ReportWire

Tag: criminal case

  • Families of plane crash victims ask US appeals court to revive a criminal case against Boeing

    [ad_1]

    By RIO YAMAT

    Thirty-one families that lost relatives in two fatal crashes of Boeing 737 Max jetliners asked a federal appeals court on Thursday to revive a criminal case against the aircraft manufacturer.

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Commentary: Justice has no expiration date. That’s why 2020 election fraud still matters

    [ad_1]

    In the days and weeks after the 2020 election, partisans across the country used lies and deceit to try to defraud the American people and steal the White House.

    Although Joe Biden was the clear and unequivocal winner, racking up big margins in the popular vote and electoral college, 84 fake electors signed statements certifying that Donald Trump had carried their seven battleground states.

    He did not.

    The electoral votes at issue constituted nearly a third of the number needed to win the presidency and would have been more than enough to reverse Biden’s victory, granting Trump a second term against the wishes of most voters.

    To some, the attempted election theft is old (and eagerly buried) news.

    The events that culminated in the violent assault on the Capitol and attempt to block Biden from taking office occurred half a decade ago, the shovel wielders might say, making them as relevant as those faded social-distancing stickers you still see in some stores. Besides, Trump was given a second turn in the White House by a plurality of voters in 2024.

    But it’s only old news if you believe that justice and integrity carry an expiration date, wrongdoing is fine with the passage of enough time and the foundational values of our country and its democracy — starting with fair and honest elections — matter only to the extent they help your political side prevail.

    It bears repeating: “What we’re talking about here is an attempt to overturn the outcome of a presidential election,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, who heads the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy think tank at New York University. “If people can engage in that kind of conduct without consequence or accountability, then we have to worry about it happening again.”

    Which is why punishment and deterrence are so important.

    Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the criminal case against six Republicans who signed certificates falsely claiming Trump had won the state’s electoral votes. Those charged include Nevada’s GOP chairman, Michael McDonald, and the state’s representative on the Republican National Committee, Jim DeGraffenreid.

    The ruling focused on a procedural matter: whether the charges should have been brought in Douglas County, where the fake certificates were signed in the state capital — Carson City — or in Clark County, where they were submitted at a courthouse in Las Vegas. A lower court ruled the charges should have been brought in Douglas County and dismissed the case. The high court reversed the decision, allowing the prosecution on forgery charges to proceed.

    As well it should. Let a jury decide.

    Of course, the Nevada Six and other phony electors are but small fry. The ringleader and attempted-larcenist-in-chief — Donald “Find Me 11,780 Votes” Trump — escaped liability by winning the 2024 election.

    This month, he pardoned scores of fake electors and others involved in the attempted election heist — including his bumbling ex-attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani — for any potential federal crimes. The move was purely symbolic; Trump’s pardoning power does not extend to cases brought in state courts.

    But it was further evidence of his abundant contempt for the rule of law. (Just hours after taking office, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 defendants — including some who brutalized cops with pepper spray and wooden and metal poles — who were involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.)

    Efforts around the country to prosecute even those low-level schemers, cheaters and 2020 election miscreants have produced mixed results.

    In Michigan, a judge threw out the criminal case against 15 phony electors, ruling the government failed to present sufficient evidence that they intended to commit fraud.

    In New Mexico and Pennsylvania, fake electors avoided prosecution because their certification came with a caveat. It said the documentation was submitted in the event they were recognized as legitimate electors. The issue was moot once Trump lost his fight to overturn the election, though some in Trump’s orbit hoped the phony certifications would help pressure Pence.

    Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, looks askance at many of the cases that prosecutors have brought, suggesting the ballot box — rather than a courtroom — may be the better venue to litigate the matter.

    “There’s a fine line between what’s distasteful conduct and what’s criminal conduct,” Muller said. “I don’t have easy answers about which kinds of things should or shouldn’t be prosecuted in a particular moment, except to say if it’s something novel” — like these 2020 cases — “having a pretty iron-clad legal theory is pretty essential if you’re going to be prosecuting people for engaging in this sort of political protest activity.”

    Other cases grind on.

    Three fake electors are scheduled for a preliminary hearing on forgery charges next month in Wisconsin. Fourteen defendants — including Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — face charges in Georgia. In Arizona, the state attorney general must decide this week whether to move forward with a case against 11 people after a judge tossed out an indictment because of how the case was presented to grand jurors.

    Justice in the case of the 2020 election has been far from sure and swift. But that’s no reason to relent.

    The penalty for hijacking a plane is a minimum of 20 years in federal prison. That seems excessive for the fake electors.

    But dozens of bad actors tried to hijack an election. They shouldn’t be let off scot-free.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • L.A. City Councilmember Curren Price accused of 21 violations of city ethics laws

    L.A. City Councilmember Curren Price accused of 21 violations of city ethics laws

    [ad_1]

    The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission has privately accused City Councilmember Curren Price of voting on a number of matters in which his wife had a financial interest, echoing charges filed last year by L.A. County prosecutors, according to two sources with knowledge of the situation.

    The commission, which has the power to enforce conflict-of-interest laws, notified Price of the accusations last week, according to the sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

    One of the sources said the filing accuses Price of 21 violations of the city’s ethics laws, many of them similar to those filed by Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón against Price last year.

    In the criminal case, Price is accused of voting to support projects for developers that had done business with a consulting company founded by his wife, Del Richardson Price, who specialized in tenant relocation services. He faces five counts of embezzlement, two counts of conflict of interest and three counts of perjury.

    The allegations from the Ethics Commission mostly involve violations of conflict-of-interest laws or the council member’s failure to fully disclose economic interests he held in relation to Richardson Price’s business, according to one of the sources.

    Ethics Commission spokesperson Nancy Jackson said this week that city law bars the department from confirming or denying the existence of a complaint or investigation.

    A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office and an attorney for Price declined to comment.

    The violations alleged by the ethics commission cover a larger span of time than the criminal complaint, which focuses on the period between 2019 and 2021, one source said.

    In a court filing earlier this year, L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. Casey Higgins made references to other instances where Price allegedly had a conflict, voting on projects whose developers paid Richardson Price as far back as 2015. It was not clear why those instances did not result in criminal charges.

    The Ethics Commission typically holds an evidentiary hearing after an accusation is publicly issued. Commission members then determine whether the alleged violations occurred and, if so, what penalties should apply. The document Price was served with is known as a “probable cause report,” the sources said.

    In the criminal complaint filed last year, prosecutors alleged Price voted on matters connected to his wife’s business and perjured himself by failing to reveal his financial interest in those matters on disclosure forms that must be filed with the city.

    Prosecutors said Price voted on two affordable housing projects whose developers paid his wife more than $150,000 between 2019 and 2021. Neither project is in Price’s district. One is on the Westside, and the other is in South Los Angeles.

    Price also faces embezzlement charges for obtaining spousal health benefits for Richardson Price through the city while he was still legally married to his first wife.

    Last year, some of Price’s allies said they believed the allegations against him should have been handled by the Ethics Commission, not the district attorney’s office.

    Price has repeatedly declared his innocence. His lawyer has said that prosecutors failed to show that the developers’ payments to his wife’s consulting company had any influence on his votes on those projects. The votes cast by Price were routine and noncontroversial, on proposals that passed by large majorities, according to Price’s lawyer, Michael Schafler.

    A judge rejected Price’s bid to have the case thrown out earlier this year. A trial date has not been set.

    Last month, a former aide to Price filed a civil claim against the city alleging the council member’s staff harassed her on the belief that she was a “snitch” and had cooperated with the district attorney’s investigation. The woman, Hawthorne City Councilmember Angie Reyes English, said she suffered retaliation at work and ultimately was fired in January, according to the suit.

    Her attorney, Greg Smith, told The Times that Price’s office had the false opinion that Reyes English was a whistleblower who went to the district attorney.

    A spokeswoman for Price has denied Reyes English’s allegations.

    At a court hearing earlier this month, Higgins expressed concern that Price and his allies might be improperly interacting with witnesses in the case. Higgins said he had received information that Richardson Price “hired lawyers for witnesses,” including one person who is now refusing to speak with prosecutors.

    “That raises some concerns for us … they shouldn’t be talking to any potential witnesses except for an attorney of record,” Higgins said.

    Richardson Price didn’t respond to requests for comment.

    Schafler, the attorney for Price, denied “the suggestion of any impropriety relating to any witnesses in this case.” He declined to say if Richardson Price had actually retained counsel for any potential witnesses.

    Price is one of several city council members to face criminal charges in recent years. In 2020, former Councilmember Mitchell Englander pleaded guilty to providing false information to federal investigators. He served a short stint in prison.

    Former Councilmember Jose Huizar was recently sentenced to 13 years in prison after pleading guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Meanwhile, a jury convicted former Councilmember Mark Ridley-Thomas of bribery, conspiracy and mail fraud charges last year. He has appealed the verdict.

    The Ethics Commission has a separate case against Councilmember John Lee, who has been accused of violating laws regulating the acceptance of gifts and the reporting of those gifts. Lee has been fighting that case, which could result in financial penalties.

    Voters in his northwest San Fernando Valley district reelected Lee to another four-year term earlier this month.

    Price is due back in court in late April, when the Los Angeles city attorney’s office is expected to try to quash a subpoena from prosecutors seeking communications between the city attorney’s office and Price. The city attorney’s office has argued the materials are protected by attorney-client privilege.

    [ad_2]

    James Queally, David Zahniser, Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • In new filing, Trump lawyers foreshadow potential lines of defense in classified documents case

    In new filing, Trump lawyers foreshadow potential lines of defense in classified documents case

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for former President Donald Trump foreshadowed elements of their defense in the criminal case charging him with illegally retaining classified documents, saying in a motion filed Tuesday that they will dispute prosecutors’ allegations that the estate where the records were stored was not secure.

    The defense team also said in a wide-ranging court filing that they are seeking communication between the Justice Department prosecution team and associates of President Joe Biden in hopes of advancing their claims that the classified documents case is “politically motivated” and designed to harm Trump’s 2024 campaign.

    The brief, which asks a judge to compel special counsel Jack Smith’s team to turn over a trove of information, offers the most expansive view yet of potential lines of defense in one of the four criminal cases Trump faces as he seeks to capture the Republican nomination and reclaim the White House.

    It offers a blend of legal analysis and political bombast that has come to be expected in Trump team motions. For instance, it references Trump’s record victory this week in the Iowa caucuses and decries the charges as “partisan election interference” — familiar statements from the ex-president’s lawyers that seem intended to appeal as much to voters on the campaign trail as to the judge presiding over the case.

    “The Special Counsel’s Office has disregarded basic discovery obligations and DOJ policies in an effort to support the Biden Administration’s egregious efforts to weaponize the criminal justice system in pursuit of an objective that President Biden cannot achieve on the campaign trail: slowing down President Trump’s leading campaign in the 2024 presidential election,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

    Despite Trump’s repeated claims, there is no evidence of any coordination between the Justice Department and the White House, which has said it had no advance knowledge of the FBI’s August 2022 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate that recovered dozens of classified documents he had taken with him when he left the White House. Attorney General Merrick Garland months later appointed Smith as special counsel as a way to try to insulate the Justice Department from claims of political bias.

    A spokesman for Smith declined to comment Tuesday night. Prosecutors will have a chance to respond to the filing, and are likely to tell U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that much of the material defense lawyers are seeking is not relevant to the case.

    A June 2023 indictment charging Trump with dozens of felony counts alleges that investigators found boxes of sensitive documents recklessly stored at Mar-a-Lago in spaces including a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, his bedroom and a storage room. Prosecutors have said the documents he stowed, refused to return and in some cases showed to visitors risked jeopardizing not only relations with foreign nations but also the safety of troops and confidential sources.

    But defense lawyers said in their motion that they intend to dispute allegations that “Mar-a-Lago was not secure and that there was a risk that materials stored at those premises could be compromised.”

    They argued that prosecutors should be forced to disclose all information related to what they have previously described as “temporary secure locations” at Mar-a-Lago and other Trump properties. They contended that such evidence would refute prosecutors’ allegations because the Secret Service took steps to secure the residences and made arrangements for him to review and discuss classified information.

    Trump’s lawyers also referenced what they said was an Energy Department action in June, after the charges were filed, to “retroactively terminate” a security clearance for the former president.

    They demanded more information about that, saying evidence of a post-presidential possession of a security clearance was relevant for potential arguments of “good-faith and non-criminal states of mind relating to possession of classified materials.”

    The case is currently scheduled for trial on May 20, but that date may be pushed back.

    [ad_2]

    Source link