Tag: Juries

Silicon Valley councilman defers plea on 49ers report leak

SAN FRANCISCO — A Silicon Valley councilmember delayed entering his pleas Monday on criminal charges for allegedly lying about leaking a grand jury report on the San Francisco 49ers’ political influence and relationships with the city’s elected officials.

Santa Clara City Councilmember Anthony Becker will next appear in court May 3 and he remains out of custody in the meantime. He faces up to four years in county jail if he is convicted of perjury.

Becker, a Democrat, was indicted Friday for allegedly providing a secret report titled, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council,” to the team’s former top spokesperson and a local news outlet in 2022, days ahead of its official release. The report called Becker and four other Santa Clara councilmembers the “49er Five” and claimed the five elected officials met regularly with the team’s lobbyists without publicly disclosing the topics of discussion. It also alleged the councilmembers regularly voted “in a manner that is favorable to the 49ers.”

Becker then allegedly lied to the grand jury about the leak, prosecutors said, prompting the felony criminal charge. He also faces a misdemeanor for leaking the confidential report.

Becker declined to comment when reached by phone Monday. Christopher Montoya, the public defender representing him, did not immediately respond to phone and text messages seeking comment.

Outside the courthouse, Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said Becker was favoring special interests above his constituents.

“When you leak a confidential report to the target of that report, you’re taking sides against Santa Clara County,” he said. “When you do both of those things — leak and lie — as an elected official, who’s sworn to protect and defend the interest of your constituents before and above your private interests, you have violated everyone’s trust and broken the law.”

Rosen also called on the 49ers to apologize.

The 49ers play in Levi’s Stadium in the city of Santa Clara, about 35 miles (56 kilometers) south of San Francisco. Santa Clara County is broadly considered home to Silicon Valley. The city of Santa Clara owns the stadium and leases it to the team; fighting between the two groups has led to ethics complaints, legal disputes and years of bad blood.

It’s not the first time a California elected official faces scrutiny over their involvement with professional sports teams. Former Mayor Harry Sidhu of the Southern California city of Anaheim resigned last year after federal officials launched an investigation into the sale of Angel Stadium to the baseball team. Sidhu allegedly gave confidential information to the Angels at least twice during negotiations in hopes of getting a campaign donation.

The 49ers have bankrolled Becker’s local political career by spending at least $3.2 million through independent expenditure committees for his 2020 city council race, which he won, as well as his unsuccessful 2022 mayoral bid, prosecutors said. Santa Clara City Mayor Lisa Gillmor, a vocal critic of the team, did not respond to requests for comment.

The 49ers have “cooperated fully” with the district attorney, Brian Brokaw, a newly hired spokesperson for the team, said Friday. He declined to comment further Monday on Becker’s court appearance. Brokaw is a well-known Sacramento consultant who has worked for prominent California politicians including Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Source link

April 17, 2023
Judge delays trial over Fox News and 2020 election lies

NEW YORK — Without citing a reason, the Delaware judge overseeing a voting machine company’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News announced late Sunday that he was delaying the start of the trial until Tuesday.

The trial, which has drawn international interest, had been scheduled to start Monday morning with jury selection and opening statements.

The case centers on whether Fox defamed Dominion Voting Systems by spreading false claims that the company rigged the 2020 presidential election to prevent former President Donald Trump’s reelection. Records produced as part of the lawsuit show that many of the network’s hosts and executives didn’t believe the allegations but aired them, anyway.

Claire Bischoff, a Dominion spokesperson, said the company would have no comment on the trial delay, as did Fox Corp., which is being sued along with Fox News. Representatives of the network did not return a request for comment.

In his statement, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis said only that the trial, including jury selection, would be continued until Tuesday and that he would announce the delay in court on Monday.

That’s when Fox News executives and the network’s star hosts were scheduled to begin answering for their role in spreading doubt about the 2020 presidential election and creating the gaping wound that remains in America’s democracy.

Jurors hearing the $1.6 billion lawsuit filed against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems would have to answer a specific question: Did Fox defame the voting machine company by airing bogus stories alleging that the election was rigged against then-President Donald Trump, even as many at the network privately doubted the false claims being pushed by Trump and his allies?

Yet the broader context looms large. A trial would test press freedom and the reputation of conservatives’ favorite news source. It also would illuminate the flow of misinformation that helped spark the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and continues to fuel Trump’s hopes to regain power in 2024.

Fox News stars Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and founder Rupert Murdoch are among the people who had been expected to testify.

Barring a settlement, opening statements are now scheduled for Tuesday.

“This is Christmas Eve for defamation scholars,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a University of Utah law professor.

If the trial were a sporting event, Fox News would be taking the field on a losing streak, with key players injured and having just alienated the referee. Pretrial court rulings and embarrassing revelations about its biggest names have Fox on its heels.

Court papers released over the past two months show Fox executives, producers and personalities privately disbelieved Trump’s claims of a fraudulent election. But Dominion says Fox News was afraid of alienating its audience with the truth, particularly after many viewers were angered by the network’s decision to declare Democrat Joe Biden the winner in Arizona on election night in November 2020.

Some rulings by the judge have eased Dominion’s path. In a summary judgment, Davis said it was “CRYSTAL clear” that fraud allegations against the company were false. That means trial time won’t have to be spent disproving them at a time when millions of Republicans continue to doubt the 2020 results.

Davis said it also is clear that Dominion’s reputation was damaged, but that it would be up to a jury to decide whether Fox acted with “actual malice” — the legal standard — and, if so, what that’s worth financially.

Fox witnesses would likely testify that they thought the allegations against Dominion were newsworthy, but Davis made it clear that’s not a defense against defamation.

New York law protects news outlets from defamation for expressions of opinion. But Davis methodically went through 20 different times on Fox when allegations against Dominion were discussed, ruling that all of them were fully or partly considered statements of fact, and fair game for a potential libel finding.

“A lawsuit is a little bit like hitting a home run,” said Cary Coglianese, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “You have to go through all of the bases to get there.” The judge’s rulings “basically give Dominion a spot at third base, and all they have to do is come home to win it.”

Both Fox and Dominion are incorporated in Delaware, though Fox News is headquartered in New York and Dominion is based in Denver.

Fox angered Davis this past week when the judge said the network’s lawyers delayed producing evidence and were not forthcoming in revealing Murdoch’s role at Fox News. A Fox lawyer, Blake Rohrbacher, sent a letter of apology to Davis on Friday, saying it was a misunderstanding and not an intention to deceive.

It’s not clear whether that would affect a trial. But it’s generally not wise to have a judge wonder at the outset of a trial whether your side is telling the truth, particularly when truth is the central point of the case, Jones said.

The lawsuit essentially comes down to whether Dominion can prove Fox acted with actual malice by putting something on the air knowing that it was false or acting with a “reckless disregard” for whether it was true. In most libel cases, that is the most difficult hurdle for plaintiffs to get past.

Dominion can point to many examples where Fox figures didn’t believe the charges being made by Trump allies such as Sidney Powell and Rudolph Giuliani. But Fox says many of those disbelievers were not in a position to decide when to air those allegations.

“We think it’s essential for them to connect those dots,” Fox lawyer Erin Murphy said.

If the case goes to trial, the jury will determine whether a powerful figure like Murdoch — who testified in a deposition that he didn’t believe the election-fraud charges — had the influence to keep the accusations off the air.

“Credibility is always important in any trial in any case. But it’s going to be really important in this case,” said Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and the Law at the University of Minnesota.

Kirtley is concerned that the suit may eventually advance to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could use it as a pretext to weaken the actual malice standard that was set in a 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That, she feels, would be disastrous for journalists.

Dominion’s lawsuit is being closely watched by another voting-technology company with a separate but similar case against Fox News. Florida-based Smartmatic has looked to some rulings and evidence in the Dominion case to try to enhance its own $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit in New York. The Smartmatic case isn’t yet ready for trial but has survived Fox News’ effort to get it tossed out.

Many experts are surprised Fox and Dominion have not reached an out-of-court settlement, though they can at any time. There’s presumably a wide financial gulf. In court papers, Fox contends the $1.6 billion damages claim is a wild overestimate.

Dominion’s motivation may also be to inflict maximum embarrassment on Fox with the peek into the network’s internal communications following the election. Text messages from January 2021 revealed Carlson telling a friend that he passionately hated Trump and couldn’t wait to move on.

Dominion may also seek an apology.

The trial has had no apparent effect on Fox News’ viewership; it remains the top-rated cable network. And there is little indication that the case has changed Fox’s editorial direction. Fox has embraced Trump once again in recent weeks following the former president’s indictment by a Manhattan grand jury, and Carlson presented an alternate history of Capitol riot, based on tapes given to him by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

___

Associated Press writers Randall Chase in Dover, Del., and Jennifer Peltz in New York contributed to this report.

Source link

April 16, 2023
Judge delays start of Fox News defamation trial until Tuesday

NEW YORK — The Delaware judge overseeing a voting machine company’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News announced late Sunday that he was delaying the start of the trial until Tuesday. He did not cite a reason.

The trial, which has drawn international interest, had been scheduled to start Monday morning with jury selection and opening statements.

The case centers on whether Fox defamed Dominion Voting Systems by spreading false claims that the company rigged the 2020 presidential election to prevent former President Donald Trump’s reelection. Records produced as part of the lawsuit show that many of the network’s hosts and executives didn’t believe the allegations but aired them, anyway.

Representatives for Dominion and for the two entities it’s suing — Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp.
FOX,
-1.35%
— did not immediately return requests for comment on the delay. In his statement, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis said only that the trial, including jury selection, would be continued until Tuesday and that he would announce the delay in court on Monday.

That’s when Fox News executives and the network’s star hosts were scheduled to begin answering for their role in spreading doubt about the 2020 presidential election and creating the gaping wound that remains in America’s democracy.

Jurors hearing the $1.6 billion lawsuit filed against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems would have to answer a specific question: Did Fox defame the voting machine company by airing bogus stories alleging that the election was rigged against then-President Donald Trump, even as many at the network privately doubted the false claims being pushed by Trump and his allies?

Yet the broader context looms large. A trial would test press freedom and the reputation of conservatives’ favorite news source. It also would illuminate the flow of misinformation that helped spark the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and continues to fuel Trump’s hopes to regain power in 2024.

Fox News stars Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and founder Rupert Murdoch are among the people who had been expected to testify.

Barring a settlement, opening statements are now scheduled for Tuesday.

“This is Christmas Eve for defamation scholars,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a University of Utah law professor.

If the trial were a sporting event, Fox News would be taking the field on a losing streak, with key players injured and having just alienated the referee. Pretrial court rulings and embarrassing revelations about its biggest names have Fox on its heels.

Court papers released over the past two months show Fox executives, producers and personalities privately disbelieved Trump’s claims of a fraudulent election. But Dominion says Fox News was afraid of alienating its audience with the truth, particularly after many viewers were angered by the network’s decision to declare Democrat Joe Biden the winner in Arizona on election night in November 2020.

Some rulings by the judge have eased Dominion’s path. In a summary judgment, Davis said it was “CRYSTAL clear” that fraud allegations against the company were false. That means trial time won’t have to be spent disproving them at a time when millions of Republicans continue to doubt the 2020 results.

Davis said it also is clear that Dominion’s reputation was damaged, but that it would be up to a jury to decide whether Fox acted with “actual malice” — the legal standard — and, if so, what that’s worth financially.

Fox witnesses would likely testify that they thought the allegations against Dominion were newsworthy, but Davis made it clear that’s not a defense against defamation.

New York law protects news outlets from defamation for expressions of opinion. But Davis methodically went through 20 different times on Fox when allegations against Dominion were discussed, ruling that all of them were fully or partly considered statements of fact, and fair game for a potential libel finding.

“A lawsuit is a little bit like hitting a home run,” said Cary Coglianese, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “You have to go through all of the bases to get there.” The judge’s rulings “basically give Dominion a spot at third base, and all they have to do is come home to win it.”

Both Fox and Dominion are incorporated in Delaware, though Fox News is headquartered in New York and Dominion is based in Denver.

Fox angered Davis this past week when the judge said the network’s lawyers delayed producing evidence and were not forthcoming in revealing Murdoch’s role at Fox News. A Fox lawyer, Blake Rohrbacher, sent a letter of apology to Davis on Friday, saying it was a misunderstanding and not an intention to deceive.

It’s not clear whether that would affect a trial. But it’s generally not wise to have a judge wonder at the outset of a trial whether your side is telling the truth, particularly when truth is the central point of the case, Jones said.

The lawsuit essentially comes down to whether Dominion can prove Fox acted with actual malice by putting something on the air knowing that it was false or acting with a “reckless disregard” for whether it was true. In most libel cases, that is the most difficult hurdle for plaintiffs to get past.

Dominion can point to many examples where Fox figures didn’t believe the charges being made by Trump allies such as Sidney Powell and Rudolph Giuliani. But Fox says many of those disbelievers were not in a position to decide when to air those allegations.

“We think it’s essential for them to connect those dots,” Fox lawyer Erin Murphy said.

If the case goes to trial, the jury will determine whether a powerful figure like Murdoch — who testified in a deposition that he didn’t believe the election-fraud charges — had the influence to keep the accusations off the air.

“Credibility is always important in any trial in any case. But it’s going to be really important in this case,” said Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and the Law at the University of Minnesota.

Kirtley is concerned that the suit may eventually advance to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could use it as a pretext to weaken the actual malice standard that was set in a 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That, she feels, would be disastrous for journalists.

Dominion’s lawsuit is being closely watched by another voting-technology company with a separate but similar case against Fox News. Florida-based Smartmatic has looked to some rulings and evidence in the Dominion case to try to enhance its own $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit in New York. The Smartmatic case isn’t yet ready for trial but has survived Fox News’ effort to get it tossed out.

Many experts are surprised Fox and Dominion have not reached an out-of-court settlement, though they can at any time. There’s presumably a wide financial gulf. In court papers, Fox contends the $1.6 billion damages claim is a wild overestimate.

Dominion’s motivation may also be to inflict maximum embarrassment on Fox with the peek into the network’s internal communications following the election. Text messages from January 2021 revealed Carlson telling a friend that he passionately hated Trump and couldn’t wait to move on.

Dominion may also seek an apology.

The trial has had no apparent effect on Fox News’ viewership; it remains the top-rated cable network. Fox’s media reporter, Howard Kurtz, said earlier this year that he had been banned from covering the lawsuit, but the network has since changed direction. Kurtz discussed the case on his show Sunday, saying he would be in Wilmington for the beginning of the trial.

“The real potential danger is if Fox viewers get the sense that they’ve been lied to. There’s a real downside there,” said Charlie Sykes, founder of the Bulwark website and an MSNBC contributor.

There’s little indication that the case has changed Fox’s editorial direction. Fox has embraced Trump once again in recent weeks following the former president’s indictment by a Manhattan grand jury, and Carlson presented an alternate history of Capitol riot, based on tapes given to him by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

Just because there has been limited discussion of the Dominion suit on Fox doesn’t mean its fans are unaware of it, said Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the conservative watchdog Media Research Center.

“There’s a certain amount of tribal reaction to this,” Graham said. “When all of the other networks are thrilling to revealing text messages and emails, they see this as the latest attempt by the liberal media to undermine Fox News. There’s going to be a rally-around-Rupert effect.”

Fox Corp. and MarketWatch parent News Corp. share common ownership.

Source link

April 16, 2023
Fox News and 2020 election lies set to face jury come Monday

NEW YORK — Starting Monday in a courtroom in Delaware, Fox News executives and stars will have to answer for their role in spreading doubt about the 2020 presidential election and creating the gaping wound that remains in America’s democracy.

Jurors hearing the $1.6 billion lawsuit filed against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems must answer a specific question: Did Fox defame the voting machine company by airing bogus stories alleging that the election was rigged against then-President Donald Trump, even as many at the network privately doubted the false claims being pushed by Trump and his allies?

Yet the broader context looms large. The trial will test press freedom and the reputation of conservatives’ favorite news source. It will also illuminate the flow of misinformation that helped spark the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and continues to fuel Trump’s hopes to regain power in 2024.

Fox News stars Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and founder Rupert Murdoch are among the people expected to testify over the next few weeks.

Barring a last-minute settlement, opening statements are scheduled for Monday.

“This is Christmas Eve for defamation scholars,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a University of Utah law professor.

If the trial were a sporting event, Fox News would be taking the field on a losing streak, with key players injured and having just alienated the referee. Pretrial court rulings and embarrassing revelations about its biggest names have Fox on its heels.

Court papers released over the past two months show Fox executives, producers and personalities privately disbelieved Trump’s claims of a fraudulent election. But Dominion says Fox News was afraid of alienating its audience with the truth, particularly after many viewers were angered by the network’s decision to declare Democrat Joe Biden the winner in Arizona on election night in November 2020.

Some rulings by the presiding judge, Eric Davis, have eased Dominion’s path. In a summary judgment, Davis said it was “CRYSTAL clear” that fraud allegations against the company were false. That means trial time won’t have to be spent disproving them at a time when millions of Republicans continue to doubt the 2020 results.

Davis said it also is clear that Dominion’s reputation was damaged, but it will be up a jury to decide whether Fox acted with “actual malice” — the legal standard — and, if so, what that’s worth financially.

Fox witnesses will likely testify that they thought the allegations against Dominion were newsworthy, but Davis made it clear that’s not a defense against defamation — and he will make sure the jury knows that.

New York law protects news outlets from defamation for expressions of opinion. But Davis methodically went through 20 different times on Fox when allegations against Dominion were discussed, ruling that all of them were fully or partly considered statements of fact, and fair game for a potential libel finding.

“A lawsuit is a little bit like hitting a home run,” said Cary Coglianese, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “You have to go through all of the bases to get there.” The judge’s rulings “basically give Dominion a spot at third base, and all they have to do is come home to win it.”

Both Fox and Dominion are incorporated in Delaware, though Fox News is headquartered in New York and Dominion is based in Denver.

Fox angered Davis this past week when the judge said the network’s lawyers delayed producing evidence and were not forthcoming in revealing Murdoch’s role at Fox News.

It’s not clear whether that will affect the trial. But it’s generally not wise to have a judge wonder at the outset of a trial whether your side is telling the truth, particularly when truth is the central point of the case, Jones said.

The suit essentially comes down to whether Dominion can prove Fox acted with actual malice by putting something on the air knowing that it knew was false or acting with a “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.

Dominion can point to many examples where Fox figures didn’t believe the charges being made by Trump allies such as Sidney Powell and Rudolph Giuliani. But Fox says many of those disbelievers were not in a position to decide when to air those allegations.

“We think it’s essential for them to connect those dots,” Fox lawyer Erin Murphy said.

The jury will determine whether a powerful figure like Murdoch — who testified in a deposition that he didn’t believe the election-fraud charges — had the influence to keep the accusations off the air.

“Credibility is always important in any trial in any case. But it’s going to be really important in this case,” said Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and the Law at the University of Minnesota.

Kirtley is concerned that the suit may eventually advance to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could use it as a pretext to weaken the actual malice standard that was set in a 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That, she feels, would be disastrous for journalists.

Dominion’s lawsuit is being closely watched by another voting-technology company with a separate but similar case against Fox News. Florida-based Smartmatic has looked to some rulings and evidence in the Dominion case to try to enhance its own $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit in New York. The Smartmatic case isn’t yet ready for trial but has survived Fox News’ effort to get it tossed out.

Many experts are surprised Fox and Dominion have not reached an out-of-court settlement, though they can at any time. There’s presumably a wide financial gulf. In court papers, Fox contends the $1.6 billion damages claim is a wild overestimate.

Dominion’s motivation may also be to inflict maximum embarrassment on Fox with the peek into the network’s internal communications following the election. Text messages from January 2021 revealed Carlson telling a friend that he passionately hated Trump and couldn’t wait to move on.

Dominion may also seek an apology.

How Fox viewers are reacting is an open question. Fox has placed a near-total ban on discussing the lawsuit on its TV network or website.

“The real potential danger is if Fox viewers get the sense that they’ve been lied to. There’s a real downside there,” said Charlie Sykes, founder of the Bulwark website and an MSNBC contributor.

There’s little indication that the case has changed Fox’s editorial direction or cut into its viewership. Fox has embraced Trump once again in recent weeks following the former president’s indictment by a Manhattan grand jury, and Carlson presented an alternate history of Capitol riot, based on tapes given to him by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

Just because Fox hasn’t discussed the Dominion lawsuit on the air doesn’t mean its fans are unaware of it, said Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the conservative watchdog Media Research Center.

“There’s a certain amount of tribal reaction to this,” Graham said. “When all of the other networks are thrilling to revealing text messages and emails, they see this as the latest attempt by the liberal media to undermine Fox News. There’s going to be a rally-around-Rupert effect.”

The trial is expected to last into late May.

___

Associated Press writer Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report.

Source link

April 16, 2023
Silicon Valley councilman indicted in 49ers report leak

SAN FRANCISCO — A Silicon Valley city councilman has been charged with perjury after he allegedly lied about leaking a grand jury report to the San Francisco 49ers last year that detailed a purportedly unethical relationship between the team and the city council, prosecutors said Friday.

Santa Clara City Councilmember Anthony Becker is accused of providing the secret report titled “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council” to the team’s former top spokesperson and a local media outlet in 2022, days ahead of its official release.

Becker then allegedly lied to the grand jury about the leak, prosecutors said, prompting the criminal charges.

The 49ers play in Levi’s Stadium in the city of Santa Clara, about 35 miles (56.33 kilometers) south of San Francisco. Santa Clara County is broadly considered home to Silicon Valley.

The city of Santa Clara owns the stadium and leases it to the team; fighting between the two groups has led to ethics complaints, legal disputes and years of bad blood.

Al Guido, the team’s president, and Larry MacNeil, the former CFO who worked extensively on the team’s stadium project, were named in the indictment as witnesses who spoke to the criminal grand jury for Becker’s indictment.

“The 49ers have cooperated fully with the District Attorney’s Office in their investigation, and will continue to do so,” team spokesperson Brian Brokaw said in a statement Friday. “However, because this is an ongoing legal matter, the organization is not able to make any further comment at this time.”

Prosecutors say the team has bankrolled Becker’s political career by spending $3.2 million through independent expenditure committees for his 2020 city council race, which he won, as well as his unsuccessful 2022 mayoral bid.

The “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” report alleged that Becker and four other councilmembers regularly voted “in a manner that is favorable to the 49ers” and would routinely meet with the team’s lobbyists but not disclose what was discussed.

Becker faces a felony charge of perjury under oath, as well as a misdemeanor charge of willful failure to perform duty. He is scheduled to be arraigned Monday.

Becker did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday, and it was not clear whether he had an attorney who could speak on his behalf.

“Councilmember Becker violated the public’s trust,” Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said in a statement. “That an elected official would commit perjury and lie under oath before the grand jury strikes at the very heart of our justice system and requires accountability.”

Representatives for the Santa Clara City Council did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Source link

April 14, 2023
Silicon Valley councilman indicted in 49ers report leak

SAN FRANCISCO — A Silicon Valley city councilman has been charged with perjury after he allegedly lied about leaking a grand jury report to the San Francisco 49ers last year that detailed a purportedly unethical relationship between the team and the city council, prosecutors said Friday.

Santa Clara City Councilmember Anthony Becker is accused of providing the secret report titled “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council” to the team’s former top spokesperson and a local media outlet in 2022, days ahead of its official release.

Becker then allegedly lied to the grand jury about the leak, prosecutors said, prompting the criminal charges.

The 49ers play in Levi’s Stadium in the city of Santa Clara, about 35 miles (56.33 kilometers) south of San Francisco. The city owns the stadium and leases it to the team; fighting between the two groups has led to ethics complaints, legal disputes and years of bad blood.

Al Guido, the team’s president, and Larry MacNeil, the former CFO who worked extensively on the team’s stadium project, were named in the indictment as witnesses who spoke to the criminal grand jury.

“The 49ers have cooperated fully with the District Attorney’s Office in their investigation, and will continue to do so,” team spokesperson Brian Brokaw said in a statement Friday. “However, because this is an ongoing legal matter, the organization is not able to make any further comment at this time.”

Prosecutors say the team has bankrolled Becker’s political career by spending $3.2 million through independent expenditure committees for his 2020 city council race, which he won, as well as his unsuccessful 2022 mayoral bid.

The “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” report alleged that Becker and four other councilmembers regularly voted “in a manner that is favorable to the 49ers” and would routinely meet with the team’s lobbyists but not disclose what was discussed.

Becker faces a felony charge of perjury under oath, as well as a misdemeanor charge of willful failure to perform duty. He is scheduled to be arraigned Monday.

Becker did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday, and it was not clear whether he had an attorney who could speak on his behalf.

“Councilmember Becker violated the public’s trust,” Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said in a statement. “That an elected official would commit perjury and lie under oath before the grand jury strikes at the very heart of our justice system and requires accountability.”

Representatives for the Santa Clara City Council did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Santa Clara County is broadly considered home to Silicon Valley.

Source link

April 14, 2023
Jury selection begins in defamation lawsuit against Fox News

Jury selection has begun behind closed doors in a defamation lawsuit seeking to hold Fox News responsible for repeatedly airing false claims related to the 2020 presidential election

ByRANDALL CHASE Associated Press

WILMINGTON, Del. — Jury selection began behind closed doors Thursday in a defamation lawsuit seeking to hold Fox News responsible for repeatedly airing false claims related to the 2020 presidential election.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis previously made clear that the selection would be done out of public view to ensure the privacy and safety of potential jurors.

“Because of the nature of the case and under the statute, I can take those steps to protect jurors,” the judge said Thursday, noting that the case has received international attention.

“I need to make sure that the jury remains unaffected by this,” Davis added.

Jury selection in Delaware is usually done in public but occasionally is closed to protect jurors, such as in high-profile criminal cases or those involving alleged gang activity.

The judge met privately with potential jurors and handed out forms asking several routine questions, including whether those in the jury pool have ever worked for Fox or Dominion Voting Systems, the Colorado-based voting machine company that filed the defamation lawsuit.

He began Thursday’s proceeding by denying a request by certain media outlets for permission to record and rebroadcast a live audio feed of the trial. The outlets sought similar permission for the jury selection, even though it is being done in private without audio access.

“I have gone as far as I can go with response to access,” Davis told lawyers and media representatives in the courtroom, noting that even providing an audio feed of the trial is unprecedented.

“You’re getting the most access of any media in a Superior Court case in Delaware,” he said.

Lawyers for Fox filed a response opposing the media access request, saying it risks invading privacy interests, distracting jurors and trial participants, and compromising the integrity of the trial proceedings.

“There is no guarantee that others will not exploit or misuse the recordings once they are posted online,” Fox;s lawyers wrote.

Opening statements are scheduled for Monday in a trial expected to last six weeks.

Dominion alleges that Fox damaged the company by repeatedly airing false allegations that its machines and the software they used rigged the 2020 presidential election to prevent Donald Trump’s reelection. Records produced as part of the suit show many Fox executives and on-air hosts didn’t believe the claims but broadcast them anyway.

Source link

April 13, 2023
Fox attorneys in libel case reveal dual roles for Murdoch

WILMINGTON, Del. — Attorneys defending Fox in a defamation case related to false claims about the 2020 election withheld critical information about the role company founder Rupert Murdoch played at Fox News, a revelation that angered the judge when it came up at a Tuesday hearing.

It was not clear whether the development would affect a trial scheduled to begin Thursday with jury selection. Dominion Voting Systems is suing Fox for $1.6 billion, saying it damaged its reputation by repeatedly airing false claims that the company helped orchestrate a fraud that cost former President Donald Trump re-election.

The role of Fox executives is at the heart of the case. The company’s attorneys have sought to insulate members of the Murdoch family and to keep them from testifying live before a jury, arguing that their roles at the parent company, Fox Corp., put them at a distance from the Fox News shows that aired the bogus claims.

Fox Corp. had asserted since Dominion filed its lawsuit in 2021 that Rupert Murdoch had no official role at Fox News. In its filings, it had listed Fox News officers as Suzanne Scott, Jay Wallace and Joe Dorrego. But on Easter Sunday, Fox disclosed to Dominion’s attorneys that Murdoch also is “executive chair” at Fox News. The disclosure came after Superior Court Judge Eric Davis wondered aloud during a status conference last week who Fox News’ officers were.

Davis was clearly disturbed by the disclosure, coming on the eve of the trial.

“My problem is that it has been represented to me more than once that he is not an officer,” the judge said.

Davis suggested that had he known of Murdoch’s dual role at Fox Corp. and Fox News, he might have reached different conclusions in a summary judgment ruling he issued last month. In that ruling, the judge said there was no dispute that the statements aired by Fox were false, but that a jury would have to decide whether Fox News acted with actual malice and whether Fox Corp. directly participated in airing the statements.

To Fox attorney Matthew Carter, Davis said: “You have a credibility problem.”

In response, Carter said he believed Murdoch’s title at Fox News was only “honorific.”

“I’m not mad at you,” the judge later told Carter. “I’m mad at the situation I’m in.”

In a statement issued after Tuesday’s pretrial hearing, Fox said, “Rupert Murdoch has been listed as executive chairman of Fox News in our SEC filings since 2019 and this filing was referenced by Dominion’s own attorney during his deposition.”

It’s unclear whether the judge will take any action in response to the late disclosure. But an attorney for Dominion said he wanted Fox to further explain Murdoch’s role with the network, indicating the issue could come up when the pretrial hearing continues Wednesday.

Dominion attorney Justin Nelson told the judge the disclosure has “a big impact” on the case. He said Fox’s failure to disclose Murdoch’s status at Fox News has deprived Dominion of “a whole bunch” of information from Murdoch as a custodian of Fox News records that it was entitled to have.

“It is something that really has impacted how we have litigated this case,” he said.

Tuesday’s development was the latest to turn an uncomfortable spotlight on the network.

Information obtained by Dominion as part of its lawsuit has shown that some network hosts harbored off-camera doubts about election fraud claims but nevertheless allowed program guests to repeatedly make them in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The case also has drawn scrutiny of various emails and text messages shared among Rupert Murdoch, his son Lachlan Murdoch and Scott, the Fox News CEO, about election coverage and the allegations by Trump and his allies that he was cheated.

They revealed a chorus of voices, from Rupert Murdoch and top network hosts to producers and publicists, who internally cast the election-stealing conspiracy claims as crazy even as the network repeatedly gave them a platform. Internal communications also showed that at the time, major players at Fox were deeply worried about retaining pro-Trump viewers.

In a ruling earlier Tuesday, the judge denied a motion by Fox seeking to bar any reference at trial to matters involving the Murdoch family, which owns Fox Corp. The judge also said he would allow jurors to hear some testimony about threats directed at the voting machine company, but only to a point.

The judge granted a motion by Fox to prohibit any reference to specific threats or harassment directed at Dominion, saying he did not want the jury to be prejudiced against Fox because of threats made by people with no connection to the network. But he said he would allow Dominion to talk generally about threats it had received to show how it has been damaged by the Fox broadcasts.

“It has decimated Dominion’s ability to attract and retain employees, because the company is under siege,” said Megan Meier, an attorney for the voting machine company.

The judge already decided last week there would be no testimony about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Source link

April 11, 2023
Fox attorneys in libel case reveal dual roles for Murdoch

WILMINGTON, Del. — Attorneys defending Fox in a defamation case related to false claims about the 2020 election withheld critical information about the role company founder Rupert Murdoch played at Fox News, a revelation that angered the judge when it came up at a Tuesday hearing.

It was not clear whether the development would affect a trial scheduled to begin Thursday with jury selection. Dominion Voting Systems is suing Fox for $1.6 billion, saying it damaged its reputation by repeatedly airing false claims that the company helped orchestrate a fraud that cost former President Donald Trump re-election.

The role of Fox executives is at the heart of the case. The company’s attorneys have sought to insulate members of the Murdoch family and to keep them from testifying live before a jury, arguing that their roles at the parent company, Fox Corp., put them at a distance from the Fox News shows that aired the bogus claims.

Fox Corp. had asserted since Dominion filed its lawsuit in 2021 that Rupert Murdoch had no official role at Fox News. In its filings, it had listed Fox News officers as Suzanne Scott, Jay Wallace and Joe Dorrego. But on Easter Sunday, Fox disclosed to Dominion’s attorneys that Murdoch also is “executive chair” at Fox News. The disclosure came after Superior Court Judge Eric Davis wondered aloud during a status conference last week who Fox News’ officers were.

Davis was clearly disturbed by the disclosure, coming on the eve of the trial.

“My problem is that it has been represented to me more than once that he is not an officer,” the judge said.

Davis suggested that had he known of Murdoch’s dual role at Fox Corp. and Fox News, he might have reached different conclusions in a summary judgment ruling he issued last month. In that ruling, the judge said there was no dispute that the statements aired by Fox were false, but that a jury would have to decide whether Fox News acted with actual malice and whether Fox Corp. directly participated in airing the statements.

To Fox attorney Matthew Carter, Davis said: “You have a credibility problem.”

In response, Carter said he believed Murdoch’s title at Fox News was only “honorific.”

“I’m not mad at you,” the judge later told Carter. “I’m mad at the situation I’m in.”

It’s unclear whether the judge will take any action in response to the late disclosure. But an attorney for Dominion said he wanted Fox to further explain Murdoch’s role with the network, indicating the issue could come up when the pretrial hearing continues Wednesday.

Dominion attorney Justin Nelson told the judge the disclosure has “a big impact” on the case. He said Fox’s failure to disclose Murdoch’s status at Fox News has deprived Dominion of “a whole bunch” of information from Murdoch as a custodian of Fox News records that it was entitled to have.

“It is something that really has impacted how we have litigated this case,” he said.

Tuesday’s development was the latest to turn an uncomfortable spotlight on the network.

Information obtained by Dominion as part of its lawsuit has shown that some network hosts harbored off-camera doubts about election fraud claims but nevertheless allowed program guests to repeatedly make them in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The case also has drawn scrutiny of various emails and text messages shared among Rupert Murdoch, his son Lachlan Murdoch and Scott, the Fox News CEO, about election coverage and the allegations by Trump and his allies that he was cheated.

They revealed a chorus of voices, from Rupert Murdoch and top network hosts to producers and publicists, who internally cast the election-stealing conspiracy claims as crazy even as the network repeatedly gave them a platform. Internal communications also showed that at the time, major players at Fox were deeply worried about retaining pro-Trump viewers.

In a ruling earlier Tuesday, the judge denied a motion by Fox seeking to bar any reference at trial to matters involving the Murdoch family, which owns Fox Corp. The judge also said he would allow jurors to hear some testimony about threats directed at the voting machine company, but only to a point.

The judge granted a motion by Fox to prohibit any reference to specific threats or harassment directed at Dominion, saying he did not want the jury to be prejudiced against Fox because of threats made by people with no connection to the network. But he said he would allow Dominion to talk generally about threats it had received to show how it has been damaged by the Fox broadcasts.

“It has decimated Dominion’s ability to attract and retain employees, because the company is under siege,” said Megan Meier, an attorney for the voting machine company.

The judge already decided last week there would be no testimony about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Source link

April 11, 2023
Jury holds key to fate of $1 billion transmission project

PORTLAND, Maine — A battle over a $1 billion transmission line that won all regulatory approvals only to be rebuked by state residents in a referendum now comes down to nine regular folks.

In a rare move, a jury is being asked to decide a complicated constitutional matter — whether developers have a vested right to complete the 145-mile (233-kilometer) project, which would supply Canadian hydropower to the New England power grid.

The constitutionality of the statewide referendum on the project depends on the jury’s decision on the narrow vested-rights issue. And the case could turn on a simple majority of jurors.

“We’re not aware of a similar instance in which the fate of a large energy asset rests in the hands of a jury. This is an unusual circumstance,” Timothy Fox, vice president of Clear View Partners, an energy research firm in Washington, D.C., said before the trial began Monday.

The courtroom was packed Monday.

Attorneys for groups opposed to the project and the state attorney general’s office, which is charged with upholding the referendum, suggested to jurors on Monday that developers rushed construction with a goal of winning vested rights and nullifying the referendum.

But John Aromando, the lawyer for the developers, said the construction schedule was put in place years earlier, and that the case is “about fundamental fairness, about vested rights, about protection of property rights against retroactive laws.”

Last year, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court breathed new life into the stalled project when it ruled the retroactive nature of the statewide vote to stop the project would violate the developers’ constitutional rights if substantial construction already had begun in good faith before the referendum. Construction started in January 2021, about 10 months before the referendum in which 59% of voters rejected the project.

Justice Michael A. Duddy could have made the fact-finding determination himself. But he ruled in favor of project opponents, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine, who asked for a jury to make the determination. The judge seated nine jurors and two alternates.

Central Maine Power’s parent company and Hydro Quebec teamed up on New England Clean Energy Connect, which was unveiled in 2017 with a goal of supplying up to 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower to the New England power grid. That is enough electricity for 1 million homes.

It’s one of two proposed large-scale transmission projects aimed at tapping hydropower from Quebec. The other would provide electricity to New York City.

Early on, developers envisioned smooth sailing because the transmission path would mostly follow existing corridors, with only a new 53-mile (85-kilometer) section crossing sparely populated woods to reach the Canadian border.

But the project encountered opposition each step of the way even as it received all necessary regulatory approvals. Developers already had begun cutting trees and setting poles for months when the governor asked for work to be suspended after voters rejected the project in November 2021.

Supporters say bold projects such as this one, funded by ratepayers in Massachusetts, are necessary to battle climate change and introduce additional electricity into a region that is heavily reliant on natural gas, which can cause spikes in energy costs.

Critics say the project’s environmental benefits are overstated — and that it would harm the woodlands in western Maine.

In Maine, two lawsuits over the project went before the Supreme Judicial Court, which ultimately upheld a lease for a 1-mile portion of the proposed power line that crossed state land.

The constitutional issue will likely end up back before the Supreme Judicial Court regardless of the outcome of the judge’s decision after the jury trial.

___

This story has been corrected to show the attorney’s name is John Aromando, not Armando.

Source link

April 10, 2023
Jury holds key to fate of $1 billion transmission project

PORTLAND, Maine — A battle over a $1 billion transmission line that won all regulatory approvals only to be rebuked by state residents in a referendum now comes down to nine regular folks.

In a rare move, a jury is being asked to decide a complicated constitutional matter — whether developers have a vested right to complete the 145-mile (233-kilometer) project, which would supply Canadian hydropower to the New England power grid.

The constitutionality of the statewide referendum on the project depends on the jury’s decision on the narrow vested-rights issue. And the case could turn on a simple majority of jurors.

“We’re not aware of a similar instance in which the fate of a large energy asset rests in the hands of a jury. This is an unusual circumstance,” Timothy Fox, vice president of Clear View Partners, an energy research firm in Washington, D.C., said before the trial began Monday.

The courtroom was packed Monday.

Attorneys for groups opposed to the project and the state attorney general’s office, which is charged with upholding the referendum, suggested to jurors on Monday that developers rushed construction with a goal of winning vested rights and nullifying the referendum.

But John Aromando, the lawyer for the developers, said the construction schedule was put in place years earlier, and that the case is “about fundamental fairness, about vested rights, about protection of property rights against retroactive laws.”

Last year, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court breathed new life into the stalled project when it ruled the retroactive nature of the statewide vote to stop the project would violate the developers’ constitutional rights if substantial construction already had begun in good faith before the referendum. Construction started in January 2021, about 10 months before the referendum in which 59% of voters rejected the project.

Justice Michael A. Duddy could have made the fact-finding determination himself. But he ruled in favor of project opponents, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine, who asked for a jury to make the determination. The judge seated nine jurors and two alternates.

Central Maine Power’s parent company and Hydro Quebec teamed up on New England Clean Energy Connect, which was unveiled in 2017 with a goal of supplying up to 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower to the New England power grid. That is enough electricity for 1 million homes.

It’s one of two proposed large-scale transmission projects aimed at tapping hydropower from Quebec. The other would provide electricity to New York City.

Early on, developers envisioned smooth sailing because the transmission path would mostly follow existing corridors, with only a new 53-mile (85-kilometer) section crossing sparely populated woods to reach the Canadian border.

But the project encountered opposition each step of the way even as it received all necessary regulatory approvals. Developers already had begun cutting trees and setting poles for months when the governor asked for work to be suspended after voters rejected the project in November 2021.

Supporters say bold projects such as this one, funded by ratepayers in Massachusetts, are necessary to battle climate change and introduce additional electricity into a region that is heavily reliant on natural gas, which can cause spikes in energy costs.

Critics say the project’s environmental benefits are overstated — and that it would harm the woodlands in western Maine.

In Maine, two lawsuits over the project went before the Supreme Judicial Court, which ultimately upheld a lease for a 1-mile portion of the proposed power line that crossed state land.

The constitutional issue will likely end up back before the Supreme Judicial Court regardless of the outcome of the judge’s decision after the jury trial.

___

This story has been corrected to show the attorney’s name is John Aromando, not Armando.

Source link

April 10, 2023
Report details ‘staggering’ church sex abuse in Maryland

BALTIMORE — More than 150 Catholic priests and others associated with the Archdiocese of Baltimore sexually abused over 600 children over the past 80 years, according to a state report released Wednesday that accused church officials of decades of cover-ups.

The report paints a damning picture of the archdiocese, which is the oldest Roman Catholic diocese in the country and spans much of Maryland. Some parishes, schools and congregations had more than one abuser at the same time — including St. Mark Parish in Catonsville, which had 11 abusers living and working there between 1964 and 2004.

The Maryland Attorney General’s Office issued the report during Holy Week — considered the most sacred time of year in Christianity ahead of Easter Sunday — and said the number of victims is likely far higher.

“The staggering pervasiveness of the abuse itself underscores the culpability of the Church hierarchy,” the report said. “The sheer number of abusers and victims, the depravity of the abusers’ conduct, and the frequency with which known abusers were given the opportunity to continue preying upon children are astonishing.”

The disclosure of the redacted findings marks a significant development in an ongoing legal battle over their release and adds to growing evidence from parishes across the country as numerous similar revelations have rocked the Catholic Church in recent years. Also on Wednesday, the state legislature passed a bill to end a statute of limitations on abuse-related civil lawsuits, sending it to the governor.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, who took office in January, said the investigation shows “pervasive, pernicious and persistent abuse.” Other investigations involving the Archdiocese of Washington and the Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware, which both include parts of Maryland, are ongoing.

Baltimore Archbishop William Lori, in a statement posted online, apologized to the victims and said the report “details a reprehensible time in the history of this Archdiocese, a time that will not be covered up, ignored or forgotten.”

“The detailed accounts of abuse are shocking and soul searing. It is difficult for most to imagine that such evil acts could have actually occurred,” Lori said. “For victim-survivors everywhere, they know the hard truth: These evil acts did occur.”

The report largely focuses on the years before 2002, when an investigation by the Boston Globe into abuse and coverup in the Archdiocese of Boston led to an explosion of revelations nationwide. The nation’s Catholic bishops, for the first time, agreed on reforms including a lifetime ban from ministry for any priest who commits even a single incident of abuse.

Jean Hargadon Wehner said she was abused in Baltimore as a teen by a priest who served as her Catholic high school’s counselor and chaplain. She said she reported her abuse to church officials in the early ’90s, when her memories of the trauma finally surfaced about two decades after she was repeatedly raped.

“I expected them to do the right thing in 1992,” she told reporters Wednesday after the findings were released. “I’m still angry.”

The Associated Press typically doesn’t name victims of abuse, but Hargadon Wehner has spoken publicly to draw attention to the issue.

The report notes that while new national policies significantly improved the internal handling of reported abuse in the Baltimore archdiocese after 2002, there were still flaws, including that its public list of abusers didn’t include everyone it knew about; its independent review board is limited by the information church officials provide about alleged abuse; and some alleged abusers were allowed to retire, with financial support, rather than be ousted.

The investigation also revealed that the archdiocese failed to report many allegations of sexual abuse to authorities, conduct adequate investigations, remove abusers from the ministry or restrict their access to children.

In some cases, victims ended up reporting abuse to priests who were abusive themselves, prosecutors wrote.

Brown’s predecessor Brian Frosh launched the probe in 2019 and announced its completion in November, saying investigators had reviewed over 100,000 pages of documents dating back to the 1940s and interviewed hundreds of victims and witnesses.

Lawyers for the state asked a court for permission to release the nearly 500-page document and Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Robert Taylor ruled last month that a redacted version should be made public. The court ordered the removal the names and titles of 37 people accused of wrongdoing — whose names came out during confidential grand jury proceedings — but will consider releasing a more complete version in the future.

Lawmakers’ passage of a bill to end the state’s statute of limitations came after similar proposals failed in recent years. The issue received renewed attention this session. Gov. Wes Moore has said he supports it. Currently, victims of child sex abuse in Maryland can’t sue after they turn 38. The bill would eliminate the age limit and allow for retroactive lawsuits.

The Archdiocese of Baltimore has long faced scrutiny over its handling of abuse allegations.

In 2002, Cardinal William Keeler, who served as Baltimore archbishop for nearly two decades, released a list of 57 priests accused of sexual abuse, earning himself a reputation for transparency at a time when the nationwide scope of wrongdoing remained largely unexposed. That changed, however, when Keeler was named in a sweeping Pennsylvania grand jury report. The 2018 report presented extensive evidence of a far-reaching coverup that often involved transferring accused clergy to other parishes instead of holding them accountable.

In Keeler’s case, the grand jury accused him of covering up sexual abuse allegations while serving as bishop of Harrisburg in the 1980s. Keeler later allowed the accused clergy member, now-defrocked John G. Allen, to transfer to Baltimore and continue working. Not long after the report became public, church officials announced the archdiocese was changing its plans to name a new Catholic school after Keeler, who had died the previous year.

___

Witte reported from Annapolis and Brumfield reported from Silver Spring.

Source link

April 5, 2023
Live updates: Donald Trump set for historic arraignment

NEW YORK — Live updates on former President Donald Trump‘s expected surrender on charges stemming from 2016 hush money payments.

What to know:

— Prosecutor has arrived at courthouse

— Lawyer says Trump will maintain innocence in court

— Police brace for protests in Trump’s hometown

___

PROSECUTOR ARRIVES

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg arrived at court Tuesday morning in New York ahead of former President Donald Trump’s arraignment.

Bragg became Manhattan’s first Black district attorney in 2022, following his election the previous November. He inherited a yearslong grand jury investigation into hush money paid on Trump’s behalf during his 2016 presidential campaign.

After taking office, Bragg slowed his office’s move toward an indictment of Trump and said he had concerns about the strength of the case. That sparked a public protest by two prosecutors who were leading the investigation and resigned.

But Bragg convened a new grand jury this year after convicting Trump’s family company for tax fraud. He called that result a “strong demarcation line” for proceeding with other parts of the probe.

___

TRUMP ATTORNEY: ‘NO GUILTY PLEA’

Trump attorney Joe Tacopina said the former president’s appearance in court for Tuesday’s arraignment would be brief because the processing “does not take long.”

“It won’t be a long day in court,” he said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“We know the basis of the indictment and the factual allegations in the indictment,” Tacopina said, adding Trump would maintain his innocence.

“One thing I can assure you as I sit here today, there’ll be no guilty plea in this case. That’s one thing I can guarantee you,” he said.

Tacopina appeared to predict the case would ultimately be dismissed.

“I don’t think this case is going to see a juror,” he said. “I think there’s a legal challenge that will be made and should be made successfully.”

___

SPECTATORS LINE UP

Spectators, many of them members of the news media, lined up overnight to get a seat inside the courtroom, or even just a glimpse of Trump, who wasn’t expected until Tuesday afternoon.

The building was surrounded by barricades, and people were undergoing layers of security checks. The reporters waiting in line were camped out under tents with lawn chairs, blankets and pizza boxes.

The nation’s 45th commander in chief was expected to be escorted from New York City’s Trump Tower — also surrounded by barricades — into a lower Manhattan courthouse by the Secret Service.

Police braced for protests from supporters of Trump, a Republican who is running for the White House again in 2024. He called the decision by a grand jury to indict him “political persecution and election interference at the highest level.”

Prosecutors investigated money paid to porn actor Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal to keep the women from going public with claims that they had sex with him.

Source link

April 4, 2023
New York, city of Trump’s dreams, delivers his comeuppance

NEW YORK — His name has been plastered on this city’s tabloids, bolted to its buildings and cemented to a special breed of brash New York confidence. Now, with Donald Trump due to return to the place that put him on the map, the city he loved is poised to deliver his comeuppance.

Rejected by its voters, ostracized by its protesters and now rebuked by its jurors, the people of New York have one more thing to splash Trump’s name on: Indictment No. 71543-23.

“He wanted to be in Manhattan. He loved Manhattan. He had a connection to Manhattan,” says Barbara Res, a longtime employee of the former president who was a vice president at the Trump Organization. “I don’t know that he has accepted it and I don’t know that he believes it, but New York turned on him.”

None of Trump’s romances have lasted longer than his courtship of New York. No place else could match his blend of ostentatious and outlandish. His love of the city going unrequited is Shakespearean enough, but Trump took it a step further, rising to the presidency only to become a hometown antihero.

Trump was born and raised in Queens to a real estate developer father whose projects were largely in Queens and Brooklyn. But the younger Trump ached to cross the East River and make his name in Manhattan. He gained a foothold with his transformation of the rundown Commodore Hotel into a glittering Grand Hyatt and ensured a spotlight on himself by appearing at the side of politicians and celebrities, popping up at Studio 54 and other hot spots and coaxing near-constant media coverage.

By the greed-is-good 1980s, he was a New York fixture. And in a city that prides itself as the center of the world, Trump saw himself as king.

“Trump grew up with a great deal of resentment toward others who he thought had more fame, wealth, or popularity,” says David Greenberg, a Rutgers University professor who wrote “Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency.” “Making it in Manhattan — building Trump Tower and becoming a fixture of the Manhattan social scene in the 1980s — meant a lot to him.”

The feeling was never truly mutual, though. Trump left a trail of unpaid bills, jilted workers and everyday New Yorkers who saw through his shameless self-promotion.

He may have been a singular character, but in a city of 8 million stories, his was just another one.

So, for years, Trump’s life here continued as the city raced on around him. Marriages came and went. Skyscrapers rose. Bankruptcies were filed. Trump flickered in and out of fame’s upper echelon.

He may never have been a common New Yorker, packed in the subway on the morning commute or grabbing a hot dog from a street vendor, but for many he remained a benign, if outsized, presence.

That began changing with years of bizarre, racially-fueled lies about Barack Obama’s birthplace, and by the time he descended the golden escalator at Trump Tower on June 16, 2015, to announce his presidential bid, many in his hometown had little patience for the vitriol he spewed.

Rockefeller Center played host to a weekly “Saturday Night Live” that made him a mockery, and at a Waldorf-Astoria gala, he elicited groans. In vast swaths of the city, distaste for Trump turned to hatred.

Even among Republicans, many saw him as believable as a Gucci bag on Canal Street. Trump won the state’s Republican primary, but couldn’t convince GOP voters in Manhattan.

“He’s no longer just this TV show charlatan. People see this man is actually going to lead the country and the world in the wrong direction,” says Christina Greer, a political scientist at Fordham University.

On Election Night 2016, tears flowed at the Javits Center, where Hillary Clinton’s victory party never materialized, while giddy supporters of Trump reveled in his surprise win across town in a Hilton ballroom. New Yorkers’ rebuke of their native son meant nothing. His face was projected unto the face of the Empire State Building as locals digested the fact that he would be president.

In the days that followed, a curious parade of politicians and celebrities journeyed to Trump Tower to meet the president-elect and, for weeks after, predictions about his presidency were rampant.

Among the musings of observers was speculation of a commuter president shuttling between New York and Washington. When word emerged that his wife and young son wouldn’t immediately move to the White House, it gave credence to the idea that Trump could never fully part with the city that made him.

But Trump continued being Trump, his presidency gave way to one controversy and broken norm after another, and New York become a capital of the resistance, giving birth to persistent mass protests.

The city of his dreams was no longer a place he could call home.

“New York has gone to hell,” he said as Election Day 2020 neared.

When the ballots were counted, Manhattan had seven times as many supporters of Joe Biden than those for Trump, and this time the Electoral College followed. When Trump’s presidency ended and he left Washington after the violent insurrection he incited, it was clear New York would be inhospitable.

Like droves of New Yorkers before him, he retired to Florida.

When he returns north now, he spends most of his time at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey. The man who long tried to eschew his bridge-and-tunnel past is again separated from Manhattan by a river.

On his first return to Manhattan after leaving office, the New York Post reported a single person waited outside Trump Tower to catch a glimpse. Even protesters couldn’t be bothered with him anymore.

His rebuke came from New Yorkers taking part in a right-of-passage for city dwellers, jury duty, and if it fit the mold of prior grand juries, it brought together a quintessential Manhattan cross-section, from neighborhoods, incomes and backgrounds different enough to ensure a cast of characters fit for TV.

With word of Trump’s indictment now out, the story of his deteriorating romance with New York is gaining a sense of finality. Even the Post, part of the Rupert Murdoch media empire that helped Trump win the White House to begin with, has abandoned him. The paper that once documented his affair with a screaming “Best Sex I’ve Ever Had” headline beside Trump’s smirking face, last week called him “deranged” on a front page on which he was branded “Bat Hit Crazy” in huge letters.

Trump once bragged he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and remain popular. Today, he could hand out fifties in New York and still not win the support of most locals.

He has dismissed the grand jury’s actions as a “scam” and a “persecution” and denied he did anything wrong. Democrats, he says, are lying and cheating to hurt his campaign to return to the White House.

Outside the courthouse that awaits him, the spectacle has largely been confined to the hordes of media. Among the few regular New Yorkers to make the trip there was Marni Halasa, a figure skater who showed up in a leopard print leotard, cat ears and wads of fake bills strung into a “hush money” boa. She stood alone outside Friday to celebrate the indictment of one of her city’s most famous sons.

“New Yorkers are here in spirit,” she says, “and I feel like I’m representing most of them.”

___

Associated Press writer Bobby Caina Calvan contributed to this report.

___

Matt Sedensky can be reached at msedensky@ap.org and https://twitter.com/sedensky

Source link

April 2, 2023
Trump indictment and hush money investigation, explained

Donald Trump has become the first former president to be indicted in a criminal case after a grand jury investigation into hush money payments made on his behalf during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The unprecedented indictment comes as the Republican faces other legal investigations and launches a bid to return to the White House in 2024.

The indictment will test the Republican Party already divided over whether to support Trump next year, in part due to his efforts to undermine his 2020 election loss.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing and accuses prosecutors of engaging in a politically motivated “witch hunt” to damage his campaign.

Here’s a look at the hush money case, the grand jury investigation and possible ramifications for Trump’s presidential campaign:

WHAT’S THIS CASE ABOUT?

The New York grand jury spent weeks meeting in secret to probe Trump’s involvement in a $130,000 payment made in 2016 to the porn actor Stormy Daniels to keep her from going public about a sexual encounter she said she had with him years earlier. Trump lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, through a shell company before being reimbursed by Trump, whose company, the Trump Organization, logged the reimbursements as legal expenses.

Earlier in 2016, Cohen also arranged for former Playboy model Karen McDougal to be paid $150,000 by the publisher of the supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer, which then squelched her story in a journalistically dubious practice known as “catch and kill.”

Trump denies having sex with either woman.

Trump’s company “grossed up” Cohen’s reimbursement for the Daniels payment to defray tax payments, according to federal prosecutors who filed criminal charges against the lawyer in connection with the payments in 2018. In all, Cohen got $360,000 plus a $60,000 bonus, for a total of $420,000.

Cohen pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payments. Federal prosecutors say the payments amounted to illegal, unreported assistance to Trump’s campaign. But they declined to file charges against Trump himself.

WHAT’S AN INDICTMENT?

An indictment is the formal charge brought against someone after a grand jury — which is made up of members of the community — votes and enough members agree there’s sufficient evidence to charge someone with a crime.

The indictment against Trump remains sealed, as is standard in New York before an arraignment. But once the document is made public, it will lay out the crime or crimes that Trump is accused of committing. Sometimes indictments include a lengthy narrative with lots of details about the allegations, while others are more basic and just outline the charges a defendant is facing.

WHAT ARE THE CHARGES?

The indictment has not yet been unsealed, so it’s not totally clear.

Some experts have said they believe Trump could be charged with falsifying business records, which can be a misdemeanor or a felony under New York law. To secure a conviction on the felony charge, prosecutors would have to prove that records were falsified with the intention of committing or concealing a second crime. It’s not clear what prosecutors may allege as the second crime.

WHAT HAS TRUMP’S LAWYER SAID?

Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said Thursday that the former president didn’t commit any crime and vowed to “vigorously fight this political prosecution in court.”

Tacopina has accused prosecutors of “distorting laws” to try to take down the former president. He has described Trump as a victim of extortion who had to pay the money because the allegations were going to be embarrassing to him “regardless of the campaign.”

“He made this with personal funds to prevent something from coming out — false, but embarrassing to himself, his family, his young son. That’s not a campaign finance violation, not by any stretch,” Tacopina said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” before the indictment.

WHAT’S THIS GRAND JURY AND WHO TESTIFIED?

A grand jury is made up of people drawn from the community, similar to a trial jury. But unlike juries that hear trials, grand juries don’t decide whether someone is guilty or innocent. They only decide whether there is enough evidence for someone to be charged.

Proceedings are closed to the public, including the media. New York grand juries have 23 people. At least 16 must be present to hear evidence or deliberate and 12 have to agree there is enough evidence in order to issue an indictment.

David Pecker, a longtime Trump friend and the former chief executive of the parent company of The National Enquirer, returned to the courthouse this week where the grand jury was meeting.

Pecker’s company, American Media Inc., secretly assisted Trump’s campaign by paying $150,000 to McDougal in August 2016 for the rights to her story about an alleged affair with Trump. The company then suppressed McDougal’s story until after the election.

The grand jury also heard from Cohen, as well as Robert Costello, who was once a legal adviser to Cohen.

The men have since had a falling out, and Costello indicated he has information he believes undercuts Cohen’s credibility and contradicts his incriminating statements about Trump. Costello testified at the invitation of prosecutors, presumably as a way to ensure that the grand jury had an opportunity to consider any testimony or evidence that might weaken the case for moving forward with an indictment.

Trump was also invited to testify, but didn’t.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Law enforcement officials have been making security preparations for days for the possibility of an indictment and a court appearance by the president.

Trump is expected to turn himself in and make his first court appearance for his arraignment on Tuesday. When he turns himself in, he isn’t expected to be put in handcuffs, according to a person familiar with the matter. Secret Service agents assigned to him will escort him through the booking process at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, but prosecutors have no plans to shackle Trump’s hands during it, the person said.

WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR TRUMP?

Neither the indictment itself nor a conviction would prevent Trump from running for or winning the presidency in 2024.

Last week in Waco, Texas, Trump took a defiant stance at a rally by disparaging the prosecutors investigating him and predicting his vindication as he rallied supporters in a city made famous by deadly resistance against law enforcement.

“You will be vindicated and proud,” Trump said in a speech brimming with resentments and framing the probes as political attacks on himself and his followers. “The thugs and criminals who are corrupting our justice system will be defeated, discredited and totally disgraced.”

Before the charges were handed down, many party leaders had also already begun to defend the former president.

During a visit this month to Iowa, former Vice President Mike Pence called the idea of indicting a former president “deeply troubling.” Another 2024 Republican prospect, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, has said there is a sense that the former president is being unfairly attacked.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a declared candidate who also served as Trump’s U.N. ambassador, has called Bragg’s case an attempt at scoring “political points,” adding, “You never want to condone any sort of prosecution that’s being politicized.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is considering joining the 2024 Republican field, slammed the investigation as politically motivated. But he also threw one of his first jabs at the former president in a quip likely to intensify their rivalry. DeSantis said he personally doesn’t “know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some kind of alleged affair.”

WHAT ABOUT OTHER TRUMP INVESTIGATIONS?

The New York case is just one of many legal woes Trump is facing.

The Justice Department is also investigating his retention of top secret government documents at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, after leaving the White House. Federal investigators are also still probing the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election that Trump falsely claimed was stolen.

In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been investigating whether Trump and his allies illegally meddled in the 2020 election. The foreperson of a special grand jury, which heard from dozens of witnesses, said last month that the panel had recommended that numerous people be indicted, and hinted Trump could be among them. It is ultimately up to Willis to decide whether to move forward.

____

Associated Press reporters Michael R. Sisak and Mike Balsamo contributed.

Source link

March 31, 2023
Gwyneth Paltrow scores court win that means more than $1

PARK CITY, Utah — All that for a dollar?

Nah, Gwyneth Paltrow ’s motivation to go to trial to fight a lawsuit accusing her of sending a fellow skier “absolutely flying” at a posh Utah ski resort in 2016 was about vindication.

She got it when a jury found her not at fault in the collision, granting her exactly the $1 she sought in her countersuit. As a court reporter read the verdict, the courtroom gallery made up mostly of her supporters exhaled while Paltrow sat next to her lawyer intently and avoided displaying emotion that could be interpreted as surprise or gloating.

She might have come out ahead in the court of public opinion, too, Hollywood lawyers and publicists say.

“It’s not often that you go through the whole expense and time and bother of litigation for a dollar,” said Tre Lovell, a Los Angeles lawyer who handles many celebrity cases. “But she wanted to turn this into a positive as a way of saying ‘I’m not going to get taken advantage of,’ and ‘I’m a good person.’”

The actor-turned-influencer avoided engaging in any memorable missteps during the eight-day trial that she attended every day as viewers in Park City, Utah, and around the world watched closely. She even ended things on a classy note when she stopped before leaving court to lean over and put her hands on her accuser’s shoulder to wish him best of luck.

“She came across on the stand very well,” said Emily D. Baker, legal analyst and former Los Angeles deputy district attorney. “She was personable, she was firm, but she wasn’t ever aggressive. And it actually came across that she had empathy for what this plaintiff has gone through.”

When 76-year-old Terry Sanderson filed the lawsuit in 2019, it was the kind of case that seemed to scream for the quick, confidential settlement typical in lawsuits against celebrities. Instead, it endured for four years through trial.

“I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity,” Paltrow posted to her 8.3 million Instagram followers after the verdict.

Sanderson himself questioned afterward whether the lawsuit was worth it and said he believed that people tend to naturally trust celebrities like Paltrow.

Holly Baird, a publicist who handles major celebrity crises including many court cases, says that while trials have potential downsides, there is no reason for famous people to avoid them at all costs.

“I didn’t see this being a downfall for her,” Baird said. “This isn’t like a murder case or anything. It humanizes her. People have similar stories.”

There were moments of potential pitfall, as when Paltrow answered a question about damages by saying she “had lost half a day of skiing,” acknowledged paying nearly $9,000 for her then-small kids’ skiing instruction and explained why she let her ski instructor stay behind to check on Sanderson and exchange information. As he waited to be tobogganed down the mountain by ski patrol, she followed her children Moses and Apple down the mountain, testifying that she was accustomed to having things done for her.

But the honest answer may not have done her damage.

“They live in a different world and it becomes their normal, but people are going to assume that,” Lovell said. “You can have that and people are going to know it and accept. You’ve just got to come across as humble.”

Baird agreed.

“I think she was authentic,” she said. “She’s with her children, she’s worried about them.”

The jury apparently found Paltrow likeable enough, returning after just 2 1/2 hours to give her a resounding win that blamed the collision 100% on Sanderson.

His lawsuit had sought “more than $300,000, though in closing arguments, his attorneys estimated damages as more than $3.2 million.

Trial lawyers are known to regularly engage in seemingly friendly repartee with witnesses to try and cultivate sympathy among the jury. But many observers thought Sanderson’s attorney Kristin VanOrman did the actor a major favor when she at times appeared charmed by Paltrow when she was on the stand.

When VanOrman asked Paltrow her height and she responded “just under 5’10”,” VanOrman replied, “I am so jealous! I think I’m shrinking. I have to wear heels just to make it to 5’5″.”

VanOrman’s efforts to flag for the jury that Paltrow was larger than the man she collided with were overshadowed when the actor said back: “They’re very nice.”

Lovell said it was so “bizarre and ineffective” that he thought VanOrman was Paltrow’s attorney when he first tuned in.

“That was ridiculous,” she said. “The jury sees that and thinks she must not be that bad if the opposing attorney likes her. She seemed star struck.”

Once among the most ubiquitous leading women in Hollywood, the Oscar winner has taken fewer and fewer roles in recent years. Many now identify her more with her wellness-and-lifestyle company Goop, whose offerings have brought her ridicule in some quarters as the quintessential out-of-touch peddler of celebrity woo-woo.

But that also makes Paltrow her own boss, who is not beholden to others for work, and has brought her a devoted set of customer-fans.

“Gwyneth has such a cult following in the lifestyle and wellness brand, and people love to see another side of their life like this,” Baird said. “I think her PR team should be using it. She’s getting way more TV time than she would any other way.”

Paltrow’s fight to clear her name resonated with many of her fans, including those who braved blizzards to fill the gallery of the Park City courtroom for two weeks.

“When you are a celebrity you know that you’re going to get some of this, but that was totally over the top,” said Ann Malcolm, a Park City local who enjoys skiing at Deer Valley, the mountain where Paltrow and Sanderson crashed.

A crowd made up of locals and some who traveled from California to catch a glimpse of the trial snapped selfies, showed each other mockups of t-shirts that read “#Gwynnocent” and commended Paltrow for being both gracious and fighting to clear her name.

“He thought it would be an easy payday,” said David Madow, a retired dentist and avid skier who attended multiple days of court proceedings. “I was impressed with the fact that she said ’No, I’m not gonna do that.”

___

Dalton reported from Los Angeles.

___

Associated Press Writer Krysta Fauria contributed.

Source link

March 31, 2023
Gwyneth Paltrow won her ski case. Here’s how it played out

PARK CITY, Utah — When two skiers collided on a beginner run at an upscale Utah ski resort in 2016, no one could foresee that seven years later, the crash would become the subject of a closely watched celebrity trial.

But Gwyneth Paltrow’s live-streamed trial over her collision with Terry Sanderson, a 76-year-old retired optometrist, in Park City emerged as the biggest celebrity court case since actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard faced off last year — spawning memes, sparking debate about the burden of fame, and making ski etiquette rules of who was uphill and who had the right of way relevant beyond those who can afford resort chairlift tickets.

On Thursday, Paltrow won her court battle after a jury decided the movie star wasn’t at fault for the crash. Here is a look back at highlights from the two-week trial:

___

LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND THE FAMOUS

For seven days, attorneys highlighted — and downplayed — Paltrow and Sanderson’s extravagant lifestyles.

Sanderson’s attorneys sought more than $300,000 in damages, but the money at stake for both sides paled in comparison to the typical legal costs of a multiyear lawsuit. Both sides marshalled brigades of expert witnesses, including a biomechanical engineer and collision expert.

Paltrow’s legal team attempted to represent Sanderson as an angry, aging man who continued to travel internationally after the collision. They introduced photos into evidence of Sanderson camel riding in Morocco, trekking the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu in Peru, and taking a continent-wide loop through Europe with stops in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Belgium.

Sanderson’s attorneys questioned Paltrow about that day’s $8,890 bill for private ski instructors for four children accompanying her, as well as her decision to leave the slope after the crash to get a massage. They said the accident caused Sanderson to grow distant from friends and family, and they called his ex-girlfriend to testify about how their relationship deteriorated because he “had no joy left in his life.”

To keep jurors engaged, Paltrow’s team shared a series of advanced, high-resolution animations to accompany their witnesses’ recollections. The renderings reflected the financial investment Paltrow and her defense team devoted to the case.

___

THE BURDEN OF FAME

Attorneys on both sides tapped into the power of celebrity to make their cases that reputations and moral principles were what was at stake in the trial.

Sanderson’s side tried to characterize Paltrow, the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer, as clumsy, out of touch and evading accountability. They likened her decision to file a $1 countersuit against Sanderson to Taylor Swift, who filed a similar counterclaim in a lawsuit in 2017 — drawing attention to Paltrow’s testimony that she was “not good friends” with Swift but just “friendly.”

Paltrow’s defense team called the highly publicized case an attempt to exploit her fame and suggested she is vulnerable to unfair, frivolous lawsuits. They questioned witnesses about Sanderson’s “obsession” with the case and homed in on an email subject line in which Sanderson wrote after the collision: “I’m famous.”

“To become famous, he will lie,” one of Paltrow’s attorneys said. “I’m not into celebrity worship,” Sanderson later rebutted.

___

FACTORY OF MEMES

Though the trial tested the jury’s endurance as its eight members gradually sunk deeper into their chairs through hours of expert-witness testimony, it titillated spectators worldwide, became late-night television fodder and fed the internet’s insatiable appetite for memes.

Viewers tuning into proceedings on CourtTV saw Paltrow complain about losing a half-day of skiing after the crash and heard a radiologist testify that Sanderson could no longer enjoy wine tasting. They compared the spectacle to “The White Lotus” — an HBO series that satirizes the petty grievances of rich, white vacationers — and, in a reflection of the courtroom theatrics and rapt public attention, likened Paltrow’s defense to the Salem witch trials of Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.”

Photographs of Paltrow entering and exiting the courtroom — often shielding her face, perp-walk style, with a blue GP-initialed notebook — also have gone viral on social media.

___

UTAH’S POSHEST SKI TOWN

The proceedings have drawn the world’s attention to Park City, Utah, the silver boomtown-turned posh ski resort where Paltrow and Sanderson crashed and the trial was held. The city annually hosts the Sundance Film Festival, where early in her career Paltrow would appear for the premieres of her movies, including 1998’s “Sliding Doors,” at a time when she was known primarily as an actor, not a celebrity wellness entrepreneur.

The jury and local residents who have braved blizzards to get to the courthouse each day nodded along as attorneys referenced local landmarks like The Montage Deer Valley, the slope-side luxury resort where Paltrow got a massage after the crash.

The all-white jury was drawn from registered voters in Summit County, where the average home sold for $1.3 million last month and residents tend to be less religious than the rest of Utah, where the majority of the population belongs to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Unlike the high-powered Hollywood attorneys that become household names at celebrity trials, both sides were represented by local lawyers. Paltrow’s team specializes in medical malpractice lawsuits, while Sanderson’s lead counsel, Bob Sykes, is known in Salt Lake City for his work suing police departments. Sykes attempted to play up his folksiness, referring to himself as “just a country lawyer” more than six times during the trial. After jurors were sent home Wednesday, both legal teams joked about the trial lawyer gimmick.

___

THE MYSTERIOUS MISSING GOPRO

Paltrow’s attorneys intrigued the jury with questions about the collision potentially being captured on a helmet-cam video, though no footage was included as evidence in the trial.

Sanderson’s daughter testified this week that an email she sent the day of the accident referring to a GoPro didn’t imply footage existed. She said she and her father speculated that on a crowded beginner run, someone wearing a camera must have turned to look at the crash after hearing Paltrow scream.

Internet sleuths following the trial later found and sent attorneys the link included in the email. Rather than revealing GoPro footage though, it contained a chatroom discussion between members of Sanderson’s ski group, including the man claiming to be the sole eyewitness who testified Paltrow crashed into Sanderson.

___

THE VERDICT

Paltrow looked to her attorneys with a pursed-lips smile when the judge read the eight-member jury’s verdict in the Park City courtroom.

The jury awarded her $1; however, the attorney fees she asked for in her countersuit were not included in the verdict, leaving the bulk of the final award for the Park City judge to decide.

Paltrow thanked the judge and jury for their work.

“I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity,” the actor said in a statement released by her representatives.

As Paltrow left court, she touched Sanderson’s shoulder and told him, “I wish you well,” Sanderson told reporters outside court. He responded, “Thank you, dear.”

___

Furman reported from Los Angeles.

Source link

March 31, 2023
Gwyneth Paltrow won her ski case. Here’s how it played out

PARK CITY, Utah — When two skiers collided on a beginner run at an upscale Utah ski resort in 2016, no one could foresee that seven years later, the crash would become the subject of a closely watched celebrity trial.

But Gwyneth Paltrow’s live-streamed trial over her collision with Terry Sanderson, a 76-year-old retired optometrist, in Park City emerged as the biggest celebrity court case since actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard faced off last year — spawning memes, sparking debate about the burden of fame, and making ski etiquette rules of who was uphill and who had the right of way relevant beyond those who can afford resort chairlift tickets.

On Thursday, Paltrow won her court battle after a jury decided the movie star wasn’t at fault for the crash. Here is a look back at highlights from the two-week trial:

___

LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND THE FAMOUS

For seven days, attorneys highlighted — and downplayed — Paltrow and Sanderson’s extravagant lifestyles.

Sanderson’s attorneys sought more than $300,000 in damages, but the money at stake for both sides paled in comparison to the typical legal costs of a multiyear lawsuit. Both sides marshalled brigades of expert witnesses, including a biomechanical engineer and collision expert.

Paltrow’s legal team attempted to represent Sanderson as an angry, aging man who continued to travel internationally after the collision. They introduced photos into evidence of Sanderson camel riding in Morocco, trekking the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu in Peru, and taking a continent-wide loop through Europe with stops in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Belgium.

Sanderson’s attorneys questioned Paltrow about that day’s $8,890 bill for private ski instructors for four children accompanying her, as well as her decision to leave the slope after the crash to get a massage. They said the accident caused Sanderson to grow distant from friends and family, and they called his ex-girlfriend to testify about how their relationship deteriorated because he “had no joy left in his life.”

To keep jurors engaged, Paltrow’s team shared a series of advanced, high-resolution animations to accompany their witnesses’ recollections. The renderings reflected the financial investment Paltrow and her defense team devoted to the case.

___

THE BURDEN OF FAME

Attorneys on both sides tapped into the power of celebrity to make their cases that reputations and moral principles were what was at stake in the trial.

Sanderson’s side tried to characterize Paltrow, the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer, as clumsy, out of touch and evading accountability. They likened her decision to file a $1 countersuit against Sanderson to Taylor Swift, who filed a similar counterclaim in a lawsuit in 2017 — drawing attention to Paltrow’s testimony that she was “not good friends” with Swift but just “friendly.”

Paltrow’s defense team called the highly publicized case an attempt to exploit her fame and suggested she is vulnerable to unfair, frivolous lawsuits. They questioned witnesses about Sanderson’s “obsession” with the case and homed in on an email subject line in which Sanderson wrote after the collision: “I’m famous.”

“To become famous, he will lie,” one of Paltrow’s attorneys said. “I’m not into celebrity worship,” Sanderson later rebutted.

___

FACTORY OF MEMES

Though the trial tested the jury’s endurance as its eight members gradually sunk deeper into their chairs through hours of expert-witness testimony, it titillated spectators worldwide, became late-night television fodder and fed the internet’s insatiable appetite for memes.

Viewers tuning into proceedings on CourtTV saw Paltrow complain about losing a half-day of skiing after the crash and heard a radiologist testify that Sanderson could no longer enjoy wine tasting. They compared the spectacle to “The White Lotus” — an HBO series that satirizes the petty grievances of rich, white vacationers — and, in a reflection of the courtroom theatrics and rapt public attention, likened Paltrow’s defense to the Salem witch trials of Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.”

Photographs of Paltrow entering and exiting the courtroom — often shielding her face, perp-walk style, with a blue GP-initialed notebook — also have gone viral on social media.

___

UTAH’S POSHEST SKI TOWN

The proceedings have drawn the world’s attention to Park City, Utah, the silver boomtown-turned posh ski resort where Paltrow and Sanderson crashed and the trial was held. The city annually hosts the Sundance Film Festival, where early in her career Paltrow would appear for the premieres of her movies, including 1998’s “Sliding Doors,” at a time when she was known primarily as an actor, not a celebrity wellness entrepreneur.

The jury and local residents who have braved blizzards to get to the courthouse each day nodded along as attorneys referenced local landmarks like The Montage Deer Valley, the slope-side luxury resort where Paltrow got a massage after the crash.

The all-white jury was drawn from registered voters in Summit County, where the average home sold for $1.3 million last month and residents tend to be less religious than the rest of Utah, where the majority of the population belongs to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Unlike the high-powered Hollywood attorneys that become household names at celebrity trials, both sides were represented by local lawyers. Paltrow’s team specializes in medical malpractice lawsuits, while Sanderson’s lead counsel, Bob Sykes, is known in Salt Lake City for his work suing police departments. Sykes attempted to play up his folksiness, referring to himself as “just a country lawyer” more than six times during the trial. After jurors were sent home Wednesday, both legal teams joked about the trial lawyer gimmick.

___

THE MYSTERIOUS MISSING GOPRO

Paltrow’s attorneys intrigued the jury with questions about the collision potentially being captured on a helmet-cam video, though no footage was included as evidence in the trial.

Sanderson’s daughter testified this week that an email she sent the day of the accident referring to a GoPro didn’t imply footage existed. She said she and her father speculated that on a crowded beginner run, someone wearing a camera must have turned to look at the crash after hearing Paltrow scream.

Internet sleuths following the trial later found and sent attorneys the link included in the email. Rather than revealing GoPro footage though, it contained a chatroom discussion between members of Sanderson’s ski group, including the man claiming to be the sole eyewitness who testified Paltrow crashed into Sanderson.

___

THE VERDICT

Paltrow looked to her attorneys with a pursed-lips smile when the judge read the eight-member jury’s verdict in the Park City courtroom.

The jury awarded her $1; however, the attorney fees she asked for in her countersuit were not included in the verdict, leaving the bulk of the final award for the Park City judge to decide.

Paltrow thanked the judge and jury for their work.

“I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity,” the actor said in a statement released by her representatives.

As Paltrow left court, she touched Sanderson’s shoulder and told him, “I wish you well,” Sanderson told reporters outside court. He responded, “Thank you, dear.”

___

Furman reported from Los Angeles.

Source link

March 30, 2023
Gwyneth Paltrow’s widely watched ski crash trial nears end

PARK CITY, Utah — The closely watched trial over a 2016 ski collision between Gwyneth Paltrow and the retired optometrist suing her for the injuries he sustained is expected to draw to a close Thursday, when attorneys give closing arguments and send the case to the eight-member jury.

Terry Sanderson, 76, is suing Paltrow, claiming she skied out of control and crashed into him, leaving him with four broken ribs and a concussion with symptoms that have lasted years beyond the collision.

In a courtroom more packed Thursday than any other day of the trial, Sanderson’s attorneys gave their closing arguments first. They tried to poke holes in Paltrow’s testimony, arguing it was unlikely that someone could ski between another skier’s two legs as she said. They also argued that she didn’t deny watching her kids skiing the moment of the crash. They said the crash at Deer Valley Resort had changed the course of Sanderson’s life.

“He never returned home that night as the same man. Terry has tried to get off that mountain but he’s really still there,” said Sanderson attorney Robert Sykes. “Part of Terry will forever be on that Bandana run.”

After a judge dismissed his initial $3.1 million complaint, Sanderson amended and refiled the lawsuit seeking “more than $300,000” — a threshold that that provides the opportunity to introduce the most evidence and depose the most witnesses allowed in civil court. In closing arguments, his attorneys estimated damages as more than $3.2 million.

Paltrow has countersued for a symbolic $1 and attorney fees.

Paltrow’s defense team used most of their final full day in control of the witness stand to call medical experts to testify. Sanderson’s attorneys are expected to begin on Thursday morning by recalling their medical experts to rebut claims made by Paltrow’s. Each side will then have roughly one hour to give the jury their closing arguments.

Paltrow’s attorneys are expected to continue their two-pronged approach, both arguing that the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer didn’t cause the accident and that its effects aren’t as bad as Sanderson claims. They’ve painted him as an “obsessed” man pushing “utter B.S.” claims against someone whose fame makes them vulnerable to unfair, frivolous lawsuits.

In their closing arguments, Sanderson’s team also noted how the man claiming to be the sole eyewitness testified to seeing Paltrow hit their client. Though they’ve tapped into themes including the power of fame throughout the trial, they said that the case ultimately wasn’t about celebrity, but simply damages.

Sanderson testified Friday that he had continued to pursue damages seven years after the accident because the cascading events that followed — his post-concussion symptoms and the accusation that he sued to exploit Paltrow’s celebrity — added insult to injury.

“That’s the purpose: to make me regret this lawsuit. It’s the pain of trying to sue a celebrity,” he said on Wednesday in response to a question from his attorney about Paltrow’s team probing his personal life, medical records and extensive post-crash international travel itinerary.

Though both sides have marshaled significant resources to emerge victorious, the verdict could end up being remembered as an afterthought dwarfed by the worldwide attention the trial has attracted. The amount of money at stake pales in comparison to the typical legal costs of a multiyear lawsuit, private security detail and expert witness-heavy trial.

With lengthy rosters of witnesses on call, attorneys have confronted difficult choices about how to juggle their hired experts with family members, doctors and testimony from Sanderson and Paltrow themselves.

Paltrow’s defense team picked mostly experts to mount their final defense on Wednesday. They chose to call four medical experts to testify rather than Paltrow’s husband, television producer Brad Falchuk.

In the final hour of their last full day to call witnesses, they called Sanderson back to the witness stand. A day earlier, they read depositions from Paltrow’s two children — Apple and Moses — rather than calling them to testify as they earlier indicated they had planned.

Among the most bombshell testimony has been from Paltrow and Sanderson. On Friday members of the jury were riveted when Paltrow said on the stand that she initially thought she was being “violated” when the collision began. Three days later Sanderson gave an entirely different account, saying she ran into him and sent him “absolutely flying.”

The trial has also shone a spotlight on Park City, known primarily as a ski resort that welcomes celebrities like Paltrow for each year’s Sundance Film Festival.

Local residents have increasingly filled the courtroom gallery throughout the trial. They’ve nodded along as lawyers and witnesses have referenced local landmarks like Montage Deer Valley, the ski-side hotel-spa where Paltrow got a massage after the collision. At times they have appeared captivated by Paltrow’s reactions to the proceedings, while at others they have mirrored the jury, whose endurance has been tested by hours of jargon-dense medical testimony.

Source link

March 30, 2023
Murdaugh judge Newman not surprised by jury’s quick verdict

The judge who presided over Alex Murdaugh’s murder trial in South Carolina told his law school he wasn’t surprised the jury came back with a guilty verdict in three hours.

Judge Clifton Newman returned to Cleveland State University where he earned his law degree in 1976 to discuss his career and the topic on everyone’s minds — the six-week trial that ended in Murdaugh’s murder convictions for killing his wife and son and life sentence.

The three hours of deliberation after hearing from 75 witnesses was about normal, considering they were paying close attention for so long.

“When they go back to deliberate, they don’t want to look at those 800 exhibits. They don’t want to spend their time combing through everything they have laboriously sat there and listened to for that period of time,” Newman said Tuesday.

Newman was born in South Carolina, but moved to Cleveland for college and law school after graduating as valedictorian at his racially segregated high school. Newman, who is Black, returned to South Carolina with his wife after they started a family and worried about forced busing of students out of neighborhood schools.

Cleveland State University plans to further honor Newman in November by inducting him into the law school’s hall of fame.

“You showed the world an example of what the judiciary at its best can be through your calm and deliberate demeanor through this lengthy and complex case,” said Judge Brendan Sheehan who presides in Cuyahoga County.

Prosecutors said Murdaugh killed his wife and son at their home in June 2021, shooting them with two different weapons, cleaning up the scene, then driving to visit his ailing mother before calling 911 and saying he discovered the bodies.

Newman was asked about his decision to allow extensive testimony on dozens of financial crimes for which Murdaugh is awaiting trial. Defense attorneys said it unfairly turned jurors against him and compelled Murdaugh to think he had to testify in his own defense.

Newman said he can’t give opinions, like whether he thought Murdaugh should have testified or was believable on the stand, because the defense is appealing the murder convictions.

“Once the defendant takes the stand and testifies almost everything is fair game at that point. We’ll see where it goes,” the judge said.

Newman said the Murdaugh case continued a mystery that has transfixed him throughout his 23 years on the bench: why human beings do what they do to each other. The judge said he has no doubt Murdaugh loved his wife and son. And that belief led to the judge’s often-quoted comment during sentencing, that he suspects the final things they saw before they died will stay with Murdaugh every day.

“I’m told the person who is killed will haunt, will come back, and they’ll never be able to get over the moment in time that they took that person’s life,” Newman said, adding he doesn’t know “whether that is a spiritual belief or just my view of the world.”

The judge also discussed some other high-profile cases, including the state trial of white police officer Michael Slager, charged with murder in the shooting of an unarmed Black man trying to run away from a traffic stop in North Charleston in 2015.

North Charleston was one-third African American and Newman said he was determined to make sure the pool of potential jurors matched the community. He sent deputies and bailiffs to personally deliver every jury duty notice and met his goal. But in the end, just one Black man made it onto the jury after others had hardships.

“The best I could do was appoint that Black guy the foreperson of the jury, so that if there is another not guilty verdict here, he had to sign that verdict form,” Newman said.

The case ended in a hung jury before Slager pleaded guilty to federal charges and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

There were lighthearted moments too. Newman recounted how he met his wife at Cleveland State, driving her and friends home in a near blizzard. He was also asked who he thinks should play him if a movie is made of the Murdaugh case.

Newman acknowledged he heard suggestions he could play himself and pointed out he is approaching the mandatory retirement age for judges in South Carolina.

“I turn 72 in November, so I’ll be looking at something else to do,” Newman said.

Source link

March 29, 2023