wonder: Why?

    As Tennessee, others target drag shows, many wonder: Why?

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — “If I hadn’t been a girl, I’d have been a drag queen.”

    Dolly Parton has uttered those words famously and often. But if she really were a drag queen, one of Tennessee’s most famous daughters would likely be out of a job under legislation signed into law by Republican Gov. Bill Lee on Thursday.

    Lee signed off on the legislation without issuing a statement or having a public ceremony. The bill goes into effect July 1.

    Across the country, conservative activists and politicians complain that drag contributes to the “sexualization” or “grooming” of children. Several states are considering restrictions, but none has acted as fast as Tennessee. The efforts seek to extinguish popular “ drag story hours ” at which queens read to kids. Organizers of LGBTQ Pride events say they put a chill on their parades. And advocates note that the bills, pushed largely by Republicans, burden businesses in an un-Republican fashion.

    The protestations have arisen fairly suddenly around a form of entertainment that has long had a place on the mainstream American stage.

    Milton Berle, “Mr. Television” himself, was appearing in drag on the public airwaves as early as the 1950s on “Texaco Star Theater.” “RuPaul’s Drag Race” is a bona fide cultural phenomenon. Highly popular drag brunches bring revenue to restaurants. That such spectacles are now being portrayed as a danger to children boggles the minds of people who study, perform and appreciate drag.

    “Drag is not a threat to anyone. It makes no sense to be criminalizing or vilifying drag in 2023,” said Lawrence La Fountain-Stokes, a professor of culture and gender studies at the University of Michigan and author of “Translocas: The Politics of Puerto Rican Drag and Trans Performance.”

    “It is a space where people explore their identities,” said La Fountain-Stokes, who has done drag himself. “But it is also a place where people simply make a living. Drag is a job. Drag is a legitimate artistic expression that brings people together, that entertains, that allows certain individuals to explore who they are and allows all of us to have a very nice time. So it makes literally no sense for legislators, for people in government, to try to ban drag.”

    Drag does not typically involve nudity or stripping, which are more common in the separate art of burlesque. Explicitly sexual and profane language is common in drag performances, but such content is avoided when children are the target audience. At shows meant for adults, venues or performers generally warn beforehand about age-inappropriate content.

    The word “drag” does not appear in the Tennessee bill. Instead, it changes the definition of adult cabaret in Tennessee’s law to mean “adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors.” It also says “male or female impersonators” now fall under adult cabaret among topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers and strippers.

    The bill then bans adult cabaret from public property or anywhere minors might be present. It threatens performers with a misdemeanor charge, or a felony if it’s a repeat offense.

    The bill has raised concerns that it could be used to target transgender people, but sponsors say that is not the intent.

    The Tennessee Pride Chamber, a business advocacy group, predicted that “selective surveillance and enforcement” will lead to court challenges and “massive expenses” as governments defend an unconstitutional law that will harm the state’s brand.

    “Tourism, which contributes significantly to our state’s growth and well-being, may well suffer from boycotts disproportionately affecting members of our community who work in Tennessee’s restaurants, arts, and hospitality industries,” chamber President Brian Rosman wrote in an email to The Associated Press. “Corporations will not continue to expand or relocate here if their employees — and their recruits — don’t feel safe or welcomed in Tennessee.”

    John Camp, a Pride organizer in Knoxville, said the event in Tennessee’s third-largest city will be somber this October — describing it as “more of a march than a celebration.” There were 100 drag performers last year, he said, but he is unsure how many can participate this year.

    Several other states, including Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma and Utah, are considering similar bans. And the Arkansas governor recently signed a bill that puts new restrictions on “adult-oriented” performances. It originally targeted drag shows but was scaled back following complaints of anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

    “I find it irresponsible to create a law based on a complete lack of understanding and determined willful misinterpretation of what drag actually is,” Montana state Rep. Connie Keogh said in February during floor debate. “It is part of the cultural fabric of the LGBTQ+ community and has been around for centuries.”

    Tennessee state Sen. Jack Johnson, the Republican sponsor, says his bill addresses “sexually suggestive drag shows” that are inappropriate for children.

    Months ago, organizers of a Pride festival in Jackson, west of Nashville, came under fire for hosting a drag show in a park. A legal complaint spearheaded by a Republican state representative sought to prevent the show, but organizers reached a settlement to hold it indoors, with an age restriction.

    And in Chattanooga, false allegations of child abuse spread online after far-right activists posted video of a child feeling a female performer’s sequined costume. Online commentators falsely said the performer was male, and it has gone on to be used as a rationale to ban children from drag shows.

    “Rather than focus on actual policy issues facing Tennesseans, politicians would rather spend their time and effort misconstruing age-appropriate performances at a library to pass as many anti-LGBTQ+ bills as they can,” Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement last week.

    At times, the vitriol has become violence. Protesters, some of them armed, threw rocks and smoke grenades at one another outside a drag event in Oregon last year.

    The Tennessee drag bill marks the second major proposal targeting LGBTQ people that lawmakers in the state have passed this year. Last week, lawmakers approved legislation that bans most gender-affirming care. Lee also signed that bill into law on Thursday.

    Lee was fielding questions Monday from reporters about the legislation and other LGBTQ bills when an activist asked him if he remembered “dressing up in drag in 1977.” He was presented with a photo that showed the governor as a high school senior dressed in women’s clothing that was published in the Franklin High School 1977 yearbook. The photo was first posted on Reddit over the weekend.

    Lee said it is “ridiculous” to compare the photo to “sexualized entertainment in front of children.” When asked for specific examples of inappropriate drag shows taking place in front of children, Lee did not cite any, only pointing to a nearby school building and saying he was concerned about protecting children.

    ___

    McMillan reported from northeastern Pennsylvania. Associated Press writers Jonathan Matisse in Nashville and Amy Beth Hanson in Helena, Montana, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tennessee eyes $2M in contracts to test 1000 rape kits

    Tennessee eyes $2M in contracts to test 1000 rape kits

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee’s lead investigative agency is seeking $2 million in contracts with outside labs to process 1,000 rape kits it says need to be tested before the end of June.

    The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation issued the request for proposals for up to three contractors, as the state’s turnaround times for sexual assault kits continue to face scrutiny after the high-profile killing of teacher Eliza Fletcher in September. The contractors would also need to testify about the tested rape kits as needed in court cases.

    As of October, the agency said the average turnaround time for a rape kit was 43 weeks at the Knoxville lab, 42.4 weeks at the Jackson lab and 32.7 weeks at the Nashville lab. The bureau wants the contractors signed on by the end of January.

    The agency has attributed the delays to staffing woes and low pay agency-wide that complicates recruiting and keeping scientists, in addition to other professionals. The issues are likely to drive plenty of conversation during the legislative session that begins next month.

    Republican Gov. Bill Lee announced in late September that he and lawmakers were fast-tracking funding to hire an 25 additional forensic lab positions. The agency had requested 40 more special agent/forensic scientist positions and 10 more technicians in the budget that is now in effect, but Lee and lawmakers initially funded half that amount.

    Eighteen new special agent/forensic scientists have started since September, while 22 are in the hiring, background or relocation process, agency spokesperson Keli McAlister said.

    There are several different roles for forensic scientists at the agency other than DNA, ranging from toxicology to forensic chemistry. In the first wave of positions approved for the current budget, for example, the 20 new special agent/forensic scientist positions funded included eight forensic biology/DNA positions.

    Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Director David Rausch has said the agency has several other approaches in the works, as he aims to reduce turnaround times to eight to 12 weeks within a year for all evidence. Some efforts include: offering overtime for lab workers; operating the labs on weekends; and contracting with retired TBI workers to help provide training so current scientists can shift their time training employees to more case work.

    The problems with Tennessee’s rape kit testing were laid bare after Fletcher’s killing.

    Authorities confirmed that the man charged with abducting and killing Fletcher had not been charged in the 2021 case of the rape of a woman due to the delay in processing the sexual assault kit.

    Cleotha Henderson was eventually indicted in the case just days after he was arrested in the death of Fletcher, a mother of two and a kindergarten teacher.

    In the earlier case, Memphis police say they took a sexual assault report on Sept. 21, 2021 but it wasn’t analyzed in a state lab until nearly a year later. When the 2021 DNA was entered into the national database, it returned a match for Henderson on Sept. 5. Fletcher disappeared on Sept. 2.

    TBI said police in Memphis had made no request for expedited analysis of the kit, which can cut the wait to only days, and no suspect information was included in the submission.

    Henderson made a brief appearance before a judge in Shelby County Criminal Court on the rape charge Friday. His defense attorney said she is receiving evidence from prosecutors and a judge set a report date for Feb. 3. Henderson has pleaded not guilty.

    ———

    Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tennessee contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link