ReportWire

Tag: trial and procedure

  • Your Trump questions answered. Yes, he can still run for president if indicted | CNN Politics

    Your Trump questions answered. Yes, he can still run for president if indicted | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Could he still run for president? Why would the adult-film star case move before any of the ones about protecting democracy? How could you possibly find an impartial jury?

    What’s below are answers to some of the questions we’ve been getting – versions of these were emailed in by subscribers of the What Matters newsletter – about the possible indictment of former President Donald Trump.

    He’s involved in four different criminal investigations by three different levels of government – the Manhattan district attorney; the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney; and the Department of Justice.

    These questions are mostly concerned with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s potential indictment of Trump over a hush-money payment scheme, but many could apply to each investigation.

    The most-asked question is also the easiest to answer.

    Yes, absolutely.

    “Nothing stops Trump from running while indicted, or even convicted,” the University of California, Los Angeles law professor Richard Hasen told me in an email.

    The Constitution requires only three things of candidates. They must be:

    • A natural born citizen.
    • At least 35 years old.
    • A resident of the US for at least 14 years.

    As a political matter, it’s maybe more difficult for an indicted candidate, who could become a convicted criminal, to win votes. Trials don’t let candidates put their best foot forward. But it is not forbidden for them to run or be elected.

    There are a few asterisks both in the Constitution and the 14th and 22nd Amendments, none of which currently apply to Trump in the cases thought to be closest to formal indictment.

    Term limits. The 22nd Amendment forbids anyone who has twice been president (meaning twice been elected or served part of someone else’s term and then won his or her own) from running again. That doesn’t apply to Trump since he lost the 2020 election.

    Impeachment. If a person is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate of high crimes and misdemeanors, he or she is removed from office and disqualified from serving again. Trump, although twice impeached by the House during his presidency, was also twice acquitted by the Senate.

    Disqualification. The 14th Amendment includes a “disqualification clause,” written specifically with an eye toward former Confederate soldiers.

    It reads:

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

    Potential charges in New York City with regard to the hush-money payment to an adult-film star have nothing to do with rebellion or insurrection. Nor do potential federal charges with regard to classified documents.

    Potential charges in Fulton County, Georgia, with regard to 2020 election meddling or at the federal level with regard to the January 6, 2021, insurrection could perhaps be construed by some as a form of insurrection. But that is an open question that would have to work its way through the courts. The 2024 election is fast approaching.

    If he was convicted of a felony – reminder, he has not yet even been charged – in New York, Trump would be barred from voting in his adoptive home state of Florida, at least until he had served out a potential sentence.

    First off, there’s no suggestion of any coordination between the Manhattan DA, the Department of Justice and the Fulton County DA.

    These are all separate investigations on separate issues moving at their own pace.

    The payment to the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels occurred years ago in 2016. Trump has argued the statute of limitations has run out. Lawyers could argue the clock stopped when Trump left New York to become president in 2017.

    It’s also not clear how exactly a state crime (falsifying business records) can be paired with a federal election crime to create a state felony. There are some very deep legal dives into this, like this one from Just Security. We will have to see what, if anything, Bragg adds if he does bring an indictment.

    Of the four known criminal investigations into Trump, falsifying business records with regard to the hush-money payment to an adult-film actress seems like the smallest of potatoes, especially since federal prosecutors decided not to charge him when he left office.

    His finances, subject of a long-running investigation, seem like a bigger deal. But the Manhattan DA decided not to criminally charge Trump with regard to tax crimes. Trump has been sued by the New York attorney general in civil court based on some of that evidence.

    Investigations in Georgia with regard to election meddling and by the Justice Department with regard to January 6 and his treatment of classified data also seem more consequential.

    But these cases are being pursued by different entities at different paces in different governments – New York City; Fulton County, Georgia; and the federal government.

    “I do think that the charges are much more serious against Trump related to the election,” Hasen said in his email. “But falsifying business records can also be a crime. (I’m more skeptical about combining that in a state court with a federal campaign finance violation.)”

    One federal law enforcement source told CNN’s John Miller over the weekend that Trump’s Secret Service detail is actively engaged with authorities in New York City about how this arrest process would work if Trump is ultimately indicted.

    It’s usually a routine process of fingerprinting, a mug shot and an arraignment. It would not likely be a public event and clearly his protective detail would move through the building with Trump.

    New York does not release most mug shots after a 2019 law intended to cut down on online extortion.

    As Trump is among the most divisive and now well-known Americans in history, it’s hard to believe there’s a big, impartial jury pool out there.

    The Sixth Amendment guarantees “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

    Finding such a jury “won’t be easy given the intense passions on both sides that he engenders,” Hasen said.

    A Quinnipiac University poll conducted in March asked for registered voters’ opinion of Trump. Just 2% said they hadn’t heard enough about him to say.

    The New York State Unified Court System’s trial juror’s handbook explains the “voir dire” process by which jurors are selected. Those accepted by both the prosecution and defense as being free of “bias or personal knowledge that could hinder his or her ability to judge a case impartially” must take an oath to act fairly and impartially.

    We’re getting way ahead of ourselves. He hasn’t been indicted, much less tried or convicted. Any indictment, even for a Class E felony in New York, would be for the kind of nonviolent offense that would not lead to jail time for any defendant.

    “I don’t expect Trump to be put in jail if he is indicted for any of these charges,” Hasen said. “Jail time would only come if he were convicted and sentenced to jail time.”

    The idea that Trump would ever see the inside of a jail cell still seems completely far-fetched. Hasen said the Secret Service would have to arrange for his protection in jail. The logistics of that are mind-boggling. Would agents be placed into cells on either side of him? Would they dress as inmates or guards?

    Top officials accused of wrongdoing have historically found a way out of jail. Former President Richard Nixon got a preemptive pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford. Nixon’s previous vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned after he was caught up in a corruption scandal. Agnew made a plea deal and avoided jail time. Aaron Burr, also a former vice president, narrowly escaped a treason conviction. But then he left the country.

    That remains to be seen. Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent and current global head of security for Teneo, said on CNN on Monday that agents are taking a back seat – to the New York Police Department and New York State court officers who are in charge of maintaining order and safety, and to the FBI, which looks for potential acts of violence by extremists.

    The Secret Service, far from coordinating the event as they might normally, are “in a protective mode,” Wackrow said.

    “They are viewing this as really an administrative movement where they have to protect Donald Trump from point A to point B, let him do his business before the court, and leave. They are not playing that active role that we typically see them in.”

    The New York Times published a report based on anonymous sources close to Trump on Tuesday that suggested he is, either out of bravado or genuine delight, relishing the idea of having to endure a “perp walk” in New York City. The “perp walk,” by the way, is the public march of a perpetrator into a police office for processing.

    “He has repeatedly tried to show that he is not experiencing shame or hiding in any way, and I think you’re going to see that,” the Times reporter and CNN political analyst Maggie Haberman said on the network on Tuesday night.

    “I do think there’s a part of him that does view this as a political asset,” said Marc Short, the former chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence, during an appearance on CNN on Wednesday. “Because he can use it to paint the other, more serious legal jeopardy he faces either in Georgia or the Department of Justice, as they’re politically motivated.”

    But Short argued voters will tire of the baggage Trump is carrying, particularly if he faces additional potential indictments in the federal and Georgia investigations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Bucks County, Pennsylvania, is suing social media companies | CNN Business

    Why Bucks County, Pennsylvania, is suing social media companies | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    One mother in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, said her 18-year-old daughter is so obsessed with TikTok, she’ll spend hours making elaborate videos for the Likes, and will post retouched photos of herself online to look skinnier.

    Another mother in the same county told CNN her 16-year-old daughter’s ex-boyfriend shared partially nude images of the teen with another Instagram user abroad via direct messages. After a failed attempt at blackmailing the family, the user posted the pictures on Instagram, according to the mother, with some partial blurring of her daughter’s body to bypass Instagram’s algorithms that ban nudity.

    “I worked so hard to get the photos taken down and had people I knew from all over the world reporting it to Instagram,” the mother said.

    The two mothers, who spoke with CNN on condition of anonymity, highlight the struggles parents face with the unique risks posed by social media, including the potential for online platforms to lead teens down harmful rabbit holes, compound mental health issues and enable new forms of digital harassment and bullying. But on Friday, their hometown of Bucks County became what’s believed to be the first county in the United States to file a lawsuit against social media companies, alleging TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and Facebook have worsened anxiety and depression in young people, and that the platforms are designed to “exploit for profit” their vulnerabilities.

    “Like virtually everywhere in the United States now … Bucks County’s youth suffer from a high degree of distraction, depression, suicidality, and other mental disorders, caused or worsened by the overconsumption of social media on a daily basis, which substantially interferes with the rights of health and safety common to the general public,” the lawsuit alleged.

    The lawsuit, which was filed in California federal court, said “the need is great” to continue to fund mental health outpatient programs, mobile crisis units, family-based mental health services, and in-school mental health programming and training to address the mental health of young people. Bucks County is seeking unspecified monetary damages to help fund these initiatives.

    Bucks County is joining a small but growing number of of school districts and families who have filed lawsuits against social media companies for their alleged impact on teen mental health. The unusual legal strategy comes amid broader concerns about a mental health crisis among teens and hints at the urgency parents and educators feel to force changes in how online platforms operate at a time when legislative remedies have been slow in coming.

    Seattle’s public school system, which is the largest in the state of Washington with nearly 50,000 students, and San Mateo County in California have each filed lawsuits against several Big Tech companies, claiming the platforms are harming their students’ mental health. Some families have also filed wrongful death lawsuits against tech platforms, alleging their children’s social media addiction contributed to their suicides.

    “I want to hold these companies accountable,” Bucks County district attorney Matthew Weintraub told CNN. “It is no different than opioid manufacturers and distributors causing havoc among young people in our communities.”

    He believes he has an actionable cause to file a lawsuit “because the companies have misrepresented the value of their products.”

    “They said their platforms are not addictive, and they are; they said they are helpful and not harmful, but they are harmful,” he said. “My hope is that there will be strength in numbers and other people from around the country will join me so there will be a tipping point. I just can’t sit around and let it happen.”

    In response to the lawsuit, Antigone Davis, the global head of safety for Instagram and Facebook-parent Meta, said the company continues to pour resources into ensuring its young users are safe online. She added that the platforms have more than 30 tools to support teens and families, including supervision tools that let parents limit the amount of time their teens spend on Instagram, and age-verification technology that helps teens have age-appropriate experiences.

    “We’ll continue to work closely with experts, policymakers and parents on these important issues,” she said.

    Google spokesperson José Castañeda said it has also “invested heavily in creating safe experiences for children across our platforms and have introduced strong protections and dedicated features to prioritize their well being.” He pointed to products such as Family Link, which provides parents with the ability to set reminders, limit screen time and block specific types of content on supervised devices.

    A Snap spokesperson said it is “constantly evaluating how we continue to make our platform safer, including through new education, features and protections.”

    TikTok did not respond to a request for comment.

    The latest lawsuit comes nearly a year and a half after executives from several social media platforms faced tough questions from lawmakers during a series of congressional hearings over how their platforms may direct younger users — particularly teenage girls — to harmful content, damaging their mental health and body image. Since then, some lawmakers have called for legislation to protect kids online, but nothing has passed at the federal level.

    Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, believes it will be “difficult” for counties and school districts to win lawsuits against social media companies.

    “There will be the issues of showing that the social media content was the cause of the harm that befell the children,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t file these lawsuits.”

    Tobias added that increased support for government regulation that would impose more restrictions on companies could impact the outcome of these lawsuits in their favor.

    “For now, there will be different judges or juries with diverse views of this around the country,” he said. “They aren’t going to win all of the cases but they might win some of them, and that might help.”

    Whatever the outcome, the mother of the 16-year-old whose intimate photos were shared on Instagram is applauding the district attorney’s office for sending a strong message to social media companies.

    “Before the incident with my daughter, I would not have given a lawsuit filed by the county much thought,” she said. “But now that I know how hard it was to take content down and there’s only so much people can do; corporations need to do so much more to protect its users.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Department convinces federal judge Trump used his attorney in furtherance of a crime in classified docs probe | CNN Politics

    Justice Department convinces federal judge Trump used his attorney in furtherance of a crime in classified docs probe | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department has convinced a federal judge that former President Donald Trump used one of his defense attorneys in furtherance of a crime or fraud related to the existence of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    The finding – part of a major ruling Friday from Judge Beryl Howell of the DC District Court – makes clear for the first time that the Justice Department is arguing it has evidence that Trump may have committed a crime. And Howell ruled that prosecutors met the burden to overcome Trump’s right to shield discussions with his lawyers normally protected under attorney-client privilege.

    The evidence would likely be significant in the obstruction probe being pursued by special counsel Jack Smith’s team. It also underscores how critical the testimony of Trump’s defense lawyers would be in the federal grand jury investigation.

    ABC News first reported the development.

    The revelation comes as the former president continues to face a number of notable investigations and lawsuits, including a separate yearslong investigation into his alleged role in a scheme to pay hush money to an adult film star. There are signs that case is nearing an end and Trump and his advisers are awaiting a potential indictment.

    Trump has not been charged in the documents case, but is still under investigation by the grand jury in Washington. Prosecutors had relied on surveillance videos in arguing their case to Howell, one source said.

    A spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    The Justice Department is still seeking testimony from Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran, after he cited attorney-client privilege, as well as from another Trump lawyer, Jennifer Little, CNN has learned.

    CNN has reached out to Corcoran and Little for comment.

    Corcoran’s critical testimony in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation is now in the hands of the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

    CNN was first to report the action at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday referred to in anonymized court records and confirmed by CNN, following Trump’s loss on Friday before Howell.

    A three-judge panel – Judges Nina Pillard, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan – at the appeals court now is positioned to decide whether to put on hold a lower-court ruling that Corcoran must provide additional testimony to the grand jury about his conversations with Trump. Trump’s team has argued those conversations are covered by attorney-client privilege and should be shielded in the investigation.

    Howell, in her sealed ruling, determined prosecutors were able to show Corcoran’s legal services were used in furtherance of a crime, so attorney-client privilege didn’t apply, sources told CNN.

    What happens next is crucial because the Justice Department has successfully argued that Corcoran’s conversations with Trump would reveal Trump was trying to advance a crime – but the grand jury hasn’t yet heard from Corcoran directly about those conversations.

    If the appeals court sides with the Justice Department, Corcoran could be forced to testify again to a federal grand jury within days, ushering the investigation into the handling of classified documents and obstruction of justice toward a conclusion.

    The extremely tight deadlines – a turnaround essentially unheard of in this court – indicates the seriousness of the matter.

    The DC Circuit judges also mentioned documents involved in the dispute, asking that Trump’s side “specify” them. The court order doesn’t explain any further what’s happened with documents. But Corcoran also was ordered to hand over a number of documents, including handwritten notes and notes transcribed of a verbal conversation.

    Trump sent a statement to his supporters Tuesday night criticizing ABC and calling the details “illegally leaked false allegations.”

    When Corcoran first testified to the grand jury in January, he was asked about what happened in the lead up to the August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

    Corcoran had drafted a statement in June 2022 that attested Trump’s team had done a “diligent search” of boxes moved from the White House to Florida and that all classified documents had been returned. Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed the letter, added the caveat, “to the best of my knowledge.”

    After that, the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago and found hundreds of government records, including classified material, raising questions about the lawyer’s attestation.

    This headline and story have been updated with additional reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Philadelphia reaches $9.25 million settlement over police misconduct during the 2020 George Floyd protests | CNN

    Philadelphia reaches $9.25 million settlement over police misconduct during the 2020 George Floyd protests | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The City of Philadelphia has announced a $9.25 million settlement with hundreds of people who sued the city alleging “excessive and unreasonable force” by police during the civil unrest over the killing of George Floyd in 2020.

    The lawsuit filed on behalf of 343 plaintiffs alleged that the response by police left protesters with “physical injuries that, in some cases, required medical treatment and hospitalization, as well as emotional anguish” during a protest over police brutality on May 31, 2020 – just a few days after Floyd was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis.

    Philadelphia police officers used “tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets” against protesters “and in some cases arrested participants and bystanders” according to the lawsuit, which was filed by the Legal Defense Fund, the Abolitionist Law Center, and Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin LLP.

    The city also agreed to disengage from the 1033 program, “a federal program which arms state and local law enforcement with military weapons and equipment,” according to a statement by the Legal Defense Fund about the settlement.

    Under the agreement, the city will also give a grant of between $500,000 and $600,000 to Bread & Rose Community Fund to provide free mental health counseling and community-led programing for “all residents within a radius of 52nd Street corridor in West Philadelphia, not just plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” according to the city’s press release.

    The settlement did not include an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the defendants, and the court filings with the settlement terms indicate the city continues to deny any wrongdoing.

    How police respond to protests came under intense scrutiny during the massive protests that erupted nationwide after Floyd’s death as police in major cities tried to quell unrest with tear gas and rubber bullets.

    In the statement, the Legal Defense Fund said this is an “unprecedented settlement with the City of Philadelphia for the Philadelphia Police Department’s excessive, militaristic use of force” during the 2020 protests.

    Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said “the Philadelphia Police Department is a learning organization, and we remain dedicated to moving forward in meaningful and productive ways,” according to a news release from the city.

    “We will continue to work non-stop towards improving what we as police do to protect the first amendment rights of protestors, keep our communities and officers safe, and to ultimately prove that we are committed to a higher standard,” she continued.

    The settlement “features a recognition of the damage the PPD has done throughout West Philadelphia and it communicates the importance of centering the community in a path towards healing,” said Cara McClellan, director and practice associate professor of the Advocacy for Racial and Civil Justice Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania.

    “Today’s settlement sets an important precedent for accountability in future cases,” she added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News producer files explosive lawsuits against the network, alleging she was coerced into providing misleading Dominion testimony | CNN Business

    Fox News producer files explosive lawsuits against the network, alleging she was coerced into providing misleading Dominion testimony | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    A Fox News producer on Monday filed a pair of explosive lawsuits against the right-wing talk channel, alleging that the network’s lawyers coerced her into providing misleading testimony in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation case against the company.

    The lawsuits filed by Abby Grossberg, who worked as a senior booking producer for Maria Bartiromo and most recently head of booking for Tucker Carlson, accused Fox’s legal team of having engaged in wrongful conduct as it prepared her for a pre-trial deposition in the election technology company’s case.

    The lawsuits from Grossberg, who has since been placed on administrative leave by Fox, were filed in Delaware Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

    “Fox News Attorneys acted as agents and at the behest of Fox News to misleadingly coach, manipulate, and coerce Ms. Grossberg to deliver shaded and/or incomplete answers during her sworn deposition testimony, which answers were clearly to her reputational detriment but greatly benefitted Fox News,” the lawsuit filed in Delaware stated.

    The Delaware lawsuit alleged that the “concerted efforts and actions” from Fox’s legal team ultimately caused Grossberg to testify in a way that portrayed the facts “in a false light” in order to “shift culpability” away from senior Fox News executives and “away from Fox Corporation.”

    That matter is important because Fox Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, has asked to be dropped as a party in Dominion’s lawsuit by arguing that it does not play a big role in coverage decisions at the network.

    Dominion has alleged in its lawsuit against Fox Corporation and Fox News that during the 2020 election the right-wing network “recklessly disregarded the truth” and pushed various pro-Trump conspiracy theories about the election technology company because “the lies were good for Fox’s business.” Fox News has strongly disputed Dominion’s allegations.

    A Fox News spokesperson responded to Grossberg’s lawsuits in a statement that said, “Fox News Media engaged an independent outside counsel to immediately investigate the concerns raised by Ms. Grossberg, which were made following a critical performance review. We will vigorously defend these claims.”

    Fox News also on Monday filed suit against Grossberg, seeking a restraining order to prevent her from divulging privileged information that it said would cause the network to “suffer immediate irreparable harm.” A judge has not yet ruled on Fox’s request.

    In a phone interview Monday night, Grossberg and her attorney, Gerry Filippatos, disputed Fox News’ assertion the complaints only came after a critical performance review.

    “It’s another example of Fox News not only shying away from the truth, but attempting to bury the truth,” Filippatos told CNN.

    “Fox just does not care,” Grossberg added. “It summarizes everything perfectly. They don’t care about their employees … and they don’t care about their viewers.”

    In her lawsuits, Grossberg also made a number of eye-popping allegations about the workplace environment at Fox News, accusing the network of rampant sexism.

    Grossberg, who indicated she was passed over for a top job on Bartiromo’s show because the network preferred it be filled by a male, said Fox News executives referred to the “Sunday Mornings Futures” host as a “crazy b**ch” and “menopausal.”

    When she began work on Carlson’s show, Grossberg said the environment was horrific. On her first day, she said she learned the show’s workspace was decorated with large photos of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “in a plunging bathing suit revealing her cleavage.”

    “Grossberg was mortified by what she was witnessing and began to experience a sinking feeling in her stomach as it became apparent how pervasive the misogyny and drive to embarrass and objectify women was among the male staff at [‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’],” the lawsuit filed in New York said.

    The lawsuit continued to describe a culture at Carlson’s program in which women were subjected to crude terms and in which jokes about Jewish people were made out in the open. Grossberg named Carlson and members of his staff in the lawsuit filed in New York.

    Filippatos said that Grossberg has “ample documentary evidence in all forms to support a broad swath” of the allegations made in the lawsuits.

    Grossberg told CNN that she filed her lawsuit in hopes that it will spur change at the network and because she believed it “was the only step” she had to regain her pride and save her career. Grossberg said she wanted to “expose the lies and deceit” that she “witnessed for years” on two of Fox News’ biggest shows.

    “I’ve covered many stories while I have been there,” Grossberg told CNN. “Dominion is just a small portion. And I’ve witnessed it from the very beginning until my last day of work last week.”

    “It’s constant,” she added. “Ratings are very important to the shows, to the network, and to the hosts. It’s a business and that’s what drives coverage.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump and E. Jean Carroll agree to combine rape defamation trials | CNN Politics

    Trump and E. Jean Carroll agree to combine rape defamation trials | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll have agreed to combine two upcoming trials next month regarding Carroll’s claim that Trump raped her in the mid-1990s.

    In a joint court filing Friday, lawyers said they wanted to hold the trial April 25 in New York in two suits Carroll has filed – one for allegedly defamatory comments Trump made as president in 2019, and a second for battery and other statements Trump made after he left office.

    Trump denies all claims brought against him by Carroll.

    Carroll, a former magazine writer, alleged Trump raped her in a New York department store dressing room and defamed her when he denied the rape, said “she’s not my type” and alleged she made the claim to boost sales of her book.

    “[E]vidence relating to this central factual question ‘is relevant to both cases,’ and will be presented at both trials,” the lawyers wrote Friday. “Because of the overlapping nature of these proceedings, a single trial will reduce costs across the board, avoid the risk of inconsistent factual rulings or jury confusion, and economize matters for the Court (as well as for both parties’ witnesses).”

    A federal judge must still approve the proposal to combine the trials.

    The proposed combined trial, the lawyers added, should continue regardless of the ongoing legal attempt by the former president to have the first defamation lawsuit thrown out.

    Trump and the Justice Department said he was a federal employee and his statements denying Carroll’s allegations were made in response to reporters’ questions while he was at the White House. They argue that the Justice Department should be substituted as the defendant, which, because the government cannot be sued for defamation, would end the lawsuit.

    A Washington, DC, appeals court is reviewing if Trump was acting within the scope of his employment when he made the allegedly defamatory statements.

    Carroll brought her second lawsuit against Trump last November, after New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, which allows adults alleging sexual assault to bring civil claims years after the attack.

    At the same time, Carroll alleged that Trump continued his defamatory statements on his social media platform, Truth Social.

    “It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years. And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type!” the post said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ seeks fast-track Supreme Court review of ruling against gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders | CNN Politics

    DOJ seeks fast-track Supreme Court review of ruling against gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to fast-track its consideration of a recent appeals court ruling that deemed unconstitutional a federal law barring gun possession by those under domestic violence restraining orders.

    “The presence of a gun in a house with a domestic abuser increases the risk of homicide sixfold,” US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in her petition Friday, urging the high court to decide before its summer recess whether to take up the case.

    The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in February that the 1996 law was unconstitutional, and while the ruling applies only to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, advocates worry it will have wide implications, including that it will discourage victims from coming forward.

    The circuit court cited the major Second Amendment ruling handed down by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority last year that laid out a new test for lower courts to use to analyze a gun regulation’s constitutionality.

    Prelogar told the Supreme Court on Friday that the 5th Circuit’s reasoning was wrong and the high court should take up the case so “that it can correct the Fifth Circuit’s misinterpretation of Bruen,” referring to last summer’s Supreme Court opinion.

    The high court’s majority opinion in June said that part of the test was whether a gun restriction had a parallel to the regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

    The 5th Circuit said, with its opinion regarding the domestic violence gun restriction earlier this year, that the prohibition on alleged abusers lacked that kind of historical parallel and therefore was unconstitutional.

    If the 5th Circuit’s “approach were applied across the board,” Prelogar wrote, “few modern statutes would survive judicial review; most modern gun regulations, after all, differ from their historical forbears in at least some ways.”

    At the time of the circuit court ruling, Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that Congress had determined the gun ban statute “nearly 30 years ago” and signaled the department’s plan to appeal the ruling.

    “Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision,” he said.

    Guns are used to commit nearly two-thirds of intimate partner homicides, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said. A 2021 study found that the majority of mass shootings are also linked to domestic violence.

    Though some of the states covered by the appeals court have similar state law restrictions, the new ruling undermines a crucial tool that survivors have to protect themselves from their abusers. If the 5th Circuit’s logic were adopted nationwide by the US Supreme Court, the consequences would be devastating, advocates say.

    “People are going to know that their abuser still has their gun. They’re going to continue to live in absolute, abject fear,” said Heather Bellino, the CEO of the Texas Advocacy Project, which works with victims of domestic violence. “They are going to be afraid to get a protective order, because now that gun’s not going away.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EXCLUSIVE: Dozens of Mar-a-Lago staff, from servers to aides, are subpoenaed in classified documents probe | CNN Politics

    EXCLUSIVE: Dozens of Mar-a-Lago staff, from servers to aides, are subpoenaed in classified documents probe | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    At least two dozen people – from Mar-a-Lago resort staff to members of Donald Trump’s inner circle at the Florida estate – have been subpoenaed to testify to a federal grand jury that’s investigating the former president’s handling of classified documents, multiple sources familiar with the investigation told CNN.

    On Thursday, Trump’s communications aide Margo Martin, who worked in the White House and then moved with Trump to Florida, appeared before the grand jury in Washington, DC. One of special counsel Jack Smith’s senior-most prosecutors was involved in the interview.

    Martin, who is among a small group of former White House advisers who have remained employed by Trump after he left office, declined to answer any questions when approached by a CNN reporter.

    Smith has sought testimony from a range of people close to Trump – from his own attorneys who represent him in the matter to staffers who work on the grounds of Mar-a-Lago, including a housekeeper and restaurant servers, sources said.

    The staffers are of interest to investigators because of what they may have seen or heard while on their daily duties around the estate, including whether they saw boxes or documents in Trump’s office suite or elsewhere.

    “They’re casting an extremely wide net – anyone and everyone who might have seen something,” said one source familiar with the Justice Department’s efforts.

    For instance, federal investigators have talked to a Mar-a-Lago staff member seen on security camera footage moving boxes from a storage room with Trump aide Walt Nauta, who has already spoken with investigators.

    Many of the Mar-a-Lago staffers are being represented by counsel paid for by Trump entities, according to sources and federal elections records.

    The Justice Department has been investigating potential mishandling of national security records and possible obstruction for about a year. FBI agents recovered more than 100 classified documents during a search of Mar-a-Lago last summer. Since then, Trump’s legal team has turned over additional classified material.

    An aerial view of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., on Aug. 31, 2022.

    Classified docs found at Mar-a-Lago months after searches

    The federal probe previously subpoenaed top Trump advisers, such as former White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino and former Trump adviser and Pentagon official Kash Patel.

    Meanwhile, Smith continues to pursue Trump defense lawyer Evan Corcoran. In an earlier appearance before the grand jury, Corcoran declined to answer questions about his conversations with Trump related to the classified documents, citing attorney-client privilege. Prosecutors are asking a judge to find that he must answer because the conversations may have been part of advancing a crime or fraud.

    A ruling is expected from the DC District Court on Corcoran as early as this week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 19th century chastity law endangers 21st century abortion medicine | CNN Politics

    19th century chastity law endangers 21st century abortion medicine | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    The Wild West of the post-Roe v. Wade legal landscape is focused on a lone federal judge in Amarillo, Texas, who could use a 19th century law to limit access to abortion medication for every American woman.

    The judge, 45-year-old Matthew Kacsmaryk, held a hearing Wednesday about whether he should impose a preliminary injunction that would require the US Food and Drug Administration to withdraw or suspend its approval of the drug, mifepristone, while a larger case progresses.

    Mifepristone is taken along with another drug, misoprostol, as part of the two-step medication abortion process. Misoprostol can be prescribed on its own, but it is considered less effective.

    Kacsmaryk, who sounded open to the idea of restricting access to mifepristone, will have to agree with some or all of these general points raised if he decides to issue an injunction:

    • That doctors who don’t perform abortions and live in Texas, where abortions are already banned, are harmed by abortions conducted elsewhere.
    • That an FDA approval conducted over the course of four years and finalized 23 years ago was so flawed that it should be rescinded.
    • That a single federal judge in Amarillo should do what no federal judge has ever done and unilaterally rescind an FDA approval.
    • That a drug, which studies suggest is on par with ibuprofen in terms of safety, is actually so harmful it should be reconsidered by the FDA.

    CNN’s Tierney Sneed wrote a longer list of takeaways from the hearing, where anti-abortion rights doctors and activist groups teed up their lawsuit in Kacsmaryk’s courtroom to further limit access to abortion care in the US.

    It’s important to note that no matter what Kacsmaryk does, it will be appealed up through the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially to the Supreme Court.

    But perhaps the most incredible question Kacsmaryk faces is whether an 1870s chastity law named for an anti-vice crusader, Anthony Comstock, should be resuscitated and applied to the medicine that now accounts for a majority of US abortions.

    Comstock operated the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice and was a special agent of the US Postal Service. He was known for seizing contraband like contraceptives and condoms in the name of rooting out obscenity, according to the New York Historical Society.

    Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis who has written about the Comstock Act for CNN Opinion, described Comstock as being “obsessed by what he saw as the decaying morals of a country preoccupied with sex.”

    Ziegler writes:

    The law he inspired barred not just the mailing of “obscene books” but also birth control and abortion drugs and devices. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Comstock Act was used to prohibit the mailing of many literary classics, from Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales” to works by James Joyce and Walt Whitman.

    Comstock himself proudly carried a gun and scoured the mail for cases involving information about abortion or contraception, even if a doctor provided it. By Comstock’s standard, the law was a great success: he claimed to have destroyed 15 tons of books, arrested more than 4,000 people and driven at least 15 people to suicide.

    While Congress has acted to relax elements of the Comstock Act, including to allow the mailing of contraceptives, it is still technically on the books with regard to the mailing of anything that could be used for an abortion.

    During the Covid-19 pandemic, the FDA dropped its requirement that a person obtain mifepristone in person. A prescription is still required.

    In December, the Department of Justice notified the US Postal Service that the Comstock Act did not apply as long as “the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully.”

    The FDA permanently removed the in-person requirement in January, hoping to guarantee more access to the medication after the Supreme Court ended Roe v. Wade last June.

    The group that brought the Texas lawsuit, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, wants to reapply the Comstock Act and restrict the mailing of abortion medication.

    The FDA’s already exhaustive and detailed drug approval process was especially scrutinized for mifepristone, which was more commonly known as part of the RU-486 regimen when it became available to American women at the turn of the century.

    It had been available in Europe for a dozen years before that. Here’s CNN’s report from September 2000.

    That the drug works safely as a means of abortion is not really up for dispute as a medical matter after all that time, according to CNN’s Jen Christensen, who explains more about the medication in this article about mifepristone.

    Another CNN data analysis suggests mifepristone is safer than penicillin and Viagra.

    Mifepristone has a death rate of 0.0005% – five deaths for every 1 million people in the US who used it. Penicillin’s death rate is four times greater. Viagra’s is 10 times greater, according to the analysis by CNN’s Annette Choi and Will Mullery.

    Kacsmaryk had a long history of challenging laws providing greater access to reproductive rights before he became a federal judge. While he has promised to be an impartial judge, every Democrat and one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, opposed his nomination in 2019.

    Now Kacsmaryk is the only federal judge at the courthouse in Amarillo, which almost guarantees he hears cases filed there.

    So it may be no coincidence that the group challenging use of mifepristone set up an outpost months before filing its lawsuit. The group is based in Tennessee, but one of the doctors named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit practices near Amarillo.

    However one feels about judicial shopping and whether that happened in this case, the word appears to be out that a conservative judge is alone in Amarillo and open for business.

    According to a CNN profile, Kacsmaryk has also put on hold Biden administration policies related to immigration and overseen cases related to vaccine requirements and gender identity. Last December, he halted a federal program in Texas that allowed minors to get birth control without their parents’ consent.

    That suit regarding the birth control program established in 1970 was brought by a Texas father “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality,” which he said forbids premarital sex.

    Kacsmaryk agreed, even citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church in his decision to say “contraception (just like abortion) violates traditional tenets of many faiths, including the Christian faith Plaintiff practices.”

    His sister described him to The Washington Post as an anti-abortion rights activist and detailed her own decision to give a child up for adoption rather than seek an abortion.

    “He’s very passionate about the fact that you can’t preach pro-life and do nothing,” Jennifer Griffith told the Post. “We both hold the stance of you have to do something. You can’t not.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US sues Rite Aid for missing opioid red flags | CNN Business

    US sues Rite Aid for missing opioid red flags | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department on Monday filed a lawsuit against Rite Aid for allegedly violating the Controlled Substances Act, alleging that the company “knowingly filled unlawful prescriptions for controlled substances.”

    In a statement, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Department of Justice is “using every tool at our disposal” to hold Rite Aid accountable for contributing to the opioid epidemic.

    Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said “Rite Aid’s pharmacists repeatedly filled prescriptions for controlled substances with obvious red flags, and Rite Aid intentionally deleted internal notes about suspicious prescribers. These practices opened the floodgates for millions of opioid pills and other controlled substances to flow illegally out of Rite Aid’s stores.”

    In the complaint, The Justice department alleges that from May 2014 to June 2019, Rite Aid filled thousands of unlawful combinations of prescriptions known as “the trinity” which included prescriptions for “excessive quantities of opioids, such as oxycodone and fentanyl.”

    Rite Aid pharmacists were accused of ignoring obvious signs of misuse and intentionally deleting some pharmacists’ internal warnings about suspicious prescribers, such as “cash only pill mill???”

    “These practices opened the floodgates for millions of opioid pills and other controlled substances to flow illegally out of Rite Aid’s stores,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said.

    The Justice Department said the prescriptions, who were issued illegally, “lacked a legitimate medical purpose, were not for a medically accepted indication, or were not issued in the usual course of professional practice.”

    Rite Aid is one of the country’s largest pharmacy chains, with more than 2,330 stores in 17 US states. It did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The Justice Department accused Rite Aid of violating the federal False Claims Act by submitting false prescription claims to government health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

    It joined a whistleblower lawsuit filed in 2019 by two pharmacists and a pharmacy technician from Rite Aid stores in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and West Virginia.

    The Justice Department occasionally joins whistleblower cases it considers stronger.

    It has also sued Walmart and drug distributor AmerisourceBergen Corp over their alleged roles in the nation’s opioid crisis.

    More than 500,000 people died from drug overdoses in the United States from 1999 to 2020, including more than 90,000 in 2020 alone, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Reuters contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Family of environmental activist killed while protesting ‘Cop City’ files lawsuit against Atlanta in search for answers | CNN

    Family of environmental activist killed while protesting ‘Cop City’ files lawsuit against Atlanta in search for answers | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The family of an environmental activist killed while protesting a planned law enforcement training facility in Atlanta earlier this year has filed a lawsuit against the city, seeking the release of records to aid in their search for answers about what led to the fatal shooting.

    “We’re here because Manuel Paez Terán’s family wants answers,” Jeff Filipovits, an attorney for the family, told reporters in a news conference Monday. “And we are not getting any answers.”

    The Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which is investigating the shooting, has said officers shot Terán after the activist shot and seriously wounded a state trooper on January 18, 2023, as law enforcement worked to clear protesters from the forested site of the proposed facility, dubbed “Cop City” by opponents who fear it will further militarize police and harm the environment.

    Activists have disputed the GBI’s claim, and the family’s attorneys say an autopsy commissioned by the family and released Monday indicates the activist was seated and had their hands raised when they sustained at least some of the wounds.

    But that autopsy – which notes Terán was shot about a dozen times by ammunition used in handguns and shotguns and could neither prove nor disprove the allegation the activist was armed – “is not enough for us to work backward from it to figure out what happened,” Filipovits said Monday.

    The lawsuit aims to have a Georgia court order the city of Atlanta to turn over police department records the family’s attorneys previously requested, including any images and video or audio recordings related to authorities’ operation on January 18. But those requests have been stymied by what the attorneys and their lawsuit allege is a “coordinated effort” by the state to “prevent public records from being released to Manuel’s family and the public at large.”

    “My heart is destroyed,” Belkis Terán, the mother of the activist, said at Monday’s news conference, adding she is trying to continue her child’s legacy but still lacks the answers she needs. “I want answers for my child’s homicide. I’m asking for answers to my child’s homicide.”

    A spokesperson for the city of Atlanta declined to comment Monday, citing the pending litigation. Reached for comment Monday, the GBI referred CNN to earlier statements. In a news release last week, the agency said its actions were aimed at preventing the “inappropriate release of evidence” to “ensure the facts of the incident are not tainted.” The GBI “continues to work diligently to protect the integrity of the investigation and will turn our findings over to an appointed prosecutor for review and action.” The investigation so far, it added, “still supports our initial assessment.”

    The city initially responded to a January request for information from attorneys by saying the Atlanta Police Department had identified relevant records that would be released on a “rolling basis,” according to Wingo Smith, another attorney representing the family, and the lawsuit. On February 8, the family’s attorneys had received 14 videos from body-worn cameras that were also released to reporters, the lawsuit says.

    On February 13, however, the director of the GBI’s Legal Division sent a letter to the Atlanta police chief asking the department to “withhold those records” related to the GBI’s investigation, the lawsuit says. According to the letter, provided as an exhibit in the family’s lawsuit, the GBI explained the records were evidence in an ongoing investigation, and thus exempt from public disclosure.

    The next day, the state Department of Law sent a letter to the city, according to the lawsuit, and on February 15, Atlanta police sent a revised response to the attorneys, saying it would “not be releasing further footage at this time.”

    The planned police facility – slated to include among other things, a shooting range, a burn building and a mock city – has received fierce pushback from several groups. Among them are residents who feel there was little public input, conservationists who worry it will carve out a chunk of much-needed forest land and activists who say it will militarize police forces and contribute to further instances of police brutality. Those backing the facility say it’s needed to help boost police morale and recruitment efforts.

    Tensions between law enforcement and protesters have continued to rise since Terán’s death, reaching a fever pitch earlier this month when nearly two dozen demonstrators were arrested and charged with domestic terrorism in connection to violent clashes at the site. Authorities said officers and construction equipment were assailed with Molotov cocktails, commercial-grade fireworks, bricks and large rocks.

    Eli Bennett, a defense attorney for some of those charged, claimed his clients had been wrongfully arrested “more than a mile” from those clashes and about “an hour or two” after footage showed demonstrators lobbing fireworks and Molotov cocktails at police.

    “They all deny it,” he added, speaking about his clients. “Police moved in with an overwhelming display of force,” Bennett told CNN about the arrests.

    A makeshift memorial to Terán is seen on February 6, 2023.

    The attorneys on Monday also publicly released the autopsy commissioned by the family and performed by a forensic pathologist, who detailed the numerous gunshot wounds Terán suffered to their feet, legs, abdomen, arms, hands and head.

    Most of the wounds indicate they were caused by handguns, the autopsy notes, though others appear consistent with shotgun ammunition. There were no entrance wounds on Terán’s back, the pathologist wrote, indicating the activist “was facing the multiple individuals who were firing their weapons at him during the entire interval in which the shooting occurred.”

    The wounds, the pathologist writes, “indicate that the decedent was most probably in a seated position, cross-legged, with the left leg partially over the right leg.”

    “At some point during the course of being shot, the decedent was able to raise (their) hands and arms up in front of (their) body, with (their) palms facing towards (their) upper body,” it says.

    “It is impossible to determine if the decedent had been holding a firearm, or not holding a firearm, either before (they were) shot or while (they were) being shot the multiple times.”

    The official autopsy, performed by the DeKalb County Medical Examiner’s Office, has not been released.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Manhattan DA says ‘focus is on the evidence and the law’ in probe of Trump hush money scheme | CNN Politics

    Manhattan DA says ‘focus is on the evidence and the law’ in probe of Trump hush money scheme | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New York City prosecutors probing former President Donald Trump’s alleged role in a hush money scheme and cover-up are focused “on the evidence and the law,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said this weekend.

    Speaking on MSNBC’s “PoliticsNation,” Bragg did not go into detail about what he called the “active investigation” but instead praised the “professionalism” of his prosecuting team.

    “We follow the facts. It doesn’t matter what party you are, it doesn’t matter your background. What did you do? And what does the law say?” Bragg said Saturday, adding that he’s “constrained from saying anything more than that because I don’t want to prejudice any investigation.”

    The investigation relates to a $130,000 payment made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels in late October 2016, days before the presidential election, to silence her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

    Manhattan prosecutors have invited the former president to appear before the grand jury investigating his alleged role in the payment and the cover-up, a person familiar with the matter previously said, indicating a decision on charging Trump may come soon.

    Trump was to meet with his legal team at Mar-a-Lago this weekend to consider his options and possibly decide whether to appear before the grand jury, a person familiar with the matter told CNN.

    Hush money payments aren’t illegal. Prosecutors are weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying the business records of the Trump Organization for how they reflected the reimbursement of the payment to Michael Cohen, Trump’s then-fixer who said he advanced the money to Daniels. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in New York.

    Prosecutors are also weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying business records in the first degree for allegedly falsifying a record with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal another crime, which in this case could be a violation of campaign finance laws. That is a Class E felony, with a sentence minimum of one year and as much as four years.

    The Trump Organization noted the reimbursements as a legal expense in its internal books. Trump has denied knowledge of the payment.

    When asked what factors into a prosecutor’s decision to move forward in any case, Bragg said, “We’re looking at the facts and the law and the facts as they develop. We review documents, we talk to witnesses and so, yes, we live in this world, we may hear what this pundit says and we may hear all the commentary, but our focus is on the evidence and the law.”

    Trump would be the first former president ever indicted and the first major presidential candidate under indictment. He has said he “wouldn’t even think about leaving” the race if charged.

    Trump’s spokesperson last week said in a statement to CNN, “The Manhattan District Attorney’s threat to indict President Trump is simply insane. For the past five years, the DA’s office has been on a Witch Hunt, investigating every aspect of President Trump’s life, and they’ve come up empty at every turn – and now this.”

    In a lengthy post on his Truth Social account Thursday, Trump said in part, “I did absolutely nothing wrong, I never had an affair with Stormy Daniels.”

    Bragg, however, said he doesn’t follow what is posted on social media and instead is “focusing on the work.”

    He said the $1.6 million fine the Trump Organization was ordered to pay in January for running a decade-long tax fraud scheme was an example of the professionalism of his office. Trump and his family were not charged in the case.

    “I thought that was consequential,” Bragg said. “The first time we’ve had that kind of a criminal conviction involving the Trump Organization. And it speaks to the rigor and the professionalism of the career prosecutors in my office.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Louisiana jury awards $6.1 million to parents of LSU student who died in a hazing incident, attorney says | CNN

    Louisiana jury awards $6.1 million to parents of LSU student who died in a hazing incident, attorney says | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The parents of Maxwell “Max” Gruver — the Louisiana State University student who died in a 2017 hazing incident — prevailed in their wrongful death lawsuit and were awarded $6.1 million by a jury in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this week, the family’s attorney, Jonathan Fazzola, told CNN.

    Max died on September 14, 2017, after an alcohol-related hazing ritual while pledging Phi Delta Theta, CNN has previously reported. He was 18.

    His death led Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards to sign into law a set of anti-hazing measures in 2018 that made hazing a felony.

    The civil lawsuit filed in a Louisiana court named several parties including the university, the national and local Phi Delta Theta organizations and others, Fazzola said.

    The jury awarded Steve Gruver and his wife, Rae Ann, $6.1 million Wednesday for the loss they suffered and for their son’s suffering in his final moments, Fazzola told CNN.

    The total monetary funds the family will receive are unclear since there were settlements that were reached previously with several parties named in the lawsuit, the attorney added.

    The jury’s award will allow the family to continue to honor Max by educating young people on the dangers of hazing through the Max Gruver Foundation, which was founded by the family “to make sure hazing-related deaths do not continue,” the family’s lawyer told CNN.

    In December, the Gruver family and LSU came to an agreement on an $875,000 settlement, which factors out of the $6.1 million award, according to Fazzola.

    CNN has reached out to LSU, the East Baton Rouge District Attorney and representatives for the fraternity for comment but did not immediately hear back.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pickleball is America’s fastest-growing sport. These people hate it | CNN Business

    Pickleball is America’s fastest-growing sport. These people hate it | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop.

    The sound and disruption from pickleball, America’s fastest-growing sport, is driving some neighbors, tennis players, parents of young children, and others crazy.

    Homeowners groups and local residents in dozens of towns and cities have rallied to limit pickleball play and block the development of new courts. They are circulating petitions, filing lawsuits, and speaking out at council and town hall meetings to slow the audible spread of pickleball frenzy across the country.

    The number of people playing pickleball grew by 159% over three years to 8.9 million in 2022, according to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, a trade group.

    The rapid spread has created dilemmas for public parks and recreation departments, which must balance competing interests with often limited space and funds. Retirement communities and country clubs also face challenges building space for people who enjoy the game, a scaled-down version of tennis with a smaller court, without antagonizing others.

    Pickleball can be noisier than tennis because the game can fit more players onto the same space as a tennis court. Hits during a pickleball rally are also more frequent than tennis. And it’s a more social sport, so the games tend to be louder with players bantering during and after points.

    Rob Mastroianni, a resident of Falmouth, Massachusetts, sold his house and moved after the town’s recreation department built pickleball courts 350 feet away from his home in a residential area.

    “It’s a percussive pop. It pierces the air and carries,” he said.

    He and a group of neighbors eventually filed a lawsuit last year against the town’s zoning board of appeals, claiming that the pickleball courts violated town bylaws prohibiting “daily injurious and obnoxious noise levels.” Their suit said the noise from the game was “substantially impacting [their] quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their respective homes.” (They won a temporary injunction and the courts are currently closed.)

    “It’s a tough sell to be against pickleball,” Mastroianni said. “But at the end of the day it was creating mental and physical health problems with neighbors butting heads.”

    “The constant popping 12 hours a day 7 days a week is borderline torture,” one resident who lives next to a park in Vienna, Virginia, wrote to the town parks department. “We cannot use our outdoor space anymore due to pickleball and cannot open our windows.” The town voted to restrict pickleball from seven to three days a week at local courts last month.

    Some tennis players are also frustrated because pickleball is taking over tennis courts. The tennis industry has taken note and is working with parks and recreation departments and other facilities to make sure pickleball doesn’t slow tennis’ popularity, too. The number of tennis players grew 33% between 2019 and 2022, according to the United States Tennis Association (USTA).

    “I say if pickleball is that popular let them build their own courts :)” tennis great Martina Navratilova tweeted last year.

    USTA, the governing body for US tennis, has put out guidance with best practices to ensure the two sports can co-exist and keep up with demand for each.

    “In an ideal world, tennis and pickleball have their own spaces,” said Craig Morris, the USTA’s chief executive of community tennis.

    And some parents are pushing back because their kids have less space to play in the park as crowds of pickleball players grow.

    “Players now endlessly swarm the playground daily,” said a petition in New York City to ban pickleball at a local playground with more than 3,000 signatures. “The children have been squeezed out and many have stopped going altogether.”

    Pickleball, which combines elements of tennis, badminton and ping-pong, began in 1965, but only recently skyrocketed.

    It originally won a following in retirement communities where it was beloved for its social aspect and exercise benefits. The ball travels slower than in tennis and the court is half the size, so it’s easier to play. It’s also accessible for a wide range of ages and the rules are simple.

    The game became more popular during the Covid-19 pandemic as people looked for safe, socially distanced ways to exercise outside. Celebrity backers like Tom Brady and increased media attention have also propelled the sport’s rise, and gyms and parks have built new courts to accommodate demand.

    The game can be played in singles or doubles, inside or outside on a 20-foot by 44-foot court — approximately the size of a badminton court — and lasts until one side reaches 11 points. Many people play on tennis courts that have been modified with lower nets and additional lines.

    As the sport has grown, the number of places to play has also increased.

    There were 11,000 places to play Pickleball at the end of 2022, an increase of around 130 new locations a month, according to USA Pickleball, the sport’s national governing body.

    Players use a plastic perforated ball, slightly heavier than a wiffle ball, and wooden or composite paddles that are about twice the size of ping-pong paddles.

    Pickleball players love the “pop” of their paddles smashing the plastic ball, but that same sound can bother others.

    “Cities should not simply convert tennis courts to pickleball. If they do that without considering sound, they’re likely to have unhappy people,” said Bob Unetich, an engineer by training who started Pickleball Sound Mitigation, a consulting firm that advises municipalities, country clubs, and upset neighbors on reducing noises associated with the game. Unetich, who is a trained pickleball referee and avid player, has advised more than 100 clients.

    People play pickleball on what were once tennis courts at Allendale Park in Pasadena, CA, in 2022.

    If there are several games going on at the same time, there can be multiple “pop” noises every second, Unetich said. Cheap pickleball paddles and balls are often the loudest.

    The “pitch” of pickleball hits is also more annoying to people than a tennis racquet with strings colliding with a soft tennis ball, he said. Tennis and some other common sport sounds are usually lower pitched than pickleball.

    New and existing pickleball sites need to take background noise into account, Unitech said.

    If courts are built near homes, they should block sound with barriers, enforce the use of quieter paddles and balls, or restrict playing hours, he said.

    “I’m an advocate of pickleball, but if it’s right across the street from people’s homes it’s quite a problem,” he said. “The right solution is often to put the court someplace else.”

    Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court rejects DOJ bid to transfer Texas immigration lawsuit because of alleged ‘judge shopping’ | CNN Politics

    Court rejects DOJ bid to transfer Texas immigration lawsuit because of alleged ‘judge shopping’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Friday rejected a Justice Department bid to push back against alleged “judge-shopping” in a case brought by Texas and other Republican states against a Biden administration immigration policy.

    US District Judge Drew Tipton denied a request from the DOJ that he transfer the lawsuit to a court other than his own.

    The judge said he was unconvinced that Texas’ choice of filing the case in his in division – the Southern District of Texas, Victoria division, where Tipton is assigned every civil lawsuit that is brought there – was creating a public perception of unfairness.

    Tipton, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, pointed to comments a DOJ attorney made during a hearing last month about the request, in which the attorney confirmed that he believed the judge would be impartial in the case.

    “In light of the Federal Defendants’ repeated and genuine expressions of confidence in the impartiality and fairness of this Court, it is difficult to accept their argument that ‘public perception’ – if such a concept could be beheld singularly – is meaningfully different than the Defendants,” Tipton said in Friday’s opinion, which called the Biden administration’s public perception claims “speculation.”

    “The Court does not believe it is appropriate to transfer a case that is in the proper venue due to a speculative public perception of bias that conflicts with the Federal Defendants’ own statements,” he wrote.

    The judge went on to assert that “transferring the case because of a public concern that a judge in a single-judge division is biased may well legitimize that concern.”

    The Justice Department’s motion to transfer the case pointed out that at least seven Texas lawsuits against the Biden administration have been filed in the Victoria Division, all but guaranteeing Tipton will hear the cases.

    Texas has a tendency of funneling its lawsuits against the Biden administration into divisions where most or all cases are assigned to an individual judge. In filings, the DOJ argued that Texas can “circumvent the random assignment system by never filing in Divisions where they have a non-trivial chance of not knowing what judge they are likely to be assigned.”

    Tipton did not weigh in directly on Texas’ broader pattern of where it files cases. Tipton said there was the limited 5th Circuit case law on when a case should be transferred because of judge-shopping concerns, and after quoting one such case, he wrote that it is “no well-kept secret that litigation involves strategy.”

    The Justice Department made similar requests to Judge James Wesley Hendrix and Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, in cases filed in their courthouses challenging, respectively, Biden regulations for investors and the annual spending bill the president signed last year.

    Like Tipton, Hendrix and Kacsmaryk are viewed as conservative judges and all three have ruled against the administration in previous cases brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other Republican state attorneys general.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge says jury in E. Jean Carroll case can see ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and testimony of two other accusers | CNN Politics

    Judge says jury in E. Jean Carroll case can see ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and testimony of two other accusers | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Friday said that E. Jean Carroll, in her defamation case against former President Donald Trump, can use as evidence the testimony of two other sexual assault accusers as well as the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which he bragged about being able to grope women.

    US District Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Trump’s request that the judge block the accusers from testifying at trial. Trump also asked the judge to block the Access Hollywood tape from being played at the trial.

    Carroll, the former magazine columnist who sued Trump for defamation after he denied raping her in the mid-1990s, has indicated that she will call Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds, two women who came forward with allegations against Trump in 2016, as well as use their videotaped depositions.

    Stoynoff alleged Trump sexually assaulted her when she was reporting an article about Trump and his wife, Melania, for People magazine. Leeds alleged Trump groped her while they were on an airplane together. Trump has denied both allegations, as well as Carroll’s rape claims.

    In Friday’s opinion, the judge pointed to court rules passed by Congress in 1994 that say that that in a civil case “based on a party’s sexual assault,” evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault may be admitted in trial.

    The judge said that, even though Carroll’s case is a defamation case, she must prove Trump sexually assaulted her in order to prevail.

    “In consequence, this indeed is a case ‘based on’ a sexual assault even under the categorical approach,” said Kaplan, who sits on the federal bench in the Southern District of New York.

    The judge noted that Trump has publicly denied the accusations of the other women Carroll seeks to put on the stand and said that Trump is entitled to put those denials before the jury.

    Carroll is also seeking to introduce as evidence statements Trump made during the 2016 campaign about his accusers. Kaplan is deferring on ruling whether those statements are admissible.

    Trump’s lawyers had argued that the Access Hollywood tape was “irrelevant and highly prejudicial.” They argued that the testimony of the two other accusers “will offer no relevant or meaningful insight into the central question.”

    “We maintain the utmost confidence that our client will be vindicated at the upcoming trial,” Trump attorney Alina Habba said Friday.

    A spokesperson for Carroll’s lawyers declined to comment on the new ruling.

    The case is set to go to trial in April while awaiting a DC appeals court decision that could determine whether the case proceeds against Trump. Carroll also sued Trump for battery and defamation in a separate lawsuit under a new New York law. The judge has not determined whether the trials will be combined.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tiger Woods’ ex-girlfriend has lawsuits against golfer and trust | CNN

    Tiger Woods’ ex-girlfriend has lawsuits against golfer and trust | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Erica Herman, who was a longtime girlfriend of golfer Tiger Woods, has filed two separate complaints after the six-year relationship between the pair came to an end. Both filings were made to the circuit court in Martin County, Florida.

    The first suit, filed in October 2022, alleges a trust owned by Woods violated the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act by breaking the oral tenancy agreement. The filing states the actual damages “are likely to be measured in excess of $30,000,000.” Woods is not named as a defendant in the October lawsuit.

    In December, the trust filed a motion for the court to dismiss with prejudice in response to Herman’s complaint, alleging that the dispute between the two began when Woods broke off his relationship with Herman in October and informed her “that she was no longer welcome in” Woods’ home.

    It further states that the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between the two required “confidential arbitration in all disputes between” Herman and Woods, and that Herman’s suit violates that agreement. A copy of the NDA is attached to Woods’ trust’s motion, but the publicly available version of that document is redacted entirely.

    A more recent complaint aimed at nullifying the NDA was served to Woods on Monday. Both cases are being brought by Fisher Potter Hodas, a Florida-based family law specialist. CNN reached out to Fisher Potter Hodas for further comment but did not immediately receive a response.

    CNN also reached out to Woods’ representatives for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

    The October filing alleges that Woods’ Jupiter Island Irrevocable Homestead Trust unlawfully brought Herman’s tenancy at the couple’s property on the Hobe Sound, Florida, to an end.

    The legal filing states, “the Defendant (Woods and his trust) elected to engage in ‘prohibited practices,’ i.e., self-help, causing… severe emotional damages to the Plaintiff. The prohibited practices were done intentionally, with premeditation, and with malice aforethought.”

    Specifically, the lawsuit claims “agents of the Defendant” told Herman “to pack a suitcase for a short vacation” before revealing to her that she had been locked out of the house on arrival at the airport. It claims lawyers for the trust were on hand to “confront” Herman with “proposals to resolve the wrongdoing they were in the midst of committing.”

    The filing also alleges that agents of Woods and the trust have since removed Herman’s belongings from the property and “misappropriated” over $40,000 of her cash.

    The NDA was signed in August 2017 according to the court filing, but Herman believes it is “invalid and unenforceable.”

    It notes that during litigation, a trust controlled by Woods commenced an arbitration against Herman based on the NDA, thus expressing its belief that the agreement remains valid.

    The filing asks for the “purported arbitration clause” in the NDA be deemed unenforceable under the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Of Sexual Assault And Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 and the federal Speak Out Act.

    The former bill, coming into public law in March 2022, “invalidates arbitration agreements that preclude a party from filing a lawsuit in court involving sexual assault or sexual harassment, at the election of the party alleging such conduct,” according to Congress’ website.

    The Speak Out Act became public law in December 2022 and “prohibits the judicial enforceability of a nondisclosure clause or nondisparagement clause agreed to before a dispute arises involving sexual assault or sexual harassment.”

    The filing does not accuse Woods of sexual assault or sexual harassment. In a civil cover sheet appended to the October suit, Herman’s attorney indicated “no” when asked whether the case “involves allegations of sexual abuse.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas sued by women who say state’s abortion bans put their health at risk | CNN Politics

    Texas sued by women who say state’s abortion bans put their health at risk | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Several women who say Texas’ abortion bans posed significant risks to their health have sued the state this week, opening a new front in the legal battles that have emerged since the Supreme Court overturned national abortion rights protections last year.

    Five women allege in the lawsuit that uncertainty around when medical emergency exemptions in Texas’ abortion laws apply exacerbated medical emergencies that put their lives, health and fertility in danger.

    “To the extent Texas’s abortion bans bar the provision of abortion to pregnant people to treat medical conditions that pose a risk to the pregnant person’s life or a significant risk to their health,” the lawsuit says, “the Bans violate pregnant people’s” rights under the state constitution’s provisions protecting fundamental rights and the right to equality.

    The lawsuit is not seeking to block Texas’ abortion bans outright. Rather, the women – who are joined by two medical providers in the lawsuit – ask the court to clarify that abortions can be performed when a physician makes a “good faith judgment” that “the pregnant person has a physical emergent medical condition that poses a risk of death or a risk to their health (including their fertility).”

    The women’s complaint details harrowing stories of being denied abortion care when they faced emergency complications in their pregnancies, which were all wanted. They filed the lawsuit in state court in Austin, Texas.

    Texas, its Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Texas Medical Board and its Executive Director Stephen Brint Carlton are listed as defendants in the lawsuit. Neither Paxton’s office nor a spokesperson for the state medical board responded to a request for comment from CNN. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office also did not immediately respond to CNN’s inquiry.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mike Pence asks judge to block subpoena for Jan. 6 testimony | CNN Politics

    Mike Pence asks judge to block subpoena for Jan. 6 testimony | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Vice President Mike Pence has filed a motion asking a judge to block a federal grand jury subpoena for his testimony related to January 6 on the grounds that he is protected by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, according to a source familiar with the filing.

    Pence had publicly signaled that he planned to resist the subpoena, arguing it was “unconstitutional and unprecedented.” His legal team filed the motion Friday night, the same day former President Donald Trump’s attorneys asked a judge to block Pence from speaking to a grand jury about certain matters covered by executive privilege.

    The Pence motion – filed as part of sealed proceedings – seeks to stop testimony pertaining to his legislative functions around January 6, which could potentially include a broad swath of testimony. It is separate from Trump’s motion, which argues that the former president can shield former aides from sharing internal communications.

    Special counsel Jack Smith is seeking documents and testimony related to January 6, 2021, and wants Pence to testify about his interactions with Trump leading up to the 2020 election and the day of the attack on the US Capitol.

    But the former vice president asserts that because he was also acting as president of the Senate that day, he is shielded by the Speech or Debate Clause, which protects lawmakers from certain law enforcement actions targeted at their legislative duties.

    Pence has written a memoir detailing his interactions with Trump leading up to January 6, which could complicate efforts to resist the subpoena.

    His team previously indicated to the Justice Department that he’d be open to answering questions if they were limited to the matters he had previously discussed publicly, including in his book, a source told CNN.

    Pence’s legal team did not comment. The Justice Department also did not comment.

    Since taking over the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Smith, who has a reputation for moving quickly, has accelerated the probe’s pace and began imposing tight deadlines on subpoenas. Smith also is simultaneously investigating Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office.

    Trump huddled with several members of his legal team at his Mar-A-Lago resort in Palm Beach last week to discuss Smith’s investigations, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

    Smith recently subpoenaed Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows and Trump’s former national security adviser Robert O’Brien in both of the Trump-related probes, and investigators have sat down with his former acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf as part of the probe into 2020 election interference.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alex Murdaugh’s risky testimony ultimately brought him down | CNN

    Alex Murdaugh’s risky testimony ultimately brought him down | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Convicted former attorney Alex Murdaugh’s decision to take the stand at his double murder trial was not entirely surprising given his family’s legal legacy stretching back to the early 1900s in coastal South Carolina.

    But legal experts say it was ultimately a costly maneuver for the scion of the well-connected Murdaugh clan, which prosecuted crime for three successive generations across the state’s rural low country.

    “Being a skilled attorney, I think he thought he could outsmart the jurors,” attorney and legal affairs commentator Areva Martin said.

    On Friday, one week after Murdaugh, 54, spent hours on the witness stand trying to convince a jury of his innocence, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murders of his wife and son.

    “He had to testify. There were too many lies,” CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said Saturday. “Obviously the jury felt that he was conning them.”

    Murdaugh’s biggest lie perhaps was denying for a year and half that he was anywhere near his wife, Maggie, and 22-year-old son, Paul, when they were fatally shot on the family’s Islandton property on June 7, 2021.

    On the stand, Murdaugh maintained he didn’t kill them but found their bodies after returning from a brief visit to his sick mother that night.

    A key piece of evidence came from Paul Murdaugh, who recorded a video moments before he was gunned down and killed. It showed a family dog near the kennels on the property. It also captured his father’s voice in the background, placing Alex Murdaugh at the scene of the crime.

    The video, which Murdaugh didn’t know existed before the trial, eliminated his alibi. The longtime lawyer took the stand in a courthouse where a portrait of Murdaugh’s grandfather had adorned a wall before the trial. He sought to explain why he lied about his whereabouts.

    “He had never faced accountability in his life and had always been able to escape that – and that was more important to him than anything,” lead prosecutor Creighton Waters told CNN.

    “That’s why I was always convinced that he would testify in this case. That he was assured that he could talk his way out of it one more time. Not out of all the trouble but certainly talk his way out of this. Obviously the jury saw otherwise.”

    Within moments of taking the stand, Murdaugh acknowledged his voice is heard in the video that appeared to be taken at the dog kennels where the bodies were found, saying he lied to investigators about being there earlier that evening because of “paranoid thinking” stemming from his drug addiction.

    Over the course of the trial, numerous witnesses identified Murdaugh’s voice in the background of the footage. But Murdaugh was emphatic that he “didn’t shoot my wife or my son. Anytime. Ever.”

    Craig Moyer, a juror who helped convict Murdaugh on Thursday, told ABC News it took the panel less than an hour to reach a unanimous decision.

    The video was crucial.

    “I could hear his voice clearly,” Moyer told ABC. “And everybody else could too.”

    Murdaugh was “a good liar,” Moyer said, “but not good enough.”

    Moyer told ABC he “didn’t see any true remorse or compassion” from Murdaugh. On the stand, Murdaugh “didn’t cry,” Moyer said. “All he did was blow snot.”

    Waters said he simply wanted to get Murdaugh talking during cross examination. And he did.

    “We have to remember this guy was an experienced lawyer,” Waters said. “He’s a part-time assistant solicitor and there’s 100 years of prosecution legacy in his family… I felt like he believed he could look at that jury and really convince them. But I felt if I got him talking he would eventually lie and they would get to see that in real time.”

    Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian defended the decision to let Murdaugh testify, saying his credibility was under question because of financial wrongdoings. He said the defense team plans to appeal the sentence within 10 days.

    In a separate case that has not yet gone to trial, Murdaugh faces 99 charges stemming from a slew of alleged financial crimes, including defrauding his clients, former law firm and the government of millions.

    “Once they got that character information – ‘he’s a thief, he’s a liar’ – then this jury had to think that he’s a despicable human being, and not to be believed,” Harpootlian told reporters after sentencing, referring to evidence about the financial crimes introduced at the murder trial. Murdaugh, he added, always wanted to take the stand.

    Harpootlian told CNN it was “inexplicable that he would execute his son and his wife in that fashion, in my mind.”

    Another defense lawyer, Jim Griffin, said putting Murdaugh on the stand showed the jury his client’s “emotions about Maggie and Paul, which are very raw and real.”

    Still, putting Murdaugh on the stand was a risky move, according to legal experts.

    “His testimony was very poor. In fact, I think it was borderline atrocious,” jury consultant Alan Tuerkheimer told CNN. “Jurors don’t like it when witnesses are being questioned and they don’t answer and what he kept doing continually was going beyond the scope of the questions.”

    Tuerkheimer added that Murdaugh “kept trying to interject his own narrative. He was evasive, I thought he prevaricated a lot and his testimony was self serving and jurors do not like that. He should have stuck to quick yes or no answers when he was being crossed.”

    Tuerkheimer also questioned the effectiveness of Murdaugh frequently referring to his dead wife and son as “Mags” and “Paul Paul.”

    “It’s effective if it’s genuine and it just did not come off as genuine. Look, lawyers love to testify. They use words to persuade people. And once he was on the stand, he just couldn’t contain himself,” Tuerkheimer said of Murdaugh.

    “And when he was using those terms in trying to endear himself with the jury, they just didn’t think that it was authentic. They rejected it and it was a Hail Mary that he had to testify. And, like most Hail Marys, it didn’t work.”

    On Thursday, after more than a month and dozens of witnesses, the jury convicted Murdaugh of two counts of murder in the June 2021 killings, as well as two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

    The next day, after his sentencing, Murdaugh – wearing a brown jumpsuit and handcuffs – was escorted out of a courthouse that once symbolized his family’s history of power and privilege in the region.

    “For him the chance of convincing one or two jurors that he might be a liar, he might be a thief, but he’s not a killer, was worth taking that risk,” defense attorney Misty Marris told CNN Saturday. “But in my opinion, the testimony was what actually sunk him.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link