ReportWire

Tag: particular case

  • D.A. backs resentencing Menendez brothers, paving possible path to freedom

    D.A. backs resentencing Menendez brothers, paving possible path to freedom

    [ad_1]

    Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón will ask a judge to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez, two brothers serving life sentences for killing their parents, a move that could pave the way for their release.

    Gascón will request the brothers be sentenced for murder and be eligible for parole immediately, he said during a news conference Thursday.

    “I came to a place where I believe that under the law resentencing is appropriate, and I am going to recommend that,” Gascón said. “What that means in this particular case is that we’re going to recommend to the court that the life without the possibility of parole be removed and that they will be sentenced for murder.”

    The two brothers were sentenced to life without parole after a jury found them guilty of killing their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home with a pair of shotguns. The 1989 killings, and the televised trial that followed, has sparked documentaries, movies and television series that have made the brothers two of the most publicly recognizable convicts.

    The brothers have pursued appeals for years without success, but now they could have a path to freedom. A judge will ultimately decide if the brothers will be released.

    In 1989, Erik and Lyle Menendez bought a pair of shotguns with cash, walked into their Beverly Hills home and shot their parents while they watched a movie in the family living room. Prosecutors said Jose Menendez was struck five times, including in the back of the head, and Kitty Menendez crawled on the floor wounded before the brothers reloaded and fired a final fatal blast.

    Initially, the killings were rumored to be mob hits.

    Prosecutors would argue the slayings were driven by greed and the brothers’ desire to get their parent’s multimillion-dollar estate.

    But during the trials, Erik and Lyle Menendez and their attorneys detailed what they said were years of violent sexual abuse the brothers experienced at the hands of their father.

    Earlier this month, more than 20 relatives of the brothers pleaded at a news conference for the pair to be released.

    “If Erik and Lyle’s case were heard today, with the understanding we now have of abuse and [post-traumatic stress disorder], there is no doubt in my mind that their sentencing would have been very different,” said Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the siblings.

    During Gascón’s tenure as top prosecutor, he’s obtained new sentences for more than 300 people, including 28 who were convicted of murder, but the Menendez brothers are the highest-profile convicts to have their sentences reduced at the district attorney’s request.

    Attorneys for the brothers last year filed a habeas motion, arguing that new evidence backed their claim that they were sexually abused by their father for years before the slayings.

    The filing included a letter Erik Menendez sent to his cousin in December 1988 — eight months before the killings — that appeared to corroborate the claims of abuse. It also included a declaration from Roy Rosselló, a member of the boy band Menudo, who alleged that Jose Menendez raped him in 1984 when he was 13 or 14 years old.

    Gascón’s office has been reviewing the motion and the case for more than a year.

    Earlier this month, he said his office had a “moral and ethical obligation to review what is being presented to us and make a determination.”

    There is no question that the brothers killed their parents, but Gascón has said the issue is whether the jury heard evidence that their father molested them, and if that evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial.

    Evidence of sexual abuse, including testimony from friends and relatives of the family, was included when the siblings were first tried which ended in hung juries.

    But when they were tried again, together, the jury did not hear much of the testimony supporting their allegations of sexual abuse. The two were convicted of first-degree murder in March 1996.

    The case has faced renewed public attention sparked by television series and documentaries that focused on the notorious killings. A Peacock docuseries, “Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed,” raised allegations that Jose Menendez, an RCA Records executive, had sexually assaulted Rosselló.

    Gascón’s decision has been criticized by those who say the move is a political ploy to bolster his reelection campaign.

    Kitty Menendez’s 90-year-old brother, Milton Andersen, released a statement on Thursday criticizing the decision to seek new sentences for the brothers. He said Gascón has refused to meet with him to discuss his decision before announcing it to the press.

    Andersen’s attorney, Kathy Cady, said the district attorney “manipulate[d] the facts for a fleeting chance to salvage his political career.”

    On Tuesday, Cady filed an application for an amicus curiae brief to oppose the possible resentencing of the brothers.

    Gascon’s election challenger, Nathan Hochman, has also questioned the timing of the D.A.’s action in the case, suggesting he’s making headlines to try and save his flagging reelection bid. Polls show Gascon trailing Hochman by as much as 30 percentage points, and a Times analysis of campaign finances shows the challenger has raised significantly more funds than the district attorney.

    Dmitry Gorin, a criminal defense attorney, said the evidence was clear in the initial trial that the killings were premeditated, but the case seemed to have a chance to be revisited given the liberal policies of the district attorney’s office under Gascón.

    A judge is likely to approve the prosecutor’s request, given that it’s also supported by the brothers’ defense attorneys.

    “I give the defense credit for timely filing,” he said. “If this was filed in December with likely a new D.A., they aren’t getting out. Most of the [district attorneys] in California wouldn’t let them out.”

    [ad_2]

    Salvador Hernandez, Richard Winton

    Source link

  • A Plan to Outlaw Abortion Everywhere

    A Plan to Outlaw Abortion Everywhere

    [ad_1]

    The year 2022 was a triumphant one for the anti-abortion movement. After half a century, the Supreme Court did what had once seemed impossible when it overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Now movement activists are feeling bolder than ever: Their next goal will be ending legal abortion in America once and for all. A federal ban, which would require 60 votes in the Senate, is unlikely. But some activists believe there’s a simpler way: the enforcement by a Trump Justice Department of a 150-year-old obscenity law.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    The Comstock Act, originally passed in 1873 to combat vice and debauchery, prohibits the mailing of any “article or thing” that is “designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.” In the law’s first 100 years, a series of court cases narrowed its scope, and in 1971, Congress removed most of its restrictions on contraception. But the rest of the Comstock Act has remained on the books. The law has sat dormant, considered virtually unenforceable, since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.

    Following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, the United States Postal Service asked the Justice Department for clarification: Could its workers legally transport abortion-inducing medications to states with bans? The DOJ replied by issuing a memo stipulating that abortion pills can be legally mailed as long as the sender does not intend for the drugs to be used unlawfully. And whether or not the drugs will be used within the bounds of state law, the memo notes, would be difficult for a sender to know (the pills have medical uses unrelated to abortion).

    If Donald Trump is reelected president, many prominent opponents of abortion rights will demand that his DOJ issue its own memo, reinterpreting the law to mean the exact opposite: that Comstock is a de facto ban on shipping medication that could end a pregnancy, regardless of its intended use (this would apply to the USPS and to private carriers like UPS and FedEx). “The language is black-and-white. It should be enforced,” Steven H. Aden, the general counsel at Americans United for Life, told me. A broader interpretation of the Comstock Act might also mean that a person receiving abortion pills would be committing a federal crime and, if prosecuted, could face prison time. Federal prosecutors could bring charges against abortion-pill manufacturers, providers receiving pills in the mail, or even individuals.

    The hopes of some activists go further. Their ultimate aim in reviving the Comstock Act is to use it to shut down every abortion facility “in all 50 states,” Mark Lee Dickson, a Texas pastor and anti-abortion advocate, told me. Taken literally, Comstock could be applied to prevent the transport of all supplies related to medical and surgical abortions, making it illegal to ship necessary tools and medications to hospitals and clinics, with no exceptions for other medical uses, such as miscarriage care. Conditions that are easily treatable with modern medicine could, without access to these supplies, become life-threatening.

    Legal experts say that the activists’ strategy could, in theory, succeed—at least in bringing the issue to court. “It’s not hypothetical anymore,” Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the UC Davis School of Law, told me. “Because it’s already on the books, and it’s not ridiculous to interpret it this way, [the possibility] is not far-fetched at all.”

    Eventually, the Supreme Court would likely face pressure to weigh in. Even though a majority of the Court’s justices have supported abortion restrictions and ruled to overturn Roe, it’s unclear how they’d rule on this particular case. If they were to uphold the broadest interpretation of the Comstock Act, doctors even in states without bans could struggle to legally obtain the supplies they need to provide abortions and perform other procedures.

    This is what activists want. The question is whether Trump would accede to their demands. After years of championing the anti-abortion cause, the former president seemed to pivot when he blamed anti-abortion Republicans’ extremism for the party’s poor performance in the 2022 midterm elections (only a small fraction of Americans favors a complete abortion ban). Recently, he’s come across as more moderate on the issue than his primary opponents by condemning Florida’s six-week abortion ban and endorsing compromise with Democrats.

    As president, Trump might choose not to enforce Comstock at all. Or he could order his DOJ to enforce it with discretion, promising to go after drug manufacturers and Planned Parenthood instead of individuals. It’s hard to be certain of any outcome: Trump has always been more interested in appeasing his base than reaching Americans in the ideological middle. He might well be in favor of aggressively enforcing the Comstock Act, in order to continue bragging, as he has in the past, that he is “the most pro-life president in American history.”


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “A Plan to Outlaw Abortion Everywhere.”

    [ad_2]

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link