ReportWire

Tag: Chief Prosecutor

  • ‘I’m not afraid’: Former FBI director responds after being indicted

    [ad_1]

    This indictment filed overnight does not specifically mention the Russia investigation, but it does accuse Comey of making *** false statement and obstructing *** congressional proceeding. Comey’s accused of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation into Russia meddling with the 2016 election and whether he authorized *** leak to the press. Now timing is everything. Last week, the chief prosecutor who worked in the same office that filed the case against Comey resigned after President Trump pressured him to bring charges against the New York attorney General. Social media post, the president asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to do something about Comey. The president then nominated US Attorney Lindsay Halligan, former personal attorney to the president. Halligan quickly moved forward to present the Comey case to *** grand jury shortly after charges were filed. Comey responded, My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent. So let’s have *** trial. And keep the faith. Overnight, President Trump posted on social media saying that Comey has been bad for the country and is being held responsible for his crimes against the nation. If Comey is convicted, he faces up to 5 years in prison at the White House. I’m Rachel Horzheimer.

    ‘I’m not afraid’: Former FBI Director responds to indictment

    Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for allegedly lying to Congress about the Russia investigation, prompting a response from Comey expressing confidence in the judicial system.

    Updated: 7:52 AM EDT Sep 26, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for allegedly making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his testimony in 2020 about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.The indictment, filed Thursday night, does not specifically mention the Russia investigation but outlines charges against Comey for lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation and whether he authorized a leak to the press. Last week, Erik Siebert, the chief prosecutor who worked in the same office that filed the case against Comey, resigned after President Donald Trump pressured him to bring charges against the New York attorney general, Letitia James, in a mortgage fraud investigation.In a social media post, the president asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to do something about Comey, James, and Trump’s other political enemies, writing to Bondi, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” President Trump then nominated U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a former personal attorney to the president, who quickly moved forward to present the Comey case to a grand jury.Halligan rushed to present the case to a grand jury because prosecutors had until Tuesday to bring a case before the five-year statute of limitations expired.Shortly after the charges were filed, Comey responded in a video posted on his social media, saying, “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial and keep the faith.” Overnight, President Trump posted on social media, calling Comey “one of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to” and saying Comey is “being held responsible for his crimes against our Nation.”Trump continued by posting early Friday morning, “JAMES COMEY IS A DIRTY COP.”If convicted, Comey faces up to five years in prison.Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for allegedly making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his testimony in 2020 about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    The indictment, filed Thursday night, does not specifically mention the Russia investigation but outlines charges against Comey for lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation and whether he authorized a leak to the press.

    Last week, Erik Siebert, the chief prosecutor who worked in the same office that filed the case against Comey, resigned after President Donald Trump pressured him to bring charges against the New York attorney general, Letitia James, in a mortgage fraud investigation.

    In a social media post, the president asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to do something about Comey, James, and Trump’s other political enemies, writing to Bondi, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” President Trump then nominated U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a former personal attorney to the president, who quickly moved forward to present the Comey case to a grand jury.

    Halligan rushed to present the case to a grand jury because prosecutors had until Tuesday to bring a case before the five-year statute of limitations expired.

    Shortly after the charges were filed, Comey responded in a video posted on his social media, saying, “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

    Overnight, President Trump posted on social media, calling Comey “one of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to” and saying Comey is “being held responsible for his crimes against our Nation.”

    Trump continued by posting early Friday morning, “JAMES COMEY IS A DIRTY COP.”

    If convicted, Comey faces up to five years in prison.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SC solicitor becomes 3rd GOP candidate in attorney general’s race

    [ad_1]

    Eighth Circuit Solicitor David Stumbo officially launched his bid for South Carolina attorney general Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025. (Photo provided by Stumbo campaign)

    The chief prosecutor for Abbeville, Greenwood, Newberry and Laurens counties officially launched his bid for South Carolina attorney general.

    Eighth Circuit Solicitor David Stumbo became the third GOP candidate to announce his candidacy Tuesday during an event at the Laurens County Museum, promising to be “tough on crime.”

    Stumbo, a former assistant attorney general, was first elected solicitor in 2012.

    “Political promises don’t protect people – verdicts do,” he said in a statement. “For over twenty years, I’ve gone toe-to-toe with predators, traffickers, and violent criminals, and I’ve beaten them. That’s the kind of fight, and the kind of victory, you can count on with me as your Attorney General.”

    Stumbo also promised to combat illegal immigration, as well as drug and human trafficking.

    “Criminal illegal aliens, listen closely,” he said in a statement. “Anyone who tries to prey on our people, hear me now: you are not welcome in South Carolina.”

    “Like President Trump, I will crush fentanyl, smash the cartels, and treat traffickers like the terrorists they are,” he added.

    Stumbo joins state Sen. Stephen Goldfinch, R-Murrells Inlet, and First Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe, who switched parties in April, in the race to become the state’s top prosecutor.

    He appeared to call out both of his GOP primary opponents in his announcement.

    “I am the only conservative Republican prosecutor in this race,” Stumbo said in a statement. “Others may chase headlines or switch parties when it suits them. I’ve always been a conservative, always been a Republican, and always been a prosecutor who delivers convictions that stick.”

    The race for attorney general is wide open for the first time in 16 years as Republican Alan Wilson, first elected attorney general in 2010, runs for governor in 2026.

    No one has announced a bid to be the Democrat nominee. South Carolina hasn’t elected a Democrat as attorney general in 35 years.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • D.C.’s Crime Problem Is a Democracy Problem

    D.C.’s Crime Problem Is a Democracy Problem

    [ad_1]

    Matthew Graves is not shy about promoting his success in prosecuting those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. By his count, Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has charged more than 1,358 individuals, spread across nearly all 50 states and Washington, D.C., for assaulting police, destroying federal property, and other crimes. He issues a press release for most cases, and he held a rare news conference this past January to tout his achievements.

    But Graves’s record of bringing violent criminals to justice on the streets of D.C. has put him on the defensive. Alone among U.S. attorneys nationwide, Graves, appointed by the president and accountable to the U.S. attorney general, is responsible for overseeing both federal and local crime in his city. In 2022, prosecutors under Graves pressed charges on a record-low 33 percent of arrests in the District. Although the rate increased to 44 percent last fiscal year and continues to increase, other cities have achieved much higher rates: Philadelphia had a 96 percent prosecution rate in 2022, while Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, and New York City were both at 86 percent. D.C.’s own rate hovered in the 60s and 70s for years, until it began a sharp slide in 2016.

    These figures help account for the fact that, as most major U.S. cities recorded decreases in murders last year, killings in the nation’s capital headed in the other direction: 274 homicides in 2023, the highest number in a quarter century, amounting to a nearly 50 percent increase since 2015. Violent crime, from carjackings to armed robberies, also rose last year. Some types of crime in the District are trending down so far in 2024, but the capital has already transformed from one of the safest urban centers in America not long ago to one in which random violence can take a car or a life even in neighborhoods once considered crime free.

    Journalists and experts have offered up various explanations for D.C.’s defiance of national crime trends. The Metropolitan Police Department is down 467 officers from the 3,800 employed in 2020; Police Chief Pamela Smith has said it could take “more than a decade” to reach that number again. But the number of police officers has decreased nationwide. The coronavirus pandemic stalled criminal-court procedures in D.C., but that was also the case across the country. The 13-member D.C. city council, dominated by progressives, tightened regulations on police use of force after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, but many local councils across the country passed similar laws. Reacting to public pressure, the D.C. council this month passed, and Mayor Muriel Bowser signed, a public-safety bill that rolls back some policing restrictions and includes tougher penalties for crimes such as illegal gun possession and retail theft.

    As a journalist who has covered crime in the District for four decades, I believe that one aspect of the D.C. justice system sets it apart, exacerbating crime and demanding remedy: Voters here cannot elect their own district attorney to prosecute local adult crimes.

    The District’s 679,000 residents and the millions of tourists who visit the capital every year could be safer if D.C. chose its own D.A., responsive to the community’s needs and accountable to voters. D.C. residents have no say in who sits atop their criminal-justice system with the awesome discretion to bring charges or not. Giving voters the right to elect their own D.A. would not only move the criminal-justice system closer to the community. It would also reform one of the more undemocratic, unjust sections of the Home Rule Act. The 1973 law, known for granting the District limited self-government, also maintained federal control of D.C.’s criminal-justice system; the president appoints not just the chief prosecutor but also judges to superior and district courts.

    “Putting prosecution into the hands of a federal appointee is a complete violation of the founding principles this country was built on,” Karl Racine, who served as D.C.’s first elected attorney general, from 2015 to 2023, told me. (The District’s A.G. has jurisdiction over juvenile crime.) “Power is best exercised locally.”

    Allowing the District to elect its own D.A. would not solve D.C.’s crime problem easily or quickly. Bringing criminals to justice is enormously complicated, from arrest to prosecution to adjudication and potential incarceration; this doesn’t fall solely on Graves or any previous U.S. attorney. The change would require Congress to revise the Home Rule charter, and given the politics of the moment and Republican control of the House, it’s a political long shot. In a 2002 referendum, 82 percent of District voters approved of a locally elected D.A. Four years later, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s longtime Democratic delegate to Congress, began introducing legislation to give D.C. its own prosecutor. But her efforts have gone nowhere, regardless of which party controlled Congress or the White House.

    Many Republicans in Congress—as well as former President Donald Trump—like to hold up the District as a crime-ridden example of liberal policies gone wrong, and they have repeatedly called for increased federal control to make the city safer. Ironically, what distinguishes the District from every other U.S. city is that its criminal-justice system is already under federal control. If Republicans really want to make D.C. safer, they should consider empowering a local D.A. who could focus exclusively on city crime.

    In two interviews, Graves defended his record of prosecuting local crime and pointed to other factors contributing to D.C.’s homicide rate. “The city is lucky to have the career prosecutors it has,” he told me. He questioned whether a locally elected D.A. would be any more aggressive on crime. But he also said he is fundamentally in favor of the District’s right to democratically control its criminal-justice system.

    “I personally support statehood,” he said. “Obviously, if D.C. were a state, then part of that deal would be having to assume responsibility for its prosecutions.”

    The District’s porous criminal-justice system has long afflicted its Black community in particular; in more than 90 percent of homicides here, both the victims and the suspects are Black. Since the 1980s, I have heard a constant refrain from Washingtonians east of the Anacostia River that “someone arrested Friday night with a gun in their belt is back on the street Saturday morning.”

    In the District’s bloodiest days, during the crack epidemic, murders in the city mercilessly rose, peaking in 1991 at 509. From 1986 to 1990, prosecutions for homicide, assault, and robbery increased by 96 percent. Over the next two decades, homicides and violent crime gradually decreased; murders reached a low of 88 in 2012. That year, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecution rate in D.C. Superior Court was 70 percent. But the District’s crime rate seemed to correspond more to nationwide trends than to any dramatic changes in the prosecution rate.

    The rate of federal prosecution of local crime in the District stood at 65 percent as recently as 2017 but fell precipitously during a period of turbulence in the U.S. Attorney’s Office under President Trump, when multiple people cycled through the lead-prosecutor spot. (“That is your best argument about the danger of being under federal control,” Graves told me.) After a mob attacked the U.S. Capitol in 2021 and Graves took office later that year, he temporarily redeployed 15 of the office’s 370 permanent prosecutors to press cases against the violent intruders in D.C. federal court. The prosecution rate for local crime stood at 46 percent in 2021 but plummeted to the nadir of 33 percent in 2022.

    “It was a massive resource challenge,” Graves said of the January 6 prosecutions. “It’s definitely a focus of mine, a priority of mine.” But he added: “We all viewed the 33 percent as a problem.”

    Graves, 48, an intense, hard-driving lawyer from eastern Pennsylvania, told me that his job, “first and foremost, is keeping the community safe.” He has a track record in the District: He joined the D.C. federal prosecutor’s operation in 2007 and worked on local violent crime before moving up to become the acting chief of the department’s fraud and public-corruption section. He went into private practice in 2016 and returned when President Joe Biden nominated him to run the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in July 2021. He has lived in the District for more than 20 years. “It’s my adopted home,” he said.

    Graves attributes D.C.’s rising murder rate in large part to the fact that the number of illegal guns in D.C. “rocketed up” in 2022 and 2023: Police recovered more than 3,100 illegal firearms in each of those years, compared with 2,300 in 2021. “D.C. doesn’t appropriately hold people accountable for illegally possessing firearms,” he told me. According to Graves, D.C. judges detain only about 10 percent of defendants charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

    He attributed his office’s low prosecution rates to two main causes: first, pandemic restrictions that dramatically cut back on in-person jury trials, including grand juries, where prosecutors must present evidence to bring indictments. Without grand juries, Graves said, prosecutors could not indict suspects who were “sitting out in the community.” Second, the District’s crime lab lost its accreditation in April 2021 and was out of commission until its partial reinstatement at the end of 2023. Without forensic evidence, prosecutors struggled to trace DNA, drugs, firearm cartridges, and other evidence, Graves explained: “It was a massive mess that had nothing to do with our office.” Police and prosecutors were unable to bring charges for drug crimes until the Drug Enforcement Agency agreed in March 2022 to handle narcotics testing.

    Even with these impediments, Graves said his office last year charged 90 percent of “serious violent crime” cases in D.C., including 137 homicides, in part by increasing the number of prosecutors handling violent crime cases in 2022 and 2023.

    But accepting Graves’s explanations doesn’t account for at least 18 murder suspects in 2023 who had previously been arrested but were not detained—either because prosecutors had dropped charges or pleaded down sentences (in some cases before Graves’s tenure), or because judges released the defendants. (The 18 murder suspects were tracked by the author of the anonymous DC Crime Facts Substack and confirmed in public records.) “Where the office does not go forward with a firearms case at the time of arrest, it is either because of concerns about whether the stop that led to the arrest was constitutional or because there is insufficient evidence connecting the person arrested to the firearm,” Graves told me in an email.

    Last month, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, a research and advocacy nonprofit, released a report showing that in 2021 and 2022, homicide victims and suspects both had, on average, more than six prior criminal cases, and that most of those cases had been dismissed. Police and nonprofit groups working to tamp down violence described “a feeling of impunity among many people on the streets that may be encouraging criminal behavior.” Police “also complained of some cases not being charged or when they are, the defendant being allowed to go home to await court proceedings,” according to the report, which cited interviews with more than 70 Metropolitan Police Department employees.

    “Swift and reliable punishment is the most effective deterrent,” Vanessa Batters-Thompson, the executive director of the DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit that advocates for increased local governance, told me.

    In January, the Justice Department announced that it would “surge” more federal prosecutors and investigators to “target the individuals and organizations that are driving violent crime in the nation’s capital,” in the words of U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Graves welcomed the move, which he said has added about 10 prosecutors so far and will create a special unit to analyze crime data that could provide investigators with leads. Similar “surges” have been deployed in Memphis and Houston.

    “But [D.C. has] no control over what that surge is,” Batters-Thompson said—how large or long-lasting it is. Even if federal crime fighters make a dent in the District’s violence and homicide rates, the effort would amount to a temporary fix.

    Electing a D.A. for D.C. would not only take Congress reforming the Home Rule Act. There’s also the considerable expense of creating a district attorney’s office and absorbing the cost now borne by the federal government. (It’s an imperfect comparison, but the D.C. Office of the Attorney General’s operating budget for fiscal year 2024 is approximately $154 million.) Republicans in control of the House are more intent on repealing the Home Rule Act than granting District residents more autonomy.

    But if Republicans want D.C. to tackle its crime problem, why shouldn’t its residents—like those of Baltimore, Philadelphia, Denver, Boston, Seattle, and elsewhere—be able to elect a district attorney dedicated to that effort? Crime is often intimate and neighborhood-based, especially in a relatively small city such as the District. Effective prosecution requires connection and trust with the community, both to send a message about the consequences of bad behavior and to provide victims and their families with some solace and closure. Those relationships are much more difficult to forge with a federally appointed prosecutor whose jurisdiction is split between federal and local matters, and who is not accountable to the people he or she serves.

    Racine, the former D.C. attorney general, was regularly required to testify in oversight hearings before the city council. Graves doesn’t have to show up for hearings before the District’s elected council, though he couldn’t help but note to me that progressive council members have in the past accused D.C.’s criminal-justice system of being too punitive.

    Graves told me that his office has a special community-engagement unit, that he attends community meetings multiple times a month, and that his office is “latched up at every level” with the police, especially with the chief, with whom Graves said he emails or talks weekly.

    “Given our unique role,” he said, “we have to make ourselves accountable to the community.”

    Sounds like the perfect platform to run on for D.C.’s first elected district attorney.

    [ad_2]

    Harry Jaffe

    Source link

  • No Bail For Utah Woman Accused Of Killing Husband, Then Writing Grief Book For Kids

    No Bail For Utah Woman Accused Of Killing Husband, Then Writing Grief Book For Kids

    [ad_1]

    PARK CITY, Utah (AP) — A judge ruled that a Utah mother of three who wrote a children’s book about coping with grief after her husband’s death, and was later accused of fatally poisoning him, will remain in jail throughout her trial after her sister-in-law called her “desperate, greedy and extremely manipulative” during a court hearing.

    Kouri Richins knelt her head and cried as a detective testified about authorities finding her husband dead and “cold to the touch,” and prosecutors argued the evidence against her was strong enough to deny her bail.

    Her case became a true-crime sensation last month when charges were filed as a transfixed public pored over remarks Richins made promoting “Are You With Me?” — the illustrated storybook about an angel wing-clad father watching over his children after passing away.

    Monday’s detention hearing offered both prosecutors and Richins’ attorneys a chance to preview their cases and provide contrasting theories of what happened. Prosecutors called to the stand a detective, a private investigator and a forensic accountant who painted a picture of Richins as having calculatingly plotted to kill her husband, making financial arrangements and purchasing drugs found in his system after his March 2022 death.

    In a victim impact statement she read in court, Amy Richins, Eric’s sister, said it was painful for the family to watch Kouri Richins promote “Are You With Me?” and called her actions “betrayal and terror.”

    “Since Eric’s death, we have learned — and unfortunately are continually reminded — that Kouri is desperate, greedy and extremely manipulative,” she said.

    “We have watched as Kouri has paraded around portraying herself as a grieving widow and victim while trying to profit from the death of my brother — while trying to profit from a book about his death and trying to get life insurance,” she added.

    Richins’ attorneys argued the evidence against her was both dubious and circumstantial, noting that no drugs were found at the family home after the death and suggesting the state’s star witness — the housekeeper who claims to have sold Richins the drugs — had motivation to lie as she sought leniency in the face of state and federal drug charges.

    “They provided evidence to her, essentially, until she got it right,” Skye Lazaro, Richins’ attorney, said of police interviews with the housekeeper.

    While a handcuffed Richins shook her head in defiance, prosecutors questioned the detective about the housekeeper who claims to have sold her fentanyl weeks before it was found in her husband’s system and the family’s “bug out bags” full of emergency provisions and passports they suggested made her a flight risk unsuitable for bail.

    She huffed deeply as they questioned the private investigator about the search history on her devices — including for “luxury prison for the rich” and the information disclosed on death certificates.

    And with members of both sides of the family sitting in the court gallery behind them, they asked the forensic accountant about Richins’ personal financial struggles and the millions of dollars at stake in her husband’s estate.

    “One or two pills might be accident. Twenty — or five times the lethal dose — is not accidental. That is a lot. That is someone who wanted Eric dead,” Summit County Chief Prosecutor Patricia Cassell said.

    The detention hearing built off court documents in which prosecutors allege Richins slipped five times the lethal dose of fentanyl into a Moscow mule cocktail she made for her husband, Eric Richins, amid marital disputes and fights over a multimillion-dollar mansion she ultimately purchased as an investment.

    The court documents paint a picture of a conniving woman who tried to lethally poison her husband multiple times, including on a vacation to Greece and on Valentine’s Day weeks before his death. Witnesses interviewed as part of the investigaiton allege in February 2022 she laced a sandwich made for him with hydrocodone. She repeatedly denied her involvement on the day of his death in March 2022, even telling police, “My husband is active. He doesn’t just die in his sleep. This is insane.”

    In court filings, Richins’ attorneys say prosecutors “simply accepted” the narrative from Eric Richins’ family that his wife had poisoned him “and worked backward in an effort to support it,” spending about 14 months investigating and not finding sufficient evidence to support their theory. She said the prosecution’s case based on Richins’ financial motives proved she was “bad at math,” not that she was guilty of murder.

    “Being bad with money does not make you a murderer,” Lazaro said.

    The case has shined a spotlight on the communities on backside of Utah’s Wasatch Mountains near Park City, one of the American West’s preeminent destinations for skiing, hiking and outdoor recreation. The couple and their three sons lived in a new development in the town of Francis, roughly 50 miles (80 kilometers) east of Salt Lake City. They argued over whether to purchase an unfinished, 20,000-square-foot (1,860-square-meter) mansion in nearby Midway Utah, according to court filings.

    If the case goes to trial, it will likely revolve around financial and marital disputes as possible motives. In addition to arguing over real estate, prosecutors also say Kouri Richins made major changes to the family’s estate plans before her husband’s death, taking out life insurance policies on him with benefits totaling nearly $2 million.

    [ad_2]

    Source link