A young woman who is battling against social media giants took the stand Thursday to testify about her experience using the platforms as she was growing up, saying she was on social media “all day long” as a child.
The now 20-year-old, who has been identified in court documents as KGM, says her early use of social media addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Meta and YouTube are the two remaining defendants in the case, which TikTok and Snap have settled.
The case, along with two others, has been selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could impact how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies are likely to play out.
Early social media user
KGM, or Kaley, as her lawyers have called her during the trial, started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9.
Kaley took the stand wearing a pink floral dress and a beige cardigan and said she was “very nervous” after her attorney, Mark Lanier, asked how she was doing Thursday morning.
Lanier displayed childhood photos of Kaley and her family and asked about positive memories from her upbringing in a quiet cul-de-sac in Chico, California. She spoke of themed birthday parties, trips to Six Flags and her mom’s consistent efforts to make her childhood special.
Still, Kaley’s relationship with her mother was challenging at times. Kaley said most of their arguments were over the use of her phone.
Both the defendants and the plaintiff have pointed to a turbulent home life for Kaley. Her attorneys say she was preyed upon as a vulnerable user, but attorneys representing Meta and Google-owned YouTube have argued Kaley turned to their platforms as a coping mechanism or a means of escaping her mental health struggles.
When asked about claims that her mother had hit her, abused her and neglected her, Kaley said “she wasn’t perfect, but she was trying her best,” and clarified that she doesn’t think she would label her mother’s past actions as abuse or neglect today. Kaley, who works as a personal shopper at Walmart, still lives with her mother in the home she grew up in.
“It made me look popular”
As a child, Kaley set up multiple accounts on both Instagram and YouTube so she could like and comment on her posts. She said she would also “buy” likes through a platform where she could like other people’s photos and get a slew of likes in return. “It made me look popular,” she said.
Kaley was asked specifically about the features the plaintiffs argue are deliberately designed to be addictive, including notifications. Those notifications on both Instagram and YouTube gave her a “rush,” she said. She would receive them throughout the day and would go to the bathroom during school to check them — something she still does.
Kaley said while she uses YouTube less often now, she believes she was previously addicted to it. “Anytime I tried to set limits for myself, it wouldn’t work and I just couldn’t get off,” she said.
Filters on Instagram, specifically those that could change a person’s cosmetic appearance, have also loomed large in the case and were also a constant fixture of Kaley’s use. Lanier and his colleagues unfurled a nearly 35-foot-long canvas banner with photos Kaley has posted on Instagram. She said “almost all” of the photos had a filter on them.
The jury was also shown Instagram posts and YouTube videos Kaley posted as a child and young teen. One video that tapped into the popular trend at the time, sharing a nighttime routine, showed a young Kaley scrolling on her phone, showering and taking off makeup and then returning to her phone to go on Instagram. Another video showed her saying she was “crying tears of joy” after surpassing 100 YouTube subscribers — but then she quickly turned to her looks, apologizing for her “ugly appearance.”
“I look so fat in this shirt,” the young Kaley says in the video.
Meta highlights mental health struggles
Meta has argued that Kaley faced significant challenges before she ever used social media. The company’s lawyer, Paul Schmidt, said earlier this month that the core question in the case is whether the platforms were a substantial factor in Kayley’s mental health struggles.
During opening arguments, he spent much of his time going through the plaintiff’s health records, emphasizing that she had experienced many difficult circumstances in her childhood, including emotional abuse, body image issues and bullying.
Kaley said she did not experience the negative feelings associated with her body dysmorphia diagnosis before she began using social media and filters.
Kaley was asked about her peak Instagram usage, which exceeded 16 hours one day. “I just felt like I wanted to be on it all the time, and if I wasn’t on it, I felt like I was going to miss out on something,” she said.
When she tried to stop using the platforms, she said she was often unsuccessful.
“Every single day, I was on it all day long,” she said.
Therapist’s testimony
Victoria Burke, a former therapist Kaley worked with in 2019, testified on Wednesday, and Burke said her social media and her sense of self “were closely related,” adding that what was happening on the platforms could “make or break her mood.”
Burke’s treatment of Kaley lasted about six months and that period took place seven years ago.
The case has been the subject of intense interest among both advocacy groups lobbying for enhanced child safety protections and the tech world alike, with high-profile testimony from the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
During Zuckerberg’s testimony, when he was asked if people tend to use something more if it’s addictive, he said “I’m not sure what to say to that.”
“I don’t think that applies here,” he continued. He said he believes in the “basic assumption” that “if something is valuable, people will use it more because it’s useful to them.” Mosseri also said he didn’t believe people could become clinically addicted to social media platforms.
The case is expected to continue for several weeks, with a ruling potentially shaping the outcome of a slew of similar lawsuits against social media companies.
A murder trial is underway for a Utah mother of three who published a children’s book about grief after her husband’s death and was later accused of killing him.Kouri Richins, 35, faces a slew of felony charges for allegedly killing her husband, Eric Richins, with fentanyl in March 2022 at their home just outside the ski town of Park City. The trial began Monday and is slated to run through March 26.Prosecutors say she slipped five times the lethal dose of the synthetic opioid into a Moscow mule cocktail that he drank.She is also accused of trying to poison him a month earlier on Valentine’s Day with a fentanyl-laced sandwich that made him break out in hives and black out, according to court documents.Prosecutors have argued that Richins killed her husband for financial gain while planning a future with another man she was seeing on the side. Richins has vehemently denied the allegations.She faces nearly three dozen counts, including aggravated murder, attempted murder, forgery, mortgage fraud and insurance fraud. The murder charge alone carries a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.Her defense attorneys, Wendy Lewis, Kathy Nester and Alex Ramos, said they are confident the jury will allow Richins to return home to her children after hearing her side of the story.“Kouri has waited nearly three years for this moment: the opportunity to have the facts of this case heard by a jury, free from the prosecution’s narrative that has dominated headlines since her arrest,” her legal team said in a statement, adding, “What the public has been told bears little resemblance to the truth.”As the trial began, Richins sat quietly with her defense team, wearing a black blazer and white blouse.In the months before her arrest in May 2023, Richins self-published the children’s book “Are You with Me?” about a father with angel wings watching over his young son after passing away. The book, which she promoted on a local television station, could play a key role for prosecutors in framing Eric Richins’ death as a calculated killing with an elaborate cover-up attempt.Years before her husband’s death, Richins opened numerous life insurance policies on Eric Richins without his knowledge, with benefits totaling nearly $2 million, prosecutors allege. Court documents also indicate she had a negative bank account balance, owed lenders more than $1.8 million and was being sued by a creditor.Among the witnesses who could be called to testify throughout the trial are a housekeeper who claims to have sold fentanyl to Richins on three occasions and the man with whom Richins was allegedly having an affair.The state’s key witness, housekeeper Carmen Lauber, told a detective she had sold Richins up to 90 blue-green fentanyl pills that she acquired from a dealer. Lauber is not charged with any crimes in connection with the case, and detectives said at an earlier hearing that she had been granted immunity.Defense attorneys are expected to argue that Lauber did not actually give Richins fentanyl and was motivated to lie for legal protection. None was ever found in her house, and the dealer has said he was in jail and detoxing from drug use when he told detectives in 2023 that he had sold fentanyl to Lauber. He later said in a sworn affidavit that he only sold her the opioid OxyContin.Other witnesses could include relatives of the defendant and her late husband, and friends of Eric Richins who have recounted phone conversations from the day prosecutors say he was first poisoned by his wife of nine years.One friend said in written testimony that they noticed fear in Eric Richins’ voice when he called on Valentine’s Day and said, “I think my wife tried to poison me.”
PARK CITY, Utah —
A murder trial is underway for a Utah mother of three who published a children’s book about grief after her husband’s death and was later accused of killing him.
Kouri Richins, 35, faces a slew of felony charges for allegedly killing her husband, Eric Richins, with fentanyl in March 2022 at their home just outside the ski town of Park City. The trial began Monday and is slated to run through March 26.
Prosecutors say she slipped five times the lethal dose of the synthetic opioid into a Moscow mule cocktail that he drank.
She is also accused of trying to poison him a month earlier on Valentine’s Day with a fentanyl-laced sandwich that made him break out in hives and black out, according to court documents.
Prosecutors have argued that Richins killed her husband for financial gain while planning a future with another man she was seeing on the side. Richins has vehemently denied the allegations.
She faces nearly three dozen counts, including aggravated murder, attempted murder, forgery, mortgage fraud and insurance fraud. The murder charge alone carries a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.
Her defense attorneys, Wendy Lewis, Kathy Nester and Alex Ramos, said they are confident the jury will allow Richins to return home to her children after hearing her side of the story.
“Kouri has waited nearly three years for this moment: the opportunity to have the facts of this case heard by a jury, free from the prosecution’s narrative that has dominated headlines since her arrest,” her legal team said in a statement, adding, “What the public has been told bears little resemblance to the truth.”
As the trial began, Richins sat quietly with her defense team, wearing a black blazer and white blouse.
In the months before her arrest in May 2023, Richins self-published the children’s book “Are You with Me?” about a father with angel wings watching over his young son after passing away. The book, which she promoted on a local television station, could play a key role for prosecutors in framing Eric Richins’ death as a calculated killing with an elaborate cover-up attempt.
Years before her husband’s death, Richins opened numerous life insurance policies on Eric Richins without his knowledge, with benefits totaling nearly $2 million, prosecutors allege. Court documents also indicate she had a negative bank account balance, owed lenders more than $1.8 million and was being sued by a creditor.
Among the witnesses who could be called to testify throughout the trial are a housekeeper who claims to have sold fentanyl to Richins on three occasions and the man with whom Richins was allegedly having an affair.
The state’s key witness, housekeeper Carmen Lauber, told a detective she had sold Richins up to 90 blue-green fentanyl pills that she acquired from a dealer. Lauber is not charged with any crimes in connection with the case, and detectives said at an earlier hearing that she had been granted immunity.
Defense attorneys are expected to argue that Lauber did not actually give Richins fentanyl and was motivated to lie for legal protection. None was ever found in her house, and the dealer has said he was in jail and detoxing from drug use when he told detectives in 2023 that he had sold fentanyl to Lauber. He later said in a sworn affidavit that he only sold her the opioid OxyContin.
Other witnesses could include relatives of the defendant and her late husband, and friends of Eric Richins who have recounted phone conversations from the day prosecutors say he was first poisoned by his wife of nine years.
One friend said in written testimony that they noticed fear in Eric Richins’ voice when he called on Valentine’s Day and said, “I think my wife tried to poison me.”
Is this real life or the most extra episode of courtroom couture we’ve ever witnessed?!
Blake Lively apparently decided that if she was going to spend her morning in mediation over her explosive legal battle with Justin Baldoni, she was going to do it her way. And by her way, we mean with a luxury mahjong set delivered straight to the courthouse door. Seriously. You cannot make this stuff up.
According to Page Six, the former Gossip Girl star arrived bright and early around 8:30 a.m. for a mediation session tied to her sexual harassment lawsuit against Baldoni. The talks reportedly kicked off around 10 a.m., with both sides attempting to hammer out a pre-trial settlement. Tense? Surely. Dramatic? Obviously. Slow-moving? Uh, apparently so.
By around 11 a.m., as the legal back-and-forth dragged on, Lively allegedly decided she needed a little distraction. Enter: her chauffeur. According to insiders speaking to the news outlet on Thursday, her driver pulled up to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse carrying a full mahjong set for the actress. Yes, a centuries-old Chinese tile game became the unexpected star of this already headline-grabbing showdown.
Lively has been open about her love for mahjong in the past. In fact, she previously gushed to Vogue about teaching her friends how to play. And apparently she doesn’t just dabble. She invests! Word is she favors sets from Oh My Mahjong, which can cost up to $500. That’s not exactly drugstore board game pricing. And now that set (or another one) is in court, apparently!
Meanwhile, the stakes in this case are anything but playful. Lively has accused Baldoni not only of sexual harassment but also of attempting to damage her reputation during their time filming It Ends With Us. Meanwhile, he has denied any wrongdoing.
Still, the image of a Hollywood A-lister passing time with ornate tiles while lawyers work is almost too on-brand. It’s giving bored board queen energy! LOLz!
And TBH, we’ll be watching every tile that falls from here on out. How about U??
A jury on Friday found former Dodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig guilty of obstruction of justice and making false statements to investigators.
The two-week trial in Los Angeles federal court concluded with the jury deliberating for nearly two days. Puig, 35, could face up to 20 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for May 26.
Puig faces a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison on the obstruction of justice charge and up to five years in prison for the two false statement charges. He remains free on his own recognizance.
The charges stemmed from a January 2022 videoconference interview with federal investigators during which Puig was alleged to have lied about his sports betting. The investigators — led by Assistant U.S. Atty. Jeff Mitchell — were gathering information at the time about an illegal gambling ring headed by Wayne Nix of Newport Coast.
Investigators alleged that Puig denied he had placed bets with Nix despite evidence establishing that he made 899 wagers with the former minor league pitcher on football and basketball games and tennis matches from July to September 2019.
Puig — who was not accused of betting on baseball — lost more than $1.5 million in sports bets, Internal Revenue Service Special Agent Christen Seymour testified, and owed Nix $282,900.
Nix pleaded guilty in 2022 to one count of conspiracy to operate an illegal gambling business and one count of subscribing to a false tax return. He is awaiting sentencing.
Mitchell would soon be best known for overseeing the investigation and conviction of Shohei Ohtani’s former interpreter Ippei Mizuhara, who was sentenced a year ago to 57 months in federal prison for bank fraud and filing a false tax return after stealing $17 million from Ohtani to pay off his own illegal gambling debts.
But Mitchell’s interest in Puig centered on what he knew about Nix, the target of the federal probe in 2022. According to a court declaration reviewed by The Times, Mitchell told Puig’s attorney that he didn’t believe it was a federal crime to make payments to an illegal bookmaker. Investigators were after “an unlawful sports gambling organization,” Mitchell said.
Yet when Mitchell concluded Puig lied about placing bets through Nix intermediary Donny Kadokawa, he swiftly charged the outfielder with making false statements and obstruction of justice.
Puig agreed in August 2022 to plead guilty to one count of lying to federal authorities and would have served no jail time while paying a $55,000 fine. Weeks later, however, he backed out of the agreement, and a judge ruled he could do so because he had not yet entered his guilty plea in court.
“I want to clear my name,” Puig said in a statement at the time. “I never should have agreed to plead guilty to a crime I did not commit.”
It took three more years of pretrial legal wrangling, but Puig finally got his day in court in January. Assistant U.S. Attys. Juan Rodriguez and Michael Morse served as prosecutors after Mitchell resigned from the U.S. attorney’s office in May.
Puig’s defense centered on issues with the 2022 interview with Mitchell and investigators who represented the Department of Homeland Security and the IRS.
Defense lawyers Keri Curtis Axel and Brian Klein contended in court filings that Puig, who is from Cuba, was confused because of his language barrier and a dual diagnosis of ADHD and post-traumatic stress disorder. The investigators misinterpreted his answers, the attorneys said.
Steven Gebelin, who represented Puig in 2021 and 2022, testified at trial that his then-client tried to be helpful during the interview but, because the interpreter’s Spanish dialect differed from Puig’s, his answers were translated poorly. Puig did not testify at trial.
Axel contended during her closing statement that Puig did not lie about his interactions with Nix and his associates, which occurred two years before the interview with investigators.
The investigators assumed Puig was lying when he became confused by the questioning and felt pressured to accurately recollect the details of his gambling activity, Axel argued, telling the jury that “assumptions and speculation are not evidence, and you shouldn’t rely on it.”
Prosecutors also alleged Puig said during the interview that he had lost $200,000 in 2019 betting on a website he couldn’t identify and that a person whose name he couldn’t recall instructed him to purchase $200,000 in cashier’s checks made out to another client of Nix’s to settle his gambling debt. Investigators considered Puig’s inability to remember the name a lie.
Kadokawa testified that he was the person giving Puig instructions. Axel argued that Puig told the investigators later in the interview that he had placed bets through Kadokawa, according to court documents.
Prosecutors said Puig also lied when he went through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen in 2019, producing evidence that he said on an application and in an interview that he never gambled illegally.
After growing up in Cuba, Puig came to the United States in 2012 and signed with the Dodgers. His attorneys called an expert who testified that Puig’s arduous journey from his home country caused post-traumatic stress disorder.
UCLA psychology professor Marcel Pontón, a neuropsychology expert witness for the prosecution, disputed that diagnosis. And Morse rebutted the contention that Puig couldn’t understand English by playing audio of Puig reflecting in English about his interview.
The power-hitting outfielder quickly became a Dodgers fan favorite, finishing second in National League Rookie of the Year voting in 2013. Nicknamed the “Wild Horse,” Puig remained a fearsome presence in the lineup for six years and helped the Dodgers to the World Series in 2018 when he hit a three-run homer in Game 7 of the NL Championship Series against the Milwaukee Brewers.
An appeals court on Monday overturned a conviction for an ex-UCLA gynecologist serving 11 years in prison on charges of sexually abusing patients after determining that the trial judge failed to inform his lawyers that some of the jurors raised questions about the English proficiency of one of the panel members.
A three-justice panel of the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ordered that the once-renowned cancer expert, James Heaps, 69, be sent back for a retrial on the charges involving the two patients he was convicted of abusing.
In October 2022, after a complex two-month jury trial, Heaps was convicted of three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration involving the two patients. Jurors acquitted him of abusing two other patients and deadlocked on charges involving four more patients. In April 2023, a judge sentenced him to 11 years in prison.
The University of California system paid nearly $700 million to settle lawsuits brought by hundreds of Heaps’ accusers.
John Manly, who represented more than 200 former patients in a lawsuit that resulted in the settlement with UCLA, said the reversal of Heaps’ conviction is “an indictment of California’s criminal justice system which allows criminals to threaten public safety and prey upon the most vulnerable.’’
“These brave survivors suffered through a four-year ordeal of prosecution and trial resulting in an 11-year prison sentence for this monster,” he said. “Now they are being told that they must start over. … Our criminal justice system needs reforms that put victims first.’’
During the jury deliberations, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Carter, who presided over the trial, sent a judicial assistant, Luis Corrales, into the jury room to speak to the jury about a note sent by the foreperson describing the jurors’ “collective concern” that Juror No. 15 “did not speak English sufficiently to deliberate and had already made up his mind,” the appeals panel wrote.
Juror No. 15 had been an alternate on the jury, but on Oct. 18 he replaced Juror No. 8. Only an hour later, the jury sent the note, signed by the foreperson. The note stated, “We have observed that the language barrier with Juror [No.] 15 is preventing us from properly deliberating. Juror [No.] 15 was not able to understand calls to vote guilty or not guilty, and expressed to us that his limited English interfered with his understanding of the testimony.”
The judicial assistant spoke to the jury in English and, at the request of Juror No. 15, in Spanish. “At no time did the trial judge inquire of the jury or inform trial counsel of the note’s existence,” the appeals panel said, adding that the conversations with the judicial assistant were not transcribed.
Heaps’ defense lawyer was not informed of the note or of the communications, and the trial proceeded to a verdict.
Leonard Levine, Heaps’ trial lawyer, in a declaration to the appeals panel, said that had he been informed of the note, he would have sought to determine whether Juror No. 15 was “qualified to serve” and investigated the juror’s limited English and the jury’s view that Juror No. 15’s mind “is already made up.”
The Court of Appeal found “the trial court’s handling of the note deprived defendant of his constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage of his trial.”
“The failure to notify counsel about the jury’s note and the judicial assistant’s ex parte communications with the jury during deliberations amounted to a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel,” the panel found. The three-judge panel noted that it did not assess the juror’s English ability; rather, that was the shared opinion of the juror’s fellow jurors.
The appellate court found that the prosecution failed to meet its burden to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the constitutional error was harmless. As a result, the panel reversed the conviction and remanded it for a new trial.
“We recognize the burden on the trial court and, regrettably, on the witnesses, in requiring retrial of a case involving multiple victims and delving into the conduct of intimate medical examinations. The importance of the constitutional right to counsel at critical junctures in a criminal trial gives us no other choice,” acting Presiding Justice Helen I. Bendix wrote on behalf of the panel, with Associate Justices Gregory J. Weingart and Michelle C. Kim concurring.
The ruling overturns Heaps’ convictions for sexual battery by fraud, a crime jurors found involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence, two counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious person by fraudulent representation and two counts of sexual battery by fraud. He is currently at California’s Correctional Training Facility in Soledad.
A Virginia man having an affair with the family’s Brazilian au pair was found guilty Monday of murdering his wife and another man that prosecutors say was lured to the house as a fall guy.
Brendan Banfield, a former IRS law enforcement officer, told police he came across Joseph Ryan attacking his wife, Christine Banfield, with a knife on the morning of Feb. 24, 2023. He shot Ryan and then Juliana Magalhães, the au pair, shot him, too.
But officials argued in court that the story was too good to be true, telling jurors that Banfield set Ryan up in a scheme to get rid of his wife. It later came out that Brendan Banfield and Magalhães had been having an affair.
Banfield, 40, shifted slightly and showed little emotion on Monday as the verdict was read in court. He had pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder in the killings of his wife and Ryan, and had taken the stand in his own defense. The jury had deliberated for nearly nine hours across two days before reaching a verdict. Banfield faces the possibility of life in prison at his sentencing, which is scheduled for May 8.
Brendan Banfield looks on during the double murder trial for Brendan Banfield in Fairfax County Circuit Court, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in Fairfax, Virginia.
Tom Brenner / AP
Magalhães pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 2024 and testified against her former lover at trial. She said they had impersonated Christine Banfield, a pediatric intensive care nurse, on a website for sexual fetishes. She said they used the site to lure Ryan to the house for a sexual encounter involving a knife, staging the scene to look as though they had shot an intruder who was attacking the wife.
Defense attorney John Carroll argued that Magalhães’ testimony could not be trusted because she was cooperating with prosecutors to try to avoid a long prison sentence. In his own testimony, Banfield said that the testimony was “absolutely crazy.”
Carroll also introduced evidence showing that there was dissent within the police department over the theory that Magalhães and Brendan Banfield impersonated Christine Banfield on social media in a “catfishing” scheme. An officer who concluded from digital evidence that Christine Banfield was behind the social media account was later transferred in what Carroll said was punishment for disagreeing with a theory favored by the department’s higher-ups.
In closing arguments, prosecutor Jenna Sands told the jury they did not have to rely solely on Magalhães’ testimony, pointing to what she called a “plethora of evidence.” That included expert testimony that blood stains on Ryan’s hands suggested Christine Banfield’s blood had been dripped onto him from above.
Magalhães was scheduled to be sentenced after Banfield’s trial. Attorneys have said she could be allowed to walk free if she is sentenced to time served.
Luigi Mangione will not face death penalty, judge rules
I’M JASON NEWTON AND I’M ASHLEY HINSON. LUIGI MANGIONE. DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WANT TO BLOCK CERTAIN EVIDENCE FROM HIS UPCOMING TRIAL. MAGGIONI IS ACCUSED OF KILLING UNITEDHEALTHCARE CEO BRIAN THOMPSON IN MANHATTAN. THAT WAS A YEAR AGO TODAY, THOUGH, POLICE OFFICERS FROM ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA, CONTINUE THEIR TESTIMONY ABOUT THE DAY OF MANGIONE’S ARREST. KHIREE JOINING US NOW IN KAI BODY CAMERA VIDEO PLAYED IN COURT TODAY, RIGHT? IT DID. AND ASHLEY JASON, THE BODY CAMERA VIDEO SHOWS THE MOMENTS AFTER POLICE RESPONDED TO THE ALTOONA MCDONALD’S WHERE THEY FOUND MANGIONE. THIS HAPPENED FIVE DAYS AFTER BRIAN THOMPSON’S MURDER. IN THE VIDEO, YOU CAN HEAR ONE OF THE OFFICERS SAY, QUOTE, IT’S HIM, DUDE, IT’S HIM. THAT’S IN REFERENCE TO PHOTOS CIRCULATING ONLINE SHOWING THE MAN POLICE SAY KILLED THOMPSON. ACCORDING TO OFFICER CHRISTINA WASSER, THEY BEGAN SEARCHING MANGIONE’S BAG AFTER PUTTING HIM IN HANDCUFFS. INSIDE THE BAG, THEY FOUND A LOADED GUN MAGAZINE. THE MAGAZINE WAS WRAPPED UP IN A PAIR OF UNDERWEAR. MANGIONE’S DEFENSE WANTS THE CONTENTS OF THAT BAG EXCLUDED FROM HIS TRIAL. THEY CLAIM OFFICERS DIDN’T HAVE A PROPER WARRANT TO SEARCH IT. TODAY, OFFICER WASSER SAID THAT SHE WAS FOLLOWING POLICE PROTOCOLS. THOSE PROTOCOLS, SHE TOLD THE COURT, REQUIRE OFFICERS SEARCH A SUSPECT’S PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF AN ARREST. OFFICER WASSER ALSO TESTIFIED MANGIONE WAS TOLD OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, WHICH HE INVOKED WHILE OFFICERS FOUND THE MAGAZINE AT THE SCENE. THEY DID NOT UNCOVER THE NOTEBOOK UNTIL THEY RETURNED TO THE POLICE STATION. MANGIONE HAS PLEADED NOT GUILTY TO STATE AND FEDERAL MURDER CHARGES. HIS TEAM TODAY ALSO CALLED ON A JUDGE TO BAN THE WORDS,
Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, a federal district judge ruled.The decision is a loss for federal prosecutors, who were adamant about pursuing the death penalty in the case.This is a developing story and will be updated.
NEW YORK —
Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, a federal district judge ruled.
The decision is a loss for federal prosecutors, who were adamant about pursuing the death penalty in the case.
The first witness at the federal sex trafficking trial of three brothers, two of them high-end real estate brokers, testified Tuesday in a Manhattan courtroom that the thrill of attending a party at actor Zac Efron’s apartment turned into a nightmare when, hours later, one of the brothers repeatedly raped her at their home and taunted her about it.
The woman, who testified under the pseudonym Katie Moore, is one of several alleged victims expected to testify against brothers Tal, Oren and Alon Alexander, who are accused of teaming up to drug and rape women and girls over several years.
Lawyers for the brothers say the sex was consensual.
Prosecutors say the Alexander brothers used their ties to the wealthy and famous to lure multiple victims.
The woman said she was 20, an anthropology major in college, when she met two of the brothers at the party at Efron’s New York apartment in 2012. She accompanied a friend who had recently met Tal Alexander, and who invited her there to watch the last game of the 2012 NBA Finals. She said she had little interaction with Efron, who is not accused of any wrongdoing.
She testified that at Efron’s apartment, she was offered alcohol, and that she, Tal Alexander and her friend took the drug Molly. She said it was her first time taking the drug and that she felt “jitteriness” after doing so.
In this courtroom sketch, a witness, testifying under the pseudonym Katie Moore, cries on the witness stand in Manhattan federal court on the first day of the sex trafficking trial of Alon Alexander, Oren Alexander and Tal Alexander, on Jan. 27, 2026, in New York.
Elizabeth Williams via AP
After the game, the woman went to an afterparty at a Manhattan nightclub, where she said she was given a drink and remembered little afterward until she woke up naked on a bed in another apartment with Alon Alexander, also naked, standing over her. She said she repeatedly tried to get up, but he kept pushing her back, prompting her to say: “I don’t want to have sex with you.”
“Haha, you already did,” she recalled him saying as he “laughed in my face.”
She said he then overpowered and raped her. While it was happening, Tal Alexander walked into the room briefly, but did nothing to stop the attack, the woman told the jury. He seemed “super nonchalant,” she said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Madison Smyser said in her opening statement to the jury that the Alexander brothers “masqueraded as party boys when really they were predators.”
She described the brothers as “partners in crime.”
“Woman after woman, rape after rape,” Smyser said.
Smyser said they used “whatever means necessary” including luxury accommodations, flights, drugs, alcohol and sometimes brute force to lure women into situations where they could be raped.
Attorney Teny Geragos, representing Oren Alexander, urged the jury to reject prosecutors’ “monstrous story.”
She said the brothers, who got out of college in 2008, were successful, ambitious and sometimes arrogant as they pursued women in nightclubs, bars, restaurants and online in what is known as “hookup culture,” hoping to have as much sex as possible.
“That it is not trafficking, that is dating,” Geragos said.
“You may find this behavior immoral, but it is not criminal,” Geragos said. She said some of the brothers’ accusers were hoping to enrich themselves with lawsuits and spoke of themselves as victims only after feeling regret that they had done illegal drugs or had sex outside of relationships with their boyfriends.
Attorney Deanna Paul, representing Tal Alexander, warned jurors that the subject matter of the case was disturbing and will seem like an R-rated movie, especially after prosecutors portrayed the brothers as “monsters.”
“In their early 20s, Tal and his brothers were party boys. They were womanizers. They slept with many, many women,” she said.
She urged jurors to reject the criminal charges against the brothers if they conclude that the accusers’ testimony was unreliable.
Oren and Tal Alexander were real estate dealers who specialized in high-end properties in Miami, New York and Los Angeles. Their brother, Alon, graduated from New York Law School before running the family’s private security firm. Tal is 39 years old while Alon and Oren, who are twins, are 38.
An indictment alleges that the men conspired to entice women to join them at vacation destinations such as New York’s Hamptons by providing flights and luxury hotel rooms.
The brothers have been held without bail since their December 2024 arrest in Miami, where they lived.
During her testimony Tuesday, the trial’s first witness said she fled the room where Alon Alexander had attacked her after he fell asleep. The woman remained composed through much of her testimony, though she got choked up several times. She cried as she recalled reaching out several years after the attack to friends she had told about the experience so she could be reminded that others loved her.
TikTok has agreed to settle the first in a series of closely-watched product liability cases, bowing out on the eve of a landmark trial that could upend how social media giants engage their youngest users and leave tech titans on the hook for billions in damages.
The settlement was reached as jury selection was set to begin in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Tuesday and comes a week after Snap reached a deal with the same plaintiff, a Chico, Calif., woman who said she became addicted to social media starting in elementary school.
“This settlement should come as no surprise because that damning evidence is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, an industry watchdog. “This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products.”
TikTok did not immediately respond to requests for comment about Monday’s settlement.
“The Parties are pleased to have been able to resolve this matter in an amicable manner,” Snap spokeswoman Monique Bellamy said of the settlement.
The remaining defendants, Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube, still face claims that their products are “defective” and designed to keep children hooked to apps its makers know are harmful.
Those same arguments are at the heart of at least 2,500 cases currently pending together in state and federal courts. The Los Angeles trial is among a handful of bellwethers meant to clarify the uncharted legal terrain.
Social media companies are protected by the 1st Amendment and by Section 230, a decades-old law that shields internet companies from liability for what users produce and share on their platforms.
Attorneys for the Chico plaintiff, referred to in court documents as K.G.M., say the apps were built and refined to snare youngsters and keep them on the platforms without regard for dangers the companies knew lurked there, including sexual predation, bullying and promotion of self-harm and even suicide.
As the claims against Meta and YouTube head to trial, jurors will be asked to weigh whether those dangers are incidental or inherent, and if social media companies can be held responsible for the harm families say flowed from their children’s feeds.
Scores of potential jurors filled the beige terrazzo hallway outside Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl’s courtroom downtown Tuesday morning, most passing the time on social apps on their phones. Some watched short-form videos while others thumbed through their feeds, pausing every so often to tap a like on a post.
Roughly 450 Angelenos will be vetted this week for spots on the jury. The trial is expected to last through March.
Instagram is 15 years old, YouTube almost 21. Finding Angelenos unfamiliar with either is likely impossible. The trial comes at a moment when public opinion around social media has soured, with a growing sentiment among parents, mental health professionals, lawmakers and even children themselves that the apps do more harm than good.
The judge told prospective jurors that lawyers on the case could not review their online profiles. “We know many of you use defendants’ social media and video-sharing platforms, and you’re not being asked to stop, but until you’re excused, you should not change how you use social media and you should not investigate features you don’t usually use,” Kuhl said in court.
Phones are now banned in California public school classrooms. Many private schools impose strict rules around when and how social media can be used.
In study after study, pluralities of young users — among them the youngest of “Anxious Generation” Zoomers and the oldest Gen Alpha’s iPad kids — now say they spend too much time on the apps. A disputed but growing body of research suggests some portion are addicted.
According to a study last spring by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, roughly half of teens say social media is bad for people their age, that it interferes with their sleep and that it hurts their productivity. Almost a quarter say it has brought down their grades. And 1 in 5 say it has hurt their mental health.
K.G.M., the first bellwether plaintiff, said she started watching YouTube at age 6, and was uploading content to the site by age 8.
Today, about 85% of children under 12 watch YouTube and half of those watch it daily, according to Pew.
At 9, according to K.G.M.’s lawsuit, she got her first iPhone and joined Instagram.
By the time she joined Snapchat at age 13, she was spending almost every waking hour scrolling, posting and agonizing over her engagement, despite bullying from peers, hate comments from strangers and sexually explicit overtures from adult men.
“When I was in middle school, I used to go and hide in the counselor’s office … just to go on my phone,” she said in a deposition last year.
Around that time, she said Instagram began serving her content about self-harm and restrictive eating.
“I believe that social media, her addiction to social media, has changed the way her brain works,” the plaintiff’s mother, Karen, said in a related filing. “She has no long-term memory. She can’t live without a phone. She is willing to go to battle if you were even to touch her phone.”
“There became a point where she was so addicted that I could not get the phone out of her hand,” she said.
K.G.M.’s sister was even more blunt.
“Whenever my mom would take her phone away … she would have a meltdown like someone had died,” the sister said. “She would have so many meltdowns anytime her phone was taken away, and it was because she wouldn’t be able to use Instagram.”
“I wish I never downloaded it,” the plaintiff later told her sister, according to the deposition. “I wish I never got it in the first place.”
Boosters of the litigation compare their quest to the fight against Big Tobacco and the opioid-maker Purdue.
“This is the beginning of the trial of our generation,” said Haworth, the tech industry watchdog.
But the gulf between public opinion and civil culpability is vast, attorneys for the platforms say. Social media addiction is not a formal clinical diagnosis, and proving that it exists, and that the companies bear responsibility for it, will be an uphill battle.
Lawyers for YouTube have sought to further complicate the picture by claiming their video-sharing site is not social media at all and cannot be lumped in with the likes of Instagram and TikTok.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs say such distinctions are ephemeral, pointing out that YouTube has by far the youngest group of users, many of whom say the platform was an on-ramp to the world of social media.
“I am equally shocked … by the internal documents that I have seen from all four of these defendants regarding their knowing decision to addict kids to a platform knowing it would be bad for them,” said attorney Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center. “To me they are all outrageous in their decision to elevate their profits over the safety of kids.”
In less than two weeks, Marius Borg Høiby, the son of Norway’s Crown Princess Mette-Marit, will head to court to face charges including the alleged sexual assault of four different women. Initially indicted in August by the Norwegian Public Prosecutor’s Office for 32 offenses, this week that agency has added has added six new charges to the case. [Editor’s Note: In Norway, the crime of rape also includes incomplete sexual acts committed against a victim who is unable to resist.]
The most serious of the new charges allegedly occurred in July 2020, when Marius was said to have received and transported at least 3.5 kilos of marijuana from Lørenskog to Tønsberg (locations located an hour and a half away by car), where he delivered it to a person. The 29-year-old, once seen as a symbol of the openness of the monarchy, has acknowledged those allegations as true, with his attorney noting that he was not paid in the incident.
Other new charges are related to two alleged violations of a restraining order, and three offenses against the Traffic Act. They follow his arrest in August of 2024, when he was accused of assaulting his then girlfriend while in his apartment in Frogner, Oslo.
He acknowledged then that he had suffered from “several mental disorders” since adolescence and had “struggled with substance abuse,” saying then that “I will now resume this treatment and take it very seriously. Drug use and my diagnoses do not excuse what happened.” He was arrested again in November, this time on allegations of rape. “Our client denies all allegations of sexual abuse, as well as most allegations of violence,” attorney Petar Sekulik told the New York Post of the claims last year.
Marius Borg Høiby
HAKON MOSVOLD LARSEN/Getty Images
Though born to Princess Mette-Marit, Marius Borg Høiby does not have a royal title: his father is businessman Morten Borg, with whom the princess had a relationship before meeting Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway, the heir to the Norwegian throne. When the royal couple married in 2001, Marius was 4 years old. Since then, he has grown up as part of the royal family, but does not have a claim to the throne.
The case is but one of the challenges presently faced by Norway’s royals. King Harald, Borg Høiby’s grandfather by marriage, is now 88 years old, and in delicate health. Meanwhile, Princess Mette-Marit is awaiting a possible lung transplant after years of chronic illness that has forced her to withdraw from the official agenda with no date for her return. And just over a year ago, in 2024, Princess Märtha Louise of Norwayresigned from her royal duties to marry the shamanDurek Verret, a union that has caused a break within the family.
Susie Wiles, left, the White House chief of staff in the Trump administration, may be a key witness for the defense in the upcoming trial in Miami of ex-GOP congressman David Rivera. Rivera, who represented a district in Miami-Dade, is accused of being an unregistered agent for Venezuela. When Wiles was a lobbyist, she represented a Venezuelan media company trying to expand into the U.S. market.
Win McNamee
Getty Images
Soon after Susie Wiles ran Donald Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign in Florida, she moved to Washington to join Brian Ballard’s lobbying firm, which was mainly known for its political clout and connections to Florida’s GOP governors.
With her ties to Trump, Wiles brought an instant cachet to Ballard Partners. Among the firm’s new stable of D.C. clients was an improbable, though wealthy, Venezuelan businessman, Raul Gorrin, who was close to President Nicolás Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, the leader of Venezuela’s socialist revolution.
Gorrin, a lawyer who owned a TV station in Caracas, retained Ballard’s firm in June 2017 to help him expand Globovision as a Spanish-speaking television affiliate in the United States — a challenge given that the city of Miami had declared him persona non grata because of his ties to Maduro. The Federal Communications Commission also has strict limits on foreign ownership of U.S. TV and radio stations.
Gorrin was also hoping to gain access to the new Trump administration, which was threatening economic sanctions against the Maduro regime and Venezuela’s oil industry.
Wiles, whom Trump picked as his White House chief of staff after he won a second presidential term in 2024, may soon have to face questions about her and her former lobbying firm’s relationship with Gorrin. An upcoming federal trial in Miami focuses on criminal charges against former Miami-Dade Republican Congressman David Rivera and political consultant Esther Nuhfer, who are accused of secretly lobbying for the Venezuelan government in 2017 and 2018. Wiles could not be reached for comment this week.
Former U.S. Rep. David Rivera walks out of court after his first Miami federal court appearance before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2022. Pedro Portal Miami Herald file
The defense team’s effort to seek the testimony of Wiles, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Florida’s former U.S. senator, has heightened the stakes of the high-profile case, which is headed for trial a few months after Trump sent the U.S. military to Venezuela in early January to seize Maduro. He and his wife, Cilia Flores, are being held at a federal lockup on drug-trafficking charges in New York.
Lawyers for Rivera and Nuhfer are seeking Wiles’ testimony at the trial starting in mid-March. Rivera and Nuhfer are accused of being unregistered foreign agents for the Venezuelan government. They’re also accused of trying to “normalize” relations between the Maduro regime and the United States while Rivera’s consulting firm landed a head-turning $50-million lobbying contract with the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company.
The two defendants have strongly denied the allegations, and hope to undercut the government’s case by showing they were not doing Maduro’s bidding but rather were attempting to get him removed from power. They also want to show that Wiles’ former lobbying firm was attempting to lobby Trump, on behalf of Gorrin, to bring about a regime change in Venezuela.
The lead federal prosecutor, Harold Schimkat, said at a Miami federal court hearing last week that the government will try to quash Wiles’ subpoena, saying: “We don’t see her connection to this case at all.”
But defense attorneys for Rivera and Nuhfer wrote a letter to the White House seeking Wiles as a witness, saying they want to question the former Ballard lobbyist about her “extensive communications” regarding the firm’s $50,000-a-month representation of Gorrin in 2017 and 2018.
The lawyers plan to question her and other Ballard lobbyists about their work to expand Gorrin’s Venezuelan TV station onto AT&T and Comcast broadcast platforms in the United States. But they also want to ask her about what they view as the Ballard firm’s discreet effort to help Gorrin gain access to Trump and other high-ranking officials to broker a regime change in Venezuela — a critical message that they say would help Rivera and Nuhfer’s defense.
Key letter written by Wiles’ former lobbying firm
The lawyers plan to zero in on a Ballard-drafted letter obtained by the Miami Herald that underscored Gorrin’s goal to ease out Maduro as Venezuela’s president and replace him with an opposition leader aligned with the U.S. government. Their bold bid to subpoena Wiles also parallels their effort to seek similar testimony from Rubio, who as Florida’s senator privately met with Rivera, Nuhfer and Gorrin at a hotel in Washington in 2017.
“I happen to know that my government wants a way out, a way to save their skins and fortunes,” says the June 24, 2017, draft letter, which Gorrin had hoped to deliver to Trump at a presidential victory event in Washington four days later. “The opposition, on the other hand, wants a way in but is not unified in how to achieve its goals.
“The domestic violence and poverty and failure of our economic infrastructure is killing my beautiful country,” the letter, signed by Gorrin, goes on to say. “Please tell me who I can work with in your administration to bring about the change we desperately need.”
Gorrin had wanted to deliver the letter to the president at a Trump victory event at the Trump International Hotel on June 28, 2017, but was unable to do so because of restrictions imposed by the Secret Service. While he attended the event, Gorrin never met Trump.
Gorrin meets with Pence in Doral
Later that year, el Nuevo Herald reported that Gorrin met then-Vice President Mike Pence at an event in Doral where he gave a speech to Venezuelan supporters. Brian Ballard set up the meeting between Gorrin and Pence after his lobbying firm retained Gorrin as a client in June 2017, according to lawyers for Rivera and Nuhfer.
Globovisión president Raúl Gorrín shakes hands with Vice President Mike Pence after Pence spoke at an event in Doral, Florida, in 2017. Miami Herald File
At the time, Ballard Partners denied any knowledge of Gorrín’s efforts to influence the Trump administration’s approach to Venezuela or shape a transition of power, el Nuevo Herald reported.
“We’re trying to serve Globovision’s needs in U.S. markets and in various other regulatory things that come up,” Brian Ballard, the firm’s founder and a former lobbyist for Trump’s Florida business dealings, said back then.
Ballard, who authorized taking on Gorrin as a client, is expected to be called as a witness at the trial of Rivera and Nuhfer. He declined an interview request from the Herald.
In a statement issued this week by his lobbying firm’s lawyer, Curt Miner, Brian Ballard stressed that it “had no involvement in Mr. Rivera’s consulting contract with PDVSA,” Venezuela’s national oil company. The state-owned company’s U.S. subsidiary, PDV USA, hired Rivera’s consulting company in March 2017.
“Ballard Partners’ work for Globovision involved Globovision’s efforts to expand its TV network into the U.S. market,” Ballard said in the statement to the Herald. “We fully complied with all legal and regulatory requirements in our work for Globovision. Ballard Partners, if needed, stands ready to be a witness at the trial.”
Technically, Ballard Partners registered as a lobbyist for Gorrin’s company, Globovision, not the businessman himself. But the Washington lobbying firm did not have to register with the government as a foreign agent because of an exemption for representing a nonpolitical, commercial client.
Trump’s presidency has been good for Ballard’s business. The Tallahassee-based firm reported $88.3 million in federal lobbying revenue in 2025. Ballard, which quadrupled its revenue over 2024 and now ranks as the top lobbying firm in Washington, also recently announced an expansion of its consulting services focusing on Venezuela, Latin America, Mexico, Canada and Greenland — in the aftermath of Maduro’s ouster as president.
Letter implores Trump to help broker change in Venezuela
Ballard’s statement to the Herald, however, did not address his lobbying firm’s draft letter for Gorrin. The letter begins with Gorrin complimenting Trump about his “patriotism” and agenda “to make America great again,” saying he has “no doubt” that the president “will succeed.”
“I too am a businessman from Venezuela and love my country,” the letter said. “I want for my country exactly what you are doing for America. I want to make Venezuela great again. We need change and dialogue and peace and progress and democracy.”
“I believe in my heart and soul that if you could direct me to someone in your administration to work with, I will devote every waking minute to a successful resolution of the crisis in Venezuela,” the letter continued. “Like you, I am a businessman who also understands how to negotiate through complicated problems.”
The draft letter for Gorrin was a project handled by another partner in Ballard’s lobbying firm, Sylvester Lukis, according to emails between Lukis and others, including a Miami businessman, Hugo Perera, who also communicated with Gorrin about the letter.
It is unclear if Wiles knew about the draft letter. Other emails show that she was focused on promoting Gorrin’s TV station, Globovision, and corresponded by email with one of the network’s executives as well as Gorrin, Lukis, Ballard, Perera and others, records show.
Fisher Island neighbors
In 2017, Nuhfer introduced Rivera to Perera, who then put them together with Gorrin, who was Perera’s neighbor on exclusive Fisher Island. In turn, Gorrin helped Rivera land his $50-million contract with Venezuela’s oil subsidiary, PDV USA, known as Citgo, which is based in Houston.
Court records show that PDV USA paid Rivera $20 million over a few months in 2017 for “international strategic consulting services,” but then cut him off, saying in a 2020 lawsuit that he did not perform much work to help the company expand its refining business in the United States.
For making the introductions to Gorrin, Rivera paid Perera about $5 million, but has since had a falling out with him. Perera was not charged in the government’s case against Rivera and Nuhfer. Instead, he is cooperating as a witness against them, which has led to Rivera suing him.
Separately, as part of his PDV USA contract, Rivera also paid about $4 million each to Nuhfer and Gorrin. During this same period in 2017, Nuhfer also had a separate consulting contract with Gorrin to push the expansion of his TV station, Globovision, into the U.S. market. Gorrin paid $3.75 million to Nuhfer, Rivera and Perera, according to court records.
This was separate from the $50,000-a-month retainer Globovision had with Ballard Partners to lobby on its behalf.
“The actual reason for the payment, as Ms. Wiles’ similar and concurrent Globovision efforts can corroborate, was likewise to expand Globovision onto ATT and Comcast broadcast platforms and had nothing to do whatever with the normalization of relations for the Venezuelan government of President Maduro,” according to a Dec. 22, 2025, letter sent by lawyers for Rivera and Nuhfer to the White House seeking Wiles’ testimony at their trial.
However, according to their indictment, Rivera and Nuhfer arranged meetings with an unidentified U.S. senator in Washington — Rubio —on two occasions at a private residence and a hotel in the nation’s capital to discuss the U.S.-Venezuelan normalization plan in 2017.
Rivera told Rubio at the residence that Gorrin had persuaded Maduro to accept a deal whereby he would hold free and fair elections, the indictment says. Then, Rivera, Nuhfer and Gorrin met with Rubio at the hotel, with a Venezuelan opposition leader participating by phone, to discuss Venezuela’s issues.
But Gorrin ultimately informed Rivera and Nuhfer that Maduro “refused to agree to hold free and fair elections in Venezuela in exchange for reconciliation with the United States,” according to the indictment.
In a statement, Rivera, who served as a Miami-Dade congressman for one term from 2011 to 2013, has defended his actions by saying he was really working for the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company — not directly as a consultant for the Venezuelan government in the United States — and therefore he didn’t need to register as a foreign agent.
Rivera has also said that his work for PDVSA’s subsidiary in the United States had nothing to do with his separate lobbying efforts that aimed to remove Maduro from power and replace him with an opposition leader.
“Every leader of the Venezuelan opposition I worked with in 2017 — Julio Borges, Lilian Tintori, Henry Ramos Allup — was all done through Raul Gorrin,” Rivera told the Miami Herald. “I met them all through Gorrin.
“When Brian Ballard asked me if Gorrin would help the White House get opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez of prison, Gorrin immediately said yes and helped get Lopez released days later,” Rivera said.
Ballard did not address this or other related matters with the Herald.
Lopez was released from a Venezuelan military prison to house arrest in July 2017, after serving over three years of a nearly 14-year sentence for leading anti-government protests against Maduro. Lopez fled to Spain in 2020.
Ultimately, Gorrin’s efforts on multiple lobbying fronts failed to pan out in the United States. Instead, the first Trump administration imposed sanctions on the Maduro government, Venezuela’s oil industry, government officials and others, including Gorrin.
Gorrin charged in Miami federal court
Gorrin, who is still in Venezuela, was charged in 2018 and again in 2024 with foreign corruption and money laundering in Miami federal court. Ballard stopped representing Gorrin in August 2018, citing a Miami Herald story that had revealed Gorrin was under criminal investigation.
In late 2024, Rivera was charged separately in Washington, with being an unregistered agent for Gorrin. He was accused of trying to lobby a Trump administration official between 2019 and 2020 on behalf of the Venezuelan businessman, whom federal authorities say paid the former congressman $5.5 million while trying to get himself removed from the government’s sanctions list.
Gorrin, who is considered a fugitive by federal prosecutors, provided the Herald with a brief statement through Rivera.
“Susie Wiles was always very professional and very capable,” Gorrin said. “President Trump is fortunate to have her by his side.”
Philip Young, 49, is facing 56 sexual offense charges for alleged abuse of his former wife Joanne Young, 48, including rape and administering a substance with the intent to stupefy or overpower to allow sexual activity.
Joanne Young has waived her legal right to anonymity, drawing parallels to the 2024 trial in France during which Gisele Pelicot waived her right to anonymity to raise awareness about sexual violence. She was drugged and raped by her husband, and dozens of men he invited to join in the abuse, for years in their home.
Voyeurism, possession of indecent images of children and possession of extreme images are among the other charges filed against Young. CBS News’ partner network BBC reports that Young served as a local government councilor with the Conservative party between 2007 and 2010. Prosecutors say the alleged crimes took place between 2010 and 2023.
He is yet to enter a plea, and was remanded in custody after a hearing in December.
Young was to be joined by five other men, aged 31 to 61, also accused of various sexual offenses against his ex-wife, at Winchester Crown Court, a criminal court southwest of London.
Norman Macksoni, 47, pleaded not guilty to one count of rape and possession of extreme images. Dean Hamilton, 47, pleaded not guilty to one count of rape and sexual assault by penetration, as well as two counts of sexual touching.
The three others have not yet entered pleas.
They include Connor Sanderson-Doyle, 31, charged with sexual assault and sexual touching; Richard Wilkins, 61, charged with rape and sexual touching; and Mohammed Hassan, 37, charged with sexual touching.
Wiltshire Police detective superintendent Geoff Smith said in a statement in December that the case against Young and his co-defendants stemmed from a “complex and extensive investigation.”
A Texas jury acquitted a former Uvalde school police officer who was on trial for allegedly failing to act during the massacre at Robb Elementary School in 2022 that left 19 students and two teachers dead.
The jury returned its verdict on Wednesday, around 7:15 p.m.on 29 counts of child abandonment or endangerment after 7 hours, 6 minutes and 30 seconds of deliberation. Adrian Gonzales faced up to two years in prison.
“First things first,” Gonzales said after the trial ended. “I want to start by thanking God, my family, my wife, these guys here [legal team]. Thank you to the jury for considering all the evidence and making that verdict.”
Prosecutors alleged the 52-year-old Gonzales, a 10-year police veteran who had led an active shooter response training course two months before the shooting, abandoned his training and did not try to stop gunman Salvador Ramos before he entered the school. Over more than two weeks of testimony, prosecutors called witnesses who recounted the horrors of the massacre and showed photographs of the scene, many of them graphic.
The trial was held in Corpus Christi at the request of Gonzales’s attorneys, who argued he could not receive a fair trial in Uvalde.
During closing arguments on Wednesday morning, a prosecutor urged the jury to convict in order to send a message that law enforcement must fulfill their duty to protect when a gunman threatens children.
Gonzales did not take the stand in his own defense. He has insisted he didn’t freeze in the chaotic early moments and never saw the gunman, and his lawyers argue that three officers on the other side of the school saw the gunman still outside and didn’t fire a shot.
Body camera footage shows Gonzales being among the first group of officers to enter a shadowy and smoky hallway, trying to reach the killer in a classroom.
Contrary to the portrayal of a reluctant officer, Gonzales risked his life when he went into a “hallway of death” where others were unwilling to go in the early moments, his lawyers said.
Jason Goss, an attorney for Gonzales, said a conviction would tell police they have to be “perfect” when responding to a crisis and could make them even more hesitant in the future.
Gonzales and former Uvalde schools police chief Pete Arredondo were among the first on the scene, and they are the only two officers to face criminal charges over the slow response. Arredondo’s trial has not yet been scheduled.
Prince Harry struck a combative tone as he testified Wednesday in his lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail and insisted that his latest legal battle with Associated Newspaper Ltd. was “in the public interest.”
Harry and six other prominent figures, including Elton John and actor Elizabeth Hurley, allege that the publisher invaded their privacy by engaging in a “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” for two decades, attorney David Sherborne said. The celebrities allege that the company illegally spied on them by hiring private investigators to hack their phones, bug their cars and access private records. Testimony from several private investigators, who have said they worked on behalf of Associated Newspapers, is set to be used in the trial.
Associated Newspapers Ltd. has denied the allegations, called them preposterous and said the roughly 50 articles in question were reported with legitimate sources that included close associates willing to inform on their famous friends.
Harry said in his 23-page witness statement that he was distressed and disturbed by the intrusion into his early life by the Mail and its sister publication the Mail on Sunday, and that it made him “paranoid beyond belief.” Harry also alleged that the lives of “thousands of people” were “invaded” by Associated “because of greed.”
“There is obviously a personal element to bringing this claim, motivated by truth, justice and accountability, but it is not just about me,” Harry said in a written statement unveiled as he entered the witness box. Under the English civil court system, witnesses present written testimony, and after asserting that it’s the truth are immediately put under cross examination. “I am determined to hold Associated accountable, for everyone’s sake … I believe it is in the public interest.”
Britain’s Prince Harry gives evidence in his privacy lawsuit against the publisher of The Daily Mail, at the High Court in London, January 21, 2026, in this courtroom sketch.
Julia Quenzler / REUTERS
A heated cross examination
Harry, dressed in a dark suit, held a small Bible in his right hand in London’s High Court and swore to “almighty God that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” After the Duke of Sussex said he preferred to be called Prince Harry, he acknowledged that his 23-page statement was authentic and accurate.
Defense lawyer Antony White, in a calm and gentle tone, began to put questions to Harry to determine if the sourcing of the articles, in fact, had come from royal correspondents working their sources at official events or from friends or associates of the prince. Harry said that his “social circles were not leaky” and disputed suggestions that he had been cozy with journalists who covered the royal family.
Harry suggested that information had come from eavesdropping on his phone calls or having private investigators snoop on him. He said journalist Katie Nicholl had the luxury to use the term “unidentified source” deceptively to hide unlawful measures of investigation.
“If you complain, they double down on you in my experience,” he said in explaining why he had not objected to the articles at the time.
As a soft-spoken Harry became increasingly defensive, White said: “I am intent on you not having a bad experience with me, but it is my job to ask you these questions.”
Eventually, Justice Matthew Nicklin intervened in the tense back-and-forth and told Harry not to argue with the defense lawyer as he tried to explain what it’s like living under what he called “24-hour surveillance.” Nicklin also reminded Harry that he does not “have to bear the burden of arguing the case today.”
At another point in his cross examination, Harry appeared close to tears as he said tabloids had made his wife Meghan’s life “an absolute misery.” Harry has previously said persistent press attacks led to the couple’s decision to leave royal life and move to the U.S. in 2020.
Harry’s media crusade
For decades, Harry has had what he called an “uneasy” relationship with the media, but kept mum and followed the family protocol of “never complain, never explain,” he said.
The litigation is part of Harry’s self-proclaimed mission to reform the media that he blames for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi in Paris.
He said “vicious persistent attacks,” harassment and event racists articles about Meghan, who is biracial, had inspired him to break from family tradition to finally sue the press.
Britain’s Prince Harry arrives at London’s High Court in London on Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2026.
Kirsty Wigglesworth / AP
It is Harry’s second time testifying after he bucked House of Windsor tradition and became the first senior royal to testify in a court in well over a century when he took the stand in a similar, successful lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mirror in 2023.
Last year, on the eve of another scheduled trial, Rupert Murdoch’s U.K. tabloid publisher NGN agreed to pay Harry “substantial damages” for privacy breaches, including phone hacking.
This trial is expected to last nine weeks and a written verdict could come months later.
“If Harry wins this case, it will give him a feeling … that he wasn’t being paranoid all the time,” Royah Nikkhah, royal editor for The Sunday Times and a CBS News contributor, told CBS News on Monday. “If Harry loses this case, it’s huge jeopardy for him, not just in terms of cost, but in terms of pushing all the way to trial and not seeking to settle. So we have to wait and see, but it’s high stakes for Harry.”
On the first day of the defense’s case in Fairfax County Circuit Court, attorneys for Brendan Banfield asked the judge to dismiss the charges, arguing prosecutors knowingly presented false testimony.
On the first day of the defense’s arguments in Fairfax County Circuit Court on Wednesday, the attorneys of Brendan Banfield started by attempting to have the entire case thrown out, arguing the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony against his client.
Banfield is charged with aggravated murder in the 2023 deaths of his wife Christine Banfield and another man, Joseph Ryan. Prosecutors say Brendan killed them both as part of an elaborate plot with the family’s au pair, Juliana Peres Magalhães, to kill his wife and blame it on Ryan.
Defense attorney John Carroll filed a motion to dismiss, saying at the end of the prosecution’s case, “It was at that point, when they rested, that this became incumbent upon me to make this motion.”
Carroll cited a report from detective Brendan Miller, who testified at the behest of the defense Wednesday, which stated that an email account and an account with a website used for setting up sexual encounters was created by Christine Banfield.
Peres Magalhães later told police she was the one behind those accounts — a confession that came after Miller wrote the report.
Nonetheless, it was an issue Carroll honed in on when Miller took the stand.
“I was able to determine that it was her phone used in the creation of that account based on a variety of returns,” Miller said.
“And did you make any conclusions at that time that she had not given up her devices?” Carroll asked.
“I had nothing indicating loss of dominion and control at that time,” Miller responded.
Under further questioning, Miller acknowledged his findings did change upon Peres Magalhães admission.
Prosecutor Jenna Sands asked Miller if he could “conclusively opine as to who was behind the screen” based on the activity of Christine Banfield’s phone. He said he could not.
“When you wrote this report that Mr. Carroll has referenced, you used the phrasing ‘Christine did this. Christine did that.’ Is that correct?” Sands asked.
“Yes,” Miller said.
He also testified that he can’t determine who is behind a screen at all times without some form of corroboration.
Judge Penney Azcarate rejected the defense’s argument that prosecutors knowingly allowed false statements to be used in court. From there, the defense rehashed police body camera video of the immediate aftermath of the killing, including the moments when Brendan Banfield learned his wife was dead.
The defense also used its own blood spatter analyst to try to poke holes in the theory that Banfield was able to drip his wife’s blood over Joseph Ryan’s body to connect him to her death.
Defense expert LeeAnn Singley disagreed with testimony from a prosecution witness the previous day, who said blood drops on Ryan’s arm appeared to have been dripped from above.
“Once you’ve classified it as a certain mechanism, you’ve excluded everything else,” Singley said. “I didn’t feel there was enough information here for me to do that, and this target surface, it would be inappropriate, I believe, to do that, because the target surface was not ideal for being able to do that.”
After the trial broke for lunch, Singley returned to the stand and was eventually cross examined by Sands about her decision not to make a solid determination of how the drops got there.
Singley agreed that none of the options have been excluded.
She also conceded it was at least possible the blood droplets on Ryan’s arm did get dripped onto him, even if she didn’t agree with the conclusion of the prosecution’s expert that that’s actually what happened.
The case resumes at 9:30 a.m. Thursday. It’s also possible the trial continues Friday — normally a day off for the jury — because of the judge’s concern about the impending snowstorm this weekend. Azcarate said it would be her decision to decide whether the courthouse would be closed for inclement weather.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
SAN DIEGO – An 87-year-old Point Loma woman showed a jury her right hand where, she said, her son shot off three of her fingers after killing his sister and her son in 2024.
“I ran like hell!” said June Bushey on Monday, Jan. 12, as the first prosecution witness in the murder trial of her son, William “Billy” Bushey, 61.
William Bushey is charged with killing his sister, Laurie Robinson, 61, and her son, Brett Robinson, 33, on Aug. 21, 2024. The slayings took place in June Bushey’s home at 3:55 p.m in the 3600 block of Zola Street, which is several blocks away from Point Loma High School.
“She was murdered,” said June Bushey of her daughter. “He came out of his room, and he shot her. I escaped from my room, down the front steps.”
“The neighbors were yelling at me to ‘keep down,’” said June Bushey. “I got shot in the hand.”
Deputy District Attorney Scott Pirrello directed her to show her right hand to the San Diego Superior Court jury. June Bushey noted she lost three fingers in the shotgun blast and now only has “my pinkie and my thumb.”
“I can hold something pretty good,” she said.
Her son is also charged with attempted murder of his mother and the special circumstance of committing multiple murders. If he’s convicted of first-degree murder, he faces a life term in prison without the possibility of parole.
The trial with Judge Joan Weber will last several weeks. William Bushey’s attorney, Denis Lainez, told jurors his client will testify. Lainez said his client is not guilty of either first or second-degree murder and attempted murder, suggesting, but without specifically saying, he might seek a manslaughter verdict.
“I thought about calling the police, but I thought I would get shot,” said Bushey. “I went down the hall and out the front door.”
June Bushey said her son said nothing before shooting Laurie and Brett Robinson. She added that he was isolated, unemployed, and stayed in his bedroom at her home. He was on his computer most of the time and held the passwords to the internet, which June Bushey said she did not use or know.
William Bushey shot all three people after he learned that Laurie Robinson directed AT&T to make changes to their service, interrupting their Internet connection.
“Where’s the Internet?” asked William Bushey, according to Pirrello in his opening statement. “That’s when the terror began.”
Pirrello held up a shotgun to show jurors the murder weapon, saying, “Nobody knew he had that.” He said it was hidden in his closet.
June Bushey said her son worked in restaurants when he was younger, including some in Pacific Beach. “I was wondering when he was going to work.”
San Diego Police officers showed up twice in the month before the violence when Laurie Robinson asked for help in dealing with her brother. The situation “did not rise to the level of being a crime,” said Pirrello.
The defense attorney read some of his client’s statements to police, and he also added that William Bushey has tested positive for HIV. “I’m sick; I’m dying. I’m just a sick loser without a job,” Lainez quoted his client as saying.
“I didn’t mean to hurt (my mother). I didn’t want to wrestle my nephew over the gun. I am angry, confused,” Lainez quoted Bushey as telling police.
“My entire life, I have refused to see doctors. I feel like nothing,” said William Bushey, according to his attorney. “I am going to be homeless. I am filled with rage.”
“I don’t have any friends. I don’t have anyone who loves me,” Lainez quoted Bushey as saying to police.
Emotional testimony from teacher about Uvalde shooting in trial of former cop – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Tuesday marked Day 5 in the trial of former Uvalde CISD police officer Adrian Gonzales over his response to the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary. CBS News reporter Karen Hua has the latest.
A 32-year-old marketing professional now based in Los Angeles, Kimmy initially became drawn to the case after learning that Mangione is also from Maryland. “Otherwise it’s just another shooting in America,” she says. Her interest deepened, though, as the political stakes developed and potentially complicated the legal proceedings. (Erika Kirk recently wondered in a CBS appearance “how social media will impact that court case, just how it might impact mine,” referring to the similar surfeit of attention that has accompanied the assassination of her late husband, Charlie Kirk.)
Soon she was captivated by the Agnifilos themselves, and the legal strategy they were building. “The case itself is already so interesting,” Kimmy says, “but the fight to control the narrative bleeding in and out of court adds another incredibly interesting layer.” (Mangione has pleaded not guilty in this case as well as a parallel federal case.)
The Agniflos met in 1992, when they were both working in the Manhattan district’s attorney office and Karen assisted Marc on a case involving one deliveryman cutting off another’s hand with a machete amid a feud over a parking spot. Their work, together and apart, eventually took them to some of the most knotty and high-profile spots in defense law.
Former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn sits with Marc Agnifilo.Richard Drew/AFP/Getty Images.
Karen Friedman Agnifilo addresses the Mangione press corps.Bryan R. Smith/AFP/Getty Images.
When Marc’s firm represented Dominique Strauss-Kahn in his 2011 sexual assault case, Karen, still working as a prosecutor, had to recuse herself. (Prosecutors ultimately dropped criminal charges of attempted rape against Strauss-Kahn, and a civil case was settled.) 50 Cent’s recent Netflix documentary about Sean “Diddy” Combs includes footage of the mogul screaming at Marc on the phone over the state of his case, leading TMZ to describe the attorney as the “true victim in all of this.” Agnifilo was Combs’s lead attorney in his federal racketeering and sex trafficking trial, which was largely regarded as a victory for Combs after he was convicted only on lesser prostitution counts.
In Mangione, the couple has found a celebrity defendant drawing a particularly personal degree of investment from his fans, with his facial expressions and movements in court dissected for meaning in online communities. A, a London-based paralegal who asked to be identified by her first initial, co-runs an advocacy platform for Mangione called Free Luigi NYC and devotes time to breaking down the legal maneuvering in the case. She attended a day of the court proceedings this month and attested that the Agnifilos had become stars.
A jury on Thursday found Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of a federal felony charge that she obstructed or impeded a proceeding before a U.S. department or agency, while acquitting her on a misdemeanor count tied to concealing an individual from discovery and arrest. Her defense team released this statement shortly after the verdict was read: “While we are disappointed in today’s outcome, the failure of the prosecution to secure convictions on both counts demonstrates the opportunity we have to clear Judge Dugan’s name and show she did nothing wrong in this matter. We have planned for this potential outcome and our defense of Judge Dugan is just beginning. This trial required considerable resources to prepare for and public support for Judge Dugan’s defense fund is critical as we prepare for the next phase of this defense.” The judge did not set a sentencing date. The defense plans to fight the conviction. The maximum penalty would be five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.Watch: Defense attorney Steve Biskupic’s post-verdict reaction:On the prosecution side, interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel asked that people keep politics out of the case and the verdict. He said this was not the government trying to make an example of Dugan, but was instead a serious matter they felt necessary to pursue.Watch: Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel delivers remarks after Dugan verdictProsecutors filed the charges after an April 2025 courthouse encounter involving federal agents and a defendant, in Dugan’s court on a state criminal charge, a man they were seeking to arrest. The verdict followed a week of testimony and evidence centered on what jurors heard and saw from April 18, when federal agents came to the sixth floor of the Milwaukee County Courthouse with a warrant to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.In opening statements Monday, prosecutors told jurors that Dugan “knew what she did was wrong” and argued arrests in the courthouse are “standard and routine.”The defense challenged the interpretation of events and questioned witnesses about courthouse practices, confusion over the courthouse policy for interactions with federal immigration officials. What prosecutors allegedJurors were shown surveillance video and listened to audio from inside Dugan’s courtroom, with prosecutors walking through the sequence in detail.Prosecutors pointed jurors to:Hallway surveillance video showing Dugan confronting federal agents outside her courtroom; there was no audio on the hallway video.Audio from inside the courtroom, played alongside a transcript for jurors to follow, including a moment in which Dugan’s clerk is heard saying, “We have 5 ICE guys in the hallway.”Prosecutors’ interpretation of courtroom audio, including that Dugan called Flores-Ruiz’s case out of order and told his attorney to take him out and return for a rescheduled date, which prosecutors argued was intended to get him out of the area.Evidence and testimony jurors heardThe government’s first witness included FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Baker, who testified about his actions at the courthouse that morning and what he observed. Baker described Dugan’s tone during the hallway encounter, saying, “anger would be the best way to describe it.”Jurors also heard testimony and saw exhibits related to communications among judges about how to handle interactions with federal immigration officials in the courthouse, according to the notes.WATCH FBI agents testify about courthouse confusion during immigration arrestDefense caseAfter the prosecution rested on Wednesday, the defense began calling witnesses Thursday morning. The first defense witness was Milwaukee County Judge Katie Kegel, and jurors were shown an email she sent to fellow judges that was displayed in court and included in jurors’ binders. The final witness for the defense was former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a lifelong friend who described her as an “extremely honest” person who will tell you exactly how she feels. Background of the caseThe case stems from the April 18 courthouse encounter in which agents from ICE and other federal agencies arrived outside Dugan’s courtroom with a warrant for Flores-Ruiz’s arrest.Prosecutors alleged Dugan directed agents away from the arrest location and that Flores-Ruiz later left through a restricted area before being arrested outside.Flores-Ruiz’s underlying state case involved a domestic violence allegation. In opening statements, prosecutors referenced the charge he faced that day: battery — domestic abuse — infliction of physical pain or injury. Flores-Ruiz has since been deported.
A jury on Thursday found Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of a federal felony charge that she obstructed or impeded a proceeding before a U.S. department or agency, while acquitting her on a misdemeanor count tied to concealing an individual from discovery and arrest.
Her defense team released this statement shortly after the verdict was read:
“While we are disappointed in today’s outcome, the failure of the prosecution to secure convictions on both counts demonstrates the opportunity we have to clear Judge Dugan’s name and show she did nothing wrong in this matter. We have planned for this potential outcome and our defense of Judge Dugan is just beginning. This trial required considerable resources to prepare for and public support for Judge Dugan’s defense fund is critical as we prepare for the next phase of this defense.”
Adela Tesnow
Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan reacts after hearing a guilty guilty in her federal trial
The judge did not set a sentencing date. The defense plans to fight the conviction. The maximum penalty would be five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
Watch: Defense attorney Steve Biskupic’s post-verdict reaction:
On the prosecution side, interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel asked that people keep politics out of the case and the verdict. He said this was not the government trying to make an example of Dugan, but was instead a serious matter they felt necessary to pursue.
Watch: Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel delivers remarks after Dugan verdict
Prosecutors filed the charges after an April 2025 courthouse encounter involving federal agents and a defendant, in Dugan’s court on a state criminal charge, a man they were seeking to arrest.
The verdict followed a week of testimony and evidence centered on what jurors heard and saw from April 18, when federal agents came to the sixth floor of the Milwaukee County Courthouse with a warrant to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.
In opening statements Monday, prosecutors told jurors that Dugan “knew what she did was wrong” and argued arrests in the courthouse are “standard and routine.”
The defense challenged the interpretation of events and questioned witnesses about courthouse practices, confusion over the courthouse policy for interactions with federal immigration officials.
What prosecutors alleged
Jurors were shown surveillance video and listened to audio from inside Dugan’s courtroom, with prosecutors walking through the sequence in detail.
Prosecutors pointed jurors to:
Hallway surveillance video showing Dugan confronting federal agents outside her courtroom; there was no audio on the hallway video.
Audio from inside the courtroom, played alongside a transcript for jurors to follow, including a moment in which Dugan’s clerk is heard saying, “We have 5 ICE guys in the hallway.”
Prosecutors’ interpretation of courtroom audio, including that Dugan called Flores-Ruiz’s case out of order and told his attorney to take him out and return for a rescheduled date, which prosecutors argued was intended to get him out of the area.
Evidence and testimony jurors heard
The government’s first witness included FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Baker, who testified about his actions at the courthouse that morning and what he observed.
Baker described Dugan’s tone during the hallway encounter, saying, “anger would be the best way to describe it.”
Jurors also heard testimony and saw exhibits related to communications among judges about how to handle interactions with federal immigration officials in the courthouse, according to the notes.
WATCH FBI agents testify about courthouse confusion during immigration arrest
Defense case
After the prosecution rested on Wednesday, the defense began calling witnesses Thursday morning.
The first defense witness was Milwaukee County Judge Katie Kegel, and jurors were shown an email she sent to fellow judges that was displayed in court and included in jurors’ binders.
The final witness for the defense was former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a lifelong friend who described her as an “extremely honest” person who will tell you exactly how she feels.
Background of the case
The case stems from the April 18 courthouse encounter in which agents from ICE and other federal agencies arrived outside Dugan’s courtroom with a warrant for Flores-Ruiz’s arrest.
Prosecutors alleged Dugan directed agents away from the arrest location and that Flores-Ruiz later left through a restricted area before being arrested outside.
Flores-Ruiz’s underlying state case involved a domestic violence allegation. In opening statements, prosecutors referenced the charge he faced that day: battery — domestic abuse — infliction of physical pain or injury. Flores-Ruiz has since been deported.
Nick Reiner made his first court appearance Wednesday in Los Angeles on two counts of first-degree murder in the killing of his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner, while the couple’s other two children made their first public statement on their crushing loss.Nick Reiner, 32, did not enter a plea as he appeared from behind glass in a custody area in the large Los Angeles courtroom where newly charged defendants are arraigned. He was in shackles and wearing a blue, padded suicide prevention smock used in jail.His arraignment was postponed until Jan. 7 at his attorney’s request. He spoke only to say “yes, your honor” to agree to the date. He is being held without bail.Jake and Romy Reiner talk about their ‘unimaginable pain’His older brother Jake Reiner and younger sister Romy Reiner released their statement through a family spokesperson.“Words cannot even begin to describe the unimaginable pain we are experiencing every moment of the day,” they said. “The horrific and devastating loss of our parents, Rob and Michele Reiner, is something that no one should ever experience. They weren’t just our parents; they were our best friends.”The brother and sister said they are “grateful for the outpouring of condolences, kindness, and support we have received not only from family and friends but people from all walks of life. We now ask for respect and privacy, for speculation to be tempered with compassion and humanity, and for our parents to be remembered for the incredible lives they lived and the love they gave.”Medical Examiner says ‘sharp force injuries’ killed coupleAlso Wednesday, the LA County Medical Examiner listed the primary cause of death for both Rob and Michele Reiner as “multiple sharp force injuries” as the office released its investigators’ initial findings.The office said more investigation is needed before further details will be revealed, but the bodies can now be released to the family.The cause of death was consistent with police describing the couple as having stab wounds.Nick Reiner’s attorney urges cautionAfter the court hearing, Nick Reiner’s attorney, Alan Jackson, called the case “a devastating tragedy that has befallen the Reiner family.” He said the proceedings will be very complex and asked that the circumstances be met “not with a rush to judgment, not with jumping to conclusions.”Jackson declined to answer shouted questions from dozens of reporters surrounding him and has not addressed the guilt or innocence of his client.Nick Reiner was charged Tuesday with killing Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Singer Reiner, 70.They were killed sometime in the early morning hours of Sunday, the District Attorney’s Office said. They were found dead late in the afternoon in their home in the upscale Brentwood neighborhood on the west side of Los Angeles, authorities said.Nick Reiner did not resist when he was arrested hours later in the Exposition Park area near the University of Southern California, about 14 miles from the crime scene, police said.The two counts of first-degree murder come with special circumstances of multiple murders and an allegation that the defendant used a dangerous weapon, a knife. The additions could mean a greater sentence.District Attorney Nathan Hochman said at a Tuesday news conference that his office has not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty.Meg Ryan and others remember the ReinersRob Reiner was the Emmy-winning star of the sitcom “All in the Family” who went on to direct films including “Stand by Me,” “The Princess Bride,” and “When Harry Met Sally …,” whose star Meg Ryan paid tribute to the Reiners on Wednesday.“Thank you, Rob and Michelle, for the way you believe in true love, in fairy tales, and in laughter. Thank you for your faith in the best in people, and for your profound love of our country,” Ryan said in an Instagram post. “I have to believe that their story will not end with this impossible tragedy.”Rob Reiner met Michele Singer Reiner during the shooting of the classic rom-com, and he said the meeting inspired him to change the film to have a happy ending.Ryan’s co-star Billy Crystal, a close friend of Rob Reiner for decades, was part of a group that also included Albert Brooks, Martin Short and Larry David that released a statement mourning and celebrating the couple Tuesday night.“They were a special force together — dynamic, unselfish and inspiring,” the statement said. “We were their friends, and we will miss them forever.”Rob Reiner has another daughter, Tracy Reiner, from his first marriage, to actor-director Penny Marshall.The lawyers on the Reiner caseNick Reiner’s attorney Jackson is a high-profile defense attorney and former LA County prosecutor who represented Harvey Weinstein at his Los Angeles trial and Karen Read at her intensely followed trials in Massachusetts. He was a central figure in the HBO documentary on the Read case.On the other side will be Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian, whose recent cases included the Menendez brothers’ attempt at resentencing and the trial of Robert Durst.Authorities have not said anything about a motive for the killings and would give few details when asked at the news conference.
LOS ANGELES —
Nick Reiner made his first court appearance Wednesday in Los Angeles on two counts of first-degree murder in the killing of his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner, while the couple’s other two children made their first public statement on their crushing loss.
Nick Reiner, 32, did not enter a plea as he appeared from behind glass in a custody area in the large Los Angeles courtroom where newly charged defendants are arraigned. He was in shackles and wearing a blue, padded suicide prevention smock used in jail.
His arraignment was postponed until Jan. 7 at his attorney’s request. He spoke only to say “yes, your honor” to agree to the date. He is being held without bail.
Jake and Romy Reiner talk about their ‘unimaginable pain’
His older brother Jake Reiner and younger sister Romy Reiner released their statement through a family spokesperson.
“Words cannot even begin to describe the unimaginable pain we are experiencing every moment of the day,” they said. “The horrific and devastating loss of our parents, Rob and Michele Reiner, is something that no one should ever experience. They weren’t just our parents; they were our best friends.”
The brother and sister said they are “grateful for the outpouring of condolences, kindness, and support we have received not only from family and friends but people from all walks of life. We now ask for respect and privacy, for speculation to be tempered with compassion and humanity, and for our parents to be remembered for the incredible lives they lived and the love they gave.”
Medical Examiner says ‘sharp force injuries’ killed couple
Also Wednesday, the LA County Medical Examiner listed the primary cause of death for both Rob and Michele Reiner as “multiple sharp force injuries” as the office released its investigators’ initial findings.
The office said more investigation is needed before further details will be revealed, but the bodies can now be released to the family.
The cause of death was consistent with police describing the couple as having stab wounds.
Nick Reiner’s attorney urges caution
After the court hearing, Nick Reiner’s attorney, Alan Jackson, called the case “a devastating tragedy that has befallen the Reiner family.” He said the proceedings will be very complex and asked that the circumstances be met “not with a rush to judgment, not with jumping to conclusions.”
Jackson declined to answer shouted questions from dozens of reporters surrounding him and has not addressed the guilt or innocence of his client.
Nick Reiner was charged Tuesday with killing Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Singer Reiner, 70.
They were killed sometime in the early morning hours of Sunday, the District Attorney’s Office said. They were found dead late in the afternoon in their home in the upscale Brentwood neighborhood on the west side of Los Angeles, authorities said.
Nick Reiner did not resist when he was arrested hours later in the Exposition Park area near the University of Southern California, about 14 miles from the crime scene, police said.
The two counts of first-degree murder come with special circumstances of multiple murders and an allegation that the defendant used a dangerous weapon, a knife. The additions could mean a greater sentence.
District Attorney Nathan Hochman said at a Tuesday news conference that his office has not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty.
Meg Ryan and others remember the Reiners
Rob Reiner was the Emmy-winning star of the sitcom “All in the Family” who went on to direct films including “Stand by Me,” “The Princess Bride,” and “When Harry Met Sally …,” whose star Meg Ryan paid tribute to the Reiners on Wednesday.
“Thank you, Rob and Michelle, for the way you believe in true love, in fairy tales, and in laughter. Thank you for your faith in the best in people, and for your profound love of our country,” Ryan said in an Instagram post. “I have to believe that their story will not end with this impossible tragedy.”
Rob Reiner met Michele Singer Reiner during the shooting of the classic rom-com, and he said the meeting inspired him to change the film to have a happy ending.
Ryan’s co-star Billy Crystal, a close friend of Rob Reiner for decades, was part of a group that also included Albert Brooks, Martin Short and Larry David that released a statement mourning and celebrating the couple Tuesday night.
“They were a special force together — dynamic, unselfish and inspiring,” the statement said. “We were their friends, and we will miss them forever.”
Rob Reiner has another daughter, Tracy Reiner, from his first marriage, to actor-director Penny Marshall.
The lawyers on the Reiner case
Nick Reiner’s attorney Jackson is a high-profile defense attorney and former LA County prosecutor who represented Harvey Weinstein at his Los Angeles trial and Karen Read at her intensely followed trials in Massachusetts. He was a central figure in the HBO documentary on the Read case.
On the other side will be Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian, whose recent cases included the Menendez brothers’ attempt at resentencing and the trial of Robert Durst.
Authorities have not said anything about a motive for the killings and would give few details when asked at the news conference.
