ReportWire

Tag: defendants

  • Tunisia hands prison terms to dozens of opposition figures

    [ad_1]

    A Tunisian court has handed jail terms to dozens of opposition leaders, lawyers and businessmen accused of attempting to overthrow the nation’s president.

    Forty people including opposition leader Jawahar Ben Mbarek were handed sentences ranging from four to 45 years over the alleged conspiracy to oust President Kais Saied.

    Twenty of those charged have fled abroad and were sentenced in absentia, while others have been held in detention since 2023.

    Human rights groups have criticised the trial as politically motivated, characterising the prosecutions as an escalation of Saied’s crackdown on dissent since he suspended Tunisia’s parliament in 2021 and began ruling by decree.

    Tunisian authorities argue the defendants, who include former head of intelligence Kamel Guizani, attemtpted to destabilise the country and topple Saied.

    Ben Mbarek and party leaders Issam Chebbi and Ghazi Chaouachi received jail terms of 20 years. All three have been detained since the 2023 crackdown.

    The maximum sentence, 45 years, was given to businessman Kamel Ltaif, while opposition politician Khyam Turki received a 35-year term.

    Ben Mbarek has been on hunger strike for over a month and was at risk of dying, news agency AFP reports, citing his sister and lawyer Dalila Ben Mbarek.

    Among those sentenced in absentia was politician and feminist Bochra Belhaj Hmida, as well as French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, human rights groups say.

    The final sentences were issued by an appeals court after the opposition figures were initially sentenced in April. Saied had branded them “terrorists”.

    A lawyer for the defendants was quoted by Reuters as describing the trial as a “farce” that had the “clear intent to eliminate political opponents”.

    Human rights groups have also been critical of the prosecutions.

    Sara Hashash, deputy regional director at Amnesty International, described the sentences as “unjust” and “an appalling indictment of the Tunisian justice system”.

    She said that while three defendants were acquitted by the appeals court, it had increased others’ sentences.

    “The Court of Appeal has thereby also rubber stamped the government’s use of the justice system to eliminate political dissent.”

    After the initial ruling in April, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said the trial had raised “serious concerns about political motivations”, and urged the Tunisian government to “refrain from using broad national security and counter terrorism legislation to silence dissent”.

    On Saturday, thousands of Tunisians marched through the capital, Tunis, in an anti-government protest, accusing Saied of cementing a one-man rule through the judiciary and police.

    Saied was elected in 2019 after Tunisia emerged from the Arab Spring democracy movement.

    But the north African nation has since seen democratic backsliding and the re-imposition of aspects of authoritarian rule.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prosecutors’ ‘Cop City’ case collapses as judge tosses Rico conspiracy charges

    [ad_1]

    Georgia prosecutors are facing what one expert called “probably the highest-profile failure of using conspiracy charges to indict a protest movement” in US history, after a two-year attempt to prosecute a criminal conspiracy in connection with opposition to the police training center known as Cop City.

    Fulton county superior court Judge Kevin Farmer announced his decision to dismiss charges against the case’s 61 defendants during hearings this week on a handful of defense attorney motions.

    The hearings came after several years of delays in the case centered on Rico, a law created to go after the mafia and usually associated with organized crime, not protest movements. Farmer’s decision responded to a motion filed on behalf of defendant Thomas Jurgens, an attorney acting as a legal observer for the National Lawyers Guild at a music festival on 5 March 2023 in a forested public park near the police training center site.

    Jurgens was one of dozens arrested that day and charged in connection with damage done to construction machinery at the site.

    After an hour-plus of discussion in this week’s hearing, Farmer came back from a break and used only 18 words to stymie the state’s prosecution, nearly three years after arrests: “At this time I do not find the attorney general had the authority to bring this Rico case.”

    The decision dismisses charges in 100 pages of the state’s 109–page indictment. It also covers one count of arson against five defendants, and the judge is expected to issue a separate ruling on domestic terrorism charges against the same five defendants.

    Farmer said he will soon issue the orders in writing.

    The state has announced its intention to appeal. “The attorney general will continue the fight against domestic terrorists and violent criminals who want to destroy life and property,” Georgia attorney general Chris Carr’s office said in a statement.

    Carr is running for governor of Georgia in next year’s race.

    Opposition to the $109m center, which opened this spring, has come from a wide range of local and national organizations and protesters, and is centered on concerns around police militarization and clearing forests in an era of climate crisis. Atlanta police say the center is needed for “world-class” training and to attract new officers.

    This week’s decision “exposes that the indictment was fundamentally flawed from the outset”, said Brad Thomson, one of the case’s dozens of defense attorneys and a member of the People’s Law Office, a Chicago-based civil rights firm.

    Farmer’s ruling from the bench was based on Carr’s office having pursued the case after district attorneys for Dekalb and Fulton counties had declined to do so. This was an action for which the state had no authority, and for which the attorney general would have required special permission from Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, the judge said. No such permission was sought or given.

    The decision shows “what critics said all along – that the state of Georgia was in such a rush and panic to stop the ‘Stop Cop City’ movement that they violated their own rules,” said social movement historian Dan Berger. “They acted inappropriately and without justification, to bring what seemed from the beginning as dramatically overblown and patently absurd charges.”

    Although certainly the most dramatic, the state’s procedural negligence leading to the judge’s decision was not the only example of prosecutorial sloppiness during the last two years.

    Deputy attorney general John Fowler, the case’s lead prosecutor, was found last year to have obtained emails between defendants and their attorneys, then including them in discovery materials and sharing them with police investigators, thereby violating attorney-client privilege.

    Fowler also denied in court that police sent messages about Cop City using Signal, despite being presented, in another motion from defense attorneys, with evidence from the Guardian of law enforcement leadership ordering officers last year to download the encrypted phone app for that very purpose.

    At one point this week, the judge noted that he had read all the defense’s motions, but had received no responses from the state. “I have nothing to read from the state – and it’s been two years,” Farmer said.

    Representing members of Atlanta Solidarity Fund – a bail fund whose three members are mentioned more than 120 times in the indictment – veteran attorney Donald Samuel told the judge this week, “the [criminal] enterprise is defined as a movement – can you imagine that? The civil rights movement would be defined as an enterprise according to the attorney general!”

    Joseph Brown, a political scientist who has written about the movement against Cop City, said that Georgia “was so hellbent on criminalizing a protest movement that was strong, resilient and popularly-supported … [it] decided to use the law as a political tool.”

    Brown compared the case to the so-called J20 protesters, more than 200 of whom were arrested at a 2017 protest in Washington, targeting Donald Trump’s first presidential inauguration. They faced felony riot and conspiracy charges of conspiracy. In a case drawn out over more than a year, the state was found to have withheld evidence as well as committing other irregularities. Ultimately, nearly all the cases were dismissed, and only one person served jail time.

    “We see examples of prosecutorial overreach in highly politicized cases,” Brown said.

    Farmer’s decision makes the Cop City case “probably the highest-profile failure of using conspiracy charges to indict a protest movement”, he added.

    Brown said the two cases also have in common that defendants stuck together, and didn’t “point fingers” at each other for plea deals. “In a political movement” like this, he said, “people care about each other”.

    Will Potter, author of the recently released Little Red Barns, a decade-long investigation of factory farms and fascism, said the lessons of the case could be important under Trump’s second term, which has seen the US slide towards authoritarianism.

    “The playbook–stretching laws like Rico to cast dissent as organized crime won’t vanish, especially amid a surge of authoritarian and openly fascist politics,” Potter said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump deployment of military troops to Los Angeles was illegal, judge rules in blistering opinion

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration’s deployment of U.S. military troops to Los Angeles during immigration raids earlier this year was illegal.

    U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limited the use of the military for law enforcement purposes. He stayed his ruling to give the administration a chance to appeal.

    “President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into service in other cities across the country … thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief,” Breyer wrote.

    The ruling could have implications beyond Los Angeles.

    Trump, who sent roughly 5,000 Marines and National Guard troops to L.A. in June in a move that was opposed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, issued an executive order declaring a public safety emergency in D.C. The order invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that places the Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control.

    In June, Breyer ruled that Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of California National Guard members against the state’s wishes.

    In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions “were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

    But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused that court order, allowing the troops to remain in Los Angeles while the case plays out in federal court. The appellate court found the president had broad, though not “unreviewable,” authority to deploy the military in American cities.

    In his Tuesday ruling Breyer added: “The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • Capitol riot, 3 years later: Hundreds of convictions, yet 1 major mystery is unsolved

    Capitol riot, 3 years later: Hundreds of convictions, yet 1 major mystery is unsolved

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Members of far-right extremist groups. Former police officers. An Olympic gold medalist swimmer. And active duty U.S. Marines.

    They are among the hundreds of people who have been convicted in the massive prosecution of the Jan 6, 2021, riot in the three years since the stunned nation watched the U.S. Capitol attack unfold on live TV.

    Washington’s federal courthouse remains flooded with trials, guilty plea hearings and sentencings stemming from what has become the largest criminal investigation in American history. And the hunt for suspects is far from over.

    “We can not replace votes and deliberation with violence and intimidation,” Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told reporters on Thursday.

    Authorities are still working to identify more than 80 people wanted for acts of violence at the Capitol. And they continue to regularly make new arrests, even as some Jan. 6 defendants are being released from prison after completing their sentences.

    The cases are playing out at the same courthouse where Donald Trump is scheduled to stand trial in March in the case accusing the former president of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss in the run up to the Capitol attack.

    Here’s a look at where the cases against the Jan. 6 defendants stand:

    BY THE NUMBERS

    More than 1,230 people have been charged with federal crimes in the riot, ranging from misdemeanor offenses like trespassing to felonies like assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy. Roughly 730 people have pleaded guilty to charges, while another roughly 170 have been convicted of at least one charge at a trial decided by a judge or a jury, according to an Associated Press database.

    Only two defendants have been acquitted of all charges, and those were trials decided by a judge rather than a jury.

    About 750 people have been sentenced, with almost two-thirds receiving some time behind bars. Prison sentences have ranged from a few days of intermittent confinement to 22 years in prison. The longest sentence so far was handed down to Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys national chairman who was convicted of seditious conspiracy for what prosecutors described as a plot to stop the transfer of power from Trump to President Joe Biden.

    Many rioters are already out of prison after completing their sentences, including some defendants who engaged in violence. Scott Fairlamb — a New Jersey man who punched a police officer during the riot and was the first Jan. 6 defendant to be sentenced for assaulting law enforcement — was released from Bureau of Prisons’ custody in June.

    ALL EYES ON THE SUPREME COURT

    Defense attorneys and prosecutors are closely watching a case that will soon be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court that could impact hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants. The justices agreed last month to hear one rioter’s challenge to prosecutors’ use of the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding, which refers to the disruption of Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

    More than 300 Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with the obstruction offense, and so has Trump in the federal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Lawyers representing rioters have argued the charge was inappropriately brought against Jan. 6 defendants.

    The justices won’t hear arguments in March or April, with a decision expected by early summer. But their review of the obstruction charge is already having some impact on the Jan. 6 prosecutions. At least two defendants have convinced judges to delay their sentencings until after the Supreme Court rules on the matter.

    RIOTERS ON THE LAM

    Dozens of people believed to have assaulted law enforcement during the riot have yet to be identified by authorities, according to Graves. And the statute of limitations for the crimes is five years, which means they would have to be charged by Jan. 6, 2026, he said.

    Several defendants have also fled after being charged, including a Proud Boys member from Florida who disappeared while he was on house arrest after he was convicted of using pepper spray gel on police officers. Christopher Worrell was sentenced on Thursday to 10 years in prison after spending weeks on the lam.

    The FBI is still searching for some defendants who have been on the run for months, including a brother-sister pair from Florida. Olivia Pollock disappeared shortly before her trial was supposed to begin in March. Her brother, Jonathan Pollock, is also missing. The FBI has offered a reward of up to $30,000 for information leading to the arrest of Jonathan Pollock, who is accused of thrusting a riot shield into an officer’s face and throat, pulling an officer down steps and punching others.

    Another defendant, Evan Neumann, fled the U.S. two months after his December 2021 indictment and is believed to be living in Belarus.

    WHAT ABOUT THE PIPE BOMBER?

    One of the biggest remaining mysteries surrounding the riot is the identity of the person who placed two pipe bombs outside the offices of the Republican and Democratic national committees the day before the Capitol attack. Last year, authorities increased the reward to up to $500,000 for information leading to the person’s arrest. It remains unclear whether there was a connection between the pipe bombs and the riot.

    Investigators have spent thousands of hours over the last three years doing interviews and combing through evidence and tips from the public, said David Sundberg, assistant director in charge of the FBI Washington Field Office.

    “We urge anyone who may have previously hesitated to come forward or who may not have realized they had important information to contact us and share anything relevant,” he said in an emailed statement on Thursday.

    The explosive devices were placed outside the two buildings between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021, but officers didn’t find them until the next day. Authorities were called to the Republican National Committee’s office around 12:45 p.m. on Jan. 6. Shortly after, a call came in for a similar explosive device found at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. The bombs were rendered safe, and no one was hurt.

    Video released by the FBI shows a person in a gray hooded sweatshirt, a face mask and gloves appearing to place one of the explosives under a bench outside the DNC and separately shows the person walking in an alley near the RNC before the bomb was placed there. The person wore black and light gray Nike Air Max Speed Turf sneakers with a yellow logo.

    ____

    Richer reported from Boston. Associated Press reporter Lindsay Whitehurst contributed from Washington.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump

    Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against former President Donald Trump.

    The justices will review an appellate ruling that revived a charge against three defendants accused of obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge refers to the disruption of Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

    That’s among four counts brought against Trump in special counsel Jack Smith’s case that accuses the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner of conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss. Trump is also charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

    The court’s decision to weigh in on the obstruction charge could threaten the start of Trump’s trial, currently scheduled for March 4. The justices separately are considering whether to rule quickly on Trump’s claim that he can’t be prosecuted for actions taken within his role as president. A federal judge already has rejected that argument.

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments in March or April, with a decision expected by early summer.

    The obstruction charge has been brought against more than 300 defendants in the massive federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a bid to keep Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House.

    A lower court judge had dismissed the charge against Joseph Fischer, a former Boston police officer, and two other defendants, ruling it didn’t cover their conduct. The justices agreed to hear the appeal filed by lawyers for Fischer, who is facing a seven-count indictment for his actions on Jan. 6, including the obstruction charge.

    The other defendants are Edward Jacob Lang, of New York’s Hudson Valley, and Garret Miller, who has since pleaded guilty to other charges and was sentenced to 38 months in prison. Miller, who’s from the Dallas area, could still face prosecution on the obstruction charge.

    U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found that prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases. Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record or other object” to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.

    The Justice Department challenged that ruling, and the appeals court in Washington agreed with prosecutors in April that Nichols’ interpretation of the law was too limited.

    Other defendants, including Trump, are separately challenging the use of the charge.

    More than 1,200 people have been charged with federal crimes stemming from the riot, and more than 650 defendants have pleaded guilty.

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link