ReportWire

Tag: Trials

  • Social media companies face legal reckoning over mental health harms to children

    [ad_1]

    For years, social media companies have disputed allegations that they harm children’s mental health through deliberate design choices that addict kids to their platforms and fail to protect them from sexual predators and dangerous content. Now, these tech giants are getting a chance to make their case in courtrooms around the country, including before a jury for the first time.

    Some of the biggest players from Meta to TikTok are facing federal and state trials that seek to hold them responsible for harming children’s mental health. The lawsuits have come from school districts, local, state and the federal government as well as thousands of families.

    Two trials are now underway in Los Angeles and in New Mexico, with more to come. The courtroom showdowns are the culmination of years of scrutiny of the platforms over child safety, and whether deliberate design choices make them addictive and serve up content that leads to depression, eating disorders or suicide.

    Experts see the reckoning as reminiscent of cases against tobacco and opioid markets, and the plaintiffs hope that social media platforms will see similar outcomes as cigarette makers and drug companies, pharmacies and distributors.

    The outcomes could challenge the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms. They could also be costly in the form of legal fees and settlements. And they could force the companies to change how they operate, potentially losing users and advertising dollars.

    Here’s a look at the major social media harms cases in the United States.

    Jurors in a landmark social media case that seeks to hold tech companies responsible for harms to children got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining defendants, Meta and YouTube.

    At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of similar lawsuits will play out. KGM and the cases of two other plaintiffs have been selected to be bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury.

    “This is a monumental inflection point in social media,” said Matthew Bergman of the Seattle-based Social Media Victims Law Center, which represents more than 1,000 plaintiffs in lawsuits against social media companies. “When we started doing this four years ago no one said we’d ever get to trial. And here we are trying our case in front of a fair and impartial jury.”

    On Wednesday Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified, mostly sticking to past talking points, including a lengthy back-and-forth about age verification where he said ““I don’t see why this is so complicated,” reiterating that the company’s policy restricts users under the age of 13 and that it works to detect users who have lied about their ages to bypass restrictions..

    At one point, the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, asked Zuckerberg if people tend to use something more if it’s addictive.

    “I’m not sure what to say to that,” Zuckerberg said. “I don’t think that applies here.”

    A team led by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who sued Meta in 2023, built their case by posing as children on social media, then documenting sexual solicitations they received as well as Meta’s response.

    Torrez wants Meta to implement more effective age verification and do more to remove bad actors from its platform.

    He also is seeking changes to algorithms that can serve up harmful material, and has criticized the end-to-end encryption that can prevent the monitoring of communications with children for safety. Meta has noted that encrypted messaging is encouraged in general as a privacy and security measure by some state and federal authorities.

    The trial kicked off in early February. In his opening statement, prosecuting attorney Donald Migliori said Meta has misrepresented the safety of its platforms, choosing to engineer its algorithms to keep young people online while knowing that children are at risk of sexual exploitation.

    “Meta clearly knew that youth safety was not its corporate priority … that youth safety was less important than growth and engagement,” Migliori told the jury.

    Meta attorney Kevin Huff pushed back on those assertions in his opening statement, highlighting an array of efforts by the company to weed out harmful content from its platforms while warning users that some dangerous content still gets past its safety net.

    A trial scheduled for this summer pits school districts against social media companies before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California. Called a multidistrict litigation, it names six public school districts from around the country as the bellwethers.

    Jayne Conroy, a lawyer on plaintiffs’ trial team, was also an attorney for plaintiffs seeking to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for the opioid epidemic. She said the cornerstone of both cases is the same: addiction.

    “With the social media case, we’re focused primarily on children and their developing brains and how addiction is such a threat to their wellbeing and … the harms that are caused to children — how much they’re watching and what kind of targeting is being done,” she said.

    The medical science, she added, “is not really all that different, surprisingly, from an opioid or a heroin addiction. We are all talking about the dopamine reaction.”

    Both the social media and the opioid cases claim negligence on the part of the defendants.

    “What we were able to prove in the opioid cases is the manufacturers, the distributors, the pharmacies, they knew about the risks, they downplayed them, they oversupplied, and people died,” Conroy said. “Here, it is very much the same thing. These companies knew about the risks, they have disregarded the risks, they doubled down to get profits from advertisers over the safety of kids. And kids were harmed and kids died.”

    Social media companies have disputed that their products are addictive. During questioning Wednesday by the plaintiff’s lawyer during the Los Angeles trial, Zuckerberg said he still agrees with a previous statement he made that the existing body of scientific work has not proven that social media causes mental health harms.

    Some researchers do indeed question whether addiction is the appropriate term to describe heavy use of social media. Social media addiction is not recognized as an official disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the authority within the psychiatric community.

    But the companies face increasing pushback on the issue of social media’s effects on children’s mental health, not only among academics but also parents, schools and lawmakers.

    “While Meta has doubled down in this area to address mounting concerns by rolling out safety features, several recent reports suggest that the company continues to aggressively prioritize teens as a user base and doesn’t always adhere to its own rules,” said Emarketer analyst Minda Smiley.

    With appeals and any settlement discussions, the cases against social media companies could take years to resolve. And unlike in Europe and Australia, tech regulation in the U.S. is moving at a glacial pace.

    “Parents, education, and other stakeholders are increasingly hoping lawmakers will do more,” Smiley said. “While there is momentum at the state and federal level, Big Tech lobbying, enforcement challenges, and lawmaker disagreements over how to best regular social media have slowed meaningful progress.”

    —

    AP Technology Writer Kaitlyn Huamani contributed to this story.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mark Zuckerberg set to testify in watershed social media trial

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — LOS ANGELES (AP) — Mark Zuckerberg will testify in an unprecedented social media trial that questions whether Meta’s platforms deliberately addict and harm children.

    Meta’s CEO is expected to answer tough questions on Wednesday from attorneys representing a now 20-year-old woman identified by the initials KGM, who claims her early use of social media addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube are the two remaining defendants in the case, which TikTok and Snap have settled.

    Zuckerberg has testified in other trials and answered questions from Congress about youth safety on Meta’s platforms, and he apologized to families at that hearing whose lives had been upended by tragedies they believed were because of social media. This trial, though, marks the first time Zuckerberg will answer similar questions in front of a jury. and, again, bereaved parents are expected to be in the limited courtroom seats available to the public.

    The case, along with two others, has been selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could impact how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies would play out.

    A Meta spokesperson said the company strongly disagrees with the allegations in the lawsuit and said they are “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

    One of Meta’s attorneys, Paul Schmidt, said in his opening statement that the company is not disputing that KGM experienced mental health struggles, but rather that Instagram played a substantial factor in those struggles. He pointed to medical records that showed a turbulent home life, and both he and an attorney representing YouTube argue she turned to their platforms as a coping mechanism or a means of escaping her mental health struggles.

    Zuckerberg’s testimony comes a week after that of Adam Mosseri, the head of Meta’s Instagram, who said in the courtroom that he disagrees with the idea that people can be clinically addicted to social media platforms. Mosseri maintained that Instagram works hard to protect young people using the service, and said it’s “not good for the company, over the long run, to make decisions that profit for us but are poor for people’s well-being.”

    Much of Mosseri’s questioning from the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, centered on cosmetic filters on Instagram that changed people’s appearance — a topic that Lanier is sure to revisit with Zuckerberg. He is also expected to face questions about Instagram’s algorithm, the infinite nature of Meta’ feeds and other features the plaintiffs argue are designed to get users hooked.

    Meta is also facing a separate trial in New Mexico that began last week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arguments to begin in landmark social media addiction trial set in Los Angeles

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — The world’s biggest social media companies face several landmark trials this year that seek to hold them responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Opening arguments for the first, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, begin this week.

    Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube will face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.

    “This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project.

    At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

    It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

    KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

    “Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

    Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

    “Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants’ products,” the lawsuit says. “They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops.”

    The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

    “Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

    A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

    José Castañeda, a Google Spokesperson, said that the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true.” In a statement, he said, “Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.”

    The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being. A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

    In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

    TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

    In New Mexico, meanwhile, opening arguments begin Monday for trial on allegations that Meta and its social media platforms have failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.

    Prosecutors have said that New Mexico is not seeking to hold Meta accountable for its content but rather its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful, saying they uncovered internal documents in which Meta employees estimate that about 100,000 children every day are subjected to sexual harassment on the company’s platforms.

    Meta denies the civil charges while accusing Torrez of cherry-picking select documents and making “sensationalist” arguments. The company says it has consulted with parents and law enforcement to introduce built-in protections to social media accounts, along with settings and tools for parents.

    —

    Ortutay reported from Oakland, California. Associated Press Writer Morgan Lee in Santa Fe, New Mexico, contributed to this story.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta, TikTok and YouTube face landmark trial over youth addiction claims

    [ad_1]

    Three of the world’s biggest tech companies face a landmark trial in Los Angeles starting this week over claims that their platforms — Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok and Google’s YouTube — deliberately addict and harm children.

    Jury selection starts this week in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms. The selection process is expected to take at least a few days, with 75 potential jurors questioned each day through at least Thursday. A fourth company named in the lawsuit, Snapchat parent company Snap Inc., settled the case last week for an undisclosed sum.

    At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

    KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

    “Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

    Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in healthcare costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

    “Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants’ products,” the lawsuit says. “They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops.”

    The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

    “Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

    Meta, YouTube and TikTok did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

    The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being. A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

    In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

    TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘A Team’ of real estate brokers faces sex crimes trial in New York

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — The brothers operated in the glitz and glamour of the Hamptons and South Beach. Two were high-end real estate brokers dubbed “The A Team.” The third went to law school and ran their family’s private security firm, which caters to heads of state and the rich and famous.

    They frequented nightclubs, cruised on yachts and flew on private jets. One lived alongside celebrities and corporate titans on Manhattan’s Billionaires’ Row. The others had multimillion-dollar waterfront mansions in Miami.

    But behind their posh, peripatetic facade, prosecutors say, Tal, Oren and Alon Alexander — known collectively as the Alexander Brothers — were predators who sexually assaulted, trafficked and raped dozens of women from 2008 to 2021, often after incapacitating them with drugs and sometimes recording their crimes on video.

    The brothers met victims at nightclubs, parties and on dating apps, and recruited others for trips to ritzy locales, paying for their flights and lodging at high-end hotels or luxe vacation rentals before drugging and raping them, prosecutors said. In all, dozens of women have accused them of wrongdoing.

    Now, the brothers — Tal, 39, and twins Alon and Oren, 38 — face a reckoning that prosecutors say was more than a decade in the making: a sex-trafficking trial that could put them in prison for the rest of their lives.

    Opening statements are slated for Tuesday in the brothers’ trial in federal court in Manhattan, after they were delayed a day because of heavy snowfall over the weekend in New York.

    Oren and Tal Alexander, the real estate dealers who specialized in high-end properties in Miami, New York and Los Angeles, have pleaded not guilty, along with their brother Alon, who graduated from New York Law School before taking his position with the security firm.

    All three have been held without bail since their December 2024 arrests. They were indicted months after several women filed lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct.

    A spokesperson for the Alexander Brothers said they “categorically deny that anyone was drugged, assaulted, or coerced, and the government has presented no physical evidence, medical records, contemporaneous complaints, or objective proof to establish those claims.”

    “This case highlights a broader concern about how the federal sex-trafficking statute is being applied,” said the spokesperson, Juda Engelmayer. “Congress enacted that law to address force, coercion, and exploitation; not to retroactively criminalize consensual adult relationships through inference or narrative.”

    “As the defense has consistently said, allegations are not evidence,” Engelmayer added.

    The brothers’ attorneys have promised to show the jury of six men and six women that prosecutors have taken innocent romantic and sexual encounters and converted them into criminal activity through clever lawyering.

    Oren Alexander’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo, has said the defense plans to prove that witnesses have lied to the government and that their testimony can’t be trusted.

    Judge Valerie E. Caproni, who will preside over the trial, has rejected defense requests to toss out the charges or send the case to state court. The Alexanders’ lawyers have said the allegations against them resemble “date rape” crimes more commonly prosecuted in state courts, but Caproni disagreed.

    “That badly misrepresents the nature of the charges,” the judge wrote.

    Agnifilo has said the jury will hear evidence of group sex, threesomes and promiscuity. During jury selection last week, prospective jurors were asked questions related to sexual activity and sex crimes.

    “The case is about sex and sexuality,” said Agnifilo, who represented Sean “Diddy” Combs last year as the hip-hop mogul was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges but convicted on lesser prostitution-related counts.

    In court papers, the Alexander Brothers’ lawyers wrote that among the accusers they expect to testify at trial, they had located evidence “that undermines nearly every aspect of the alleged victims’ narratives.”

    Prosecutors have said their evidence will show that the brothers “have acted with apparent impunity — forcibly raping women whenever they wanted to do so.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Immigration officials allow suspect in $100M jewelry heist to self deport, avoiding trial

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — Federal immigration authorities allowed a suspect in a $100 million jewelry heist believed to be the largest in U.S. history to deport himself to South America in December, a move that stunned and upset prosecutors who were planning to try the case and send him to prison.

    Jeson Nelon Presilla Flores was one of seven people charged last year with stalking an armored truck to a rural freeway rest stop north of Los Angeles and stealing millions worth of diamonds, emeralds, gold, rubies and designer watches in 2022.

    Flores faced up to 15 years in federal prison if convicted on charges of conspiracy to commit theft from interstate and foreign shipment and theft from interstate and foreign shipment. He pleaded not guilty to the charges.

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported Flores in late December after he requested voluntary departure, prosecutors said in court filings.

    ICE did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

    Flores’ attorney, John D. Robertson, motioned to dismiss the indictment against his client, asking for the charges to be permanently dropped and the case closed.

    Federal prosecutors oppose the motion and say they still hope to bring Flores to trial, asking for charges to be dropped “without prejudice” to keep the door open for criminal prosecution in the future.

    Despite Flores being a lawful permanent resident and released on bail, he was taken into ICE custody in September, according to court filings from his defense attorneys. Federal prosecutors say they were unaware Flores had an immigration detainer.

    This was a violation of his criminal prosecution rights and warrants his case getting dismissed, Robertson said in his motion.

    Flores opted for deportation to Chile during a Dec. 16 immigration hearing, according to court documents. The judge denied his voluntary departure application but issued a final order of removal, and he was sent to Ecuador.

    “Prosecutors are supposed to allow the civil immigration process to play out independently while criminal charges are pending,” federal prosecutors wrote in their motion opposing the case dismissal. “That is exactly what they did in this case — unwittingly to defendant’s benefit in that he will now avoid trial, and any potential conviction and sentence, unless and until he returns to the United States.”

    What happened to Flores is extremely unusual, especially in a case of this significance, former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson said.

    Ordinarily, if a criminal defendant had immigration proceedings against them — which is common — immigration officials would inform prosecutors what was happening. In minor cases, a defendant can sometimes choose to self-deport in lieu of prosecution.

    “It’s just beyond me how they would deport him without the prosecutors … being in on the conversation,” Levenson said. “This really was the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.”

    The jewelers who were stolen from are also demanding answers.

    “When a defendant in a major federal theft case leaves the country before trial, victims are left without answers, without a verdict, and without closure,” Jerry Kroll, an attorney for some of the jewelry companies, told the Los Angeles Times.

    The infamous jewelry heist unfolded in July 2022 after the suspects scouted the Brink’s tractor-trailer leaving an international jewelry show near San Francisco with dozens of bags of jewels, according to the indictment. While the victims reported more than $100 million in losses, Brink’s said the stolen items were worth less than $10 million.

    A lawsuit filed by the Brink’s security company said one of the drivers was asleep inside the big rig and the other was getting food inside the rest stop when the thieves broke in.

    ___

    Schoenbaum reported from Park City, Utah.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘West Wing’ actor Timothy Busfield released from New Mexico jail pending trial

    [ad_1]

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Actor Timothy Busfield was released from jail Tuesday night in New Mexico, where he is facing counts of child sexual abuse.

    Hours earlier, Busfield’s attorneys successfully argued that the actor best known for appearances in “The West Wing,” “Field of Dreams” and “Thirtysomething” wasn’t a danger to the community and shouldn’t be behind bars while he awaits trial. Prosecutors sought to keep him in jail, outlining what they said was grooming behavior and abuse of power by Busfield over three decades.

    State District Court Judge David Murphy said while the crimes Busfield is accused of inherently are dangerous and involve children, prosecutors didn’t prove the public wouldn’t be safe if he’s released.

    “There’s no evidence of a pattern of criminal conduct, there are no similar allegations involving children in his past,” Murphy said. “Rather this defendant self-surrendered and submitted himself to this court’s jurisdiction, demonstrating compliance with the court order for his arrest.”

    Outside the courthouse, Busfield’s wife, actor Melissa Gilbert, thanked Murphy for the ruling. She also thanked friends, relatives, co-workers and strangers who she said have showered their family with love. Gilbert, who played Laura Ingalls in the 1970s to ’80s TV series “Little House on the Prairie,” sat behind Busfield during the hearing. He was handcuffed and dressed in an orange jail jumpsuit.

    Prosecutors declined to comment on the ruling.

    Busfield is facing two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and one count of child abuse while working as a director on the set of the TV series “The Cleaning Lady,” allegations that he denies. He was booked into jail after a warrant was issued for his arrest and he turned himself in.

    According to the criminal complaint, an investigator with the Albuquerque Police Department said a boy reported that Busfield touched him on his private areas over his clothing on one occasion when he was 7 years old and another time when he was 8. The boy’s twin brother told authorities he was also touched by Busfield, but he did not specify where and didn’t say anything because he didn’t want to get in trouble, the complaint said.

    During the hearing Tuesday, Busfield’s attorneys pointed out that the children initially said during interviews with police that Busfield didn’t touch them inappropriately. Busfield’s attorneys then accused the boys’ parents of coaching their children toward incriminating statements after the boys lost lucrative roles on the show.

    Busfield’s defense team called just one witness — Alan Caudillo, director of photography on “The Cleaning Lady” — to testify that children on set were never left alone with individuals, and that the parents were the ones who encouraged hugs with adults on the set.

    According to the criminal complaint, one of the boys later disclosed during a therapy session that he was inappropriately touched by Busfield. Those records were obtained by police during the investigation.

    Assistant District Attorney Savannah Brandenburg-Koch called evidence of abuse against Busfield strong and specific. She also said witnesses expressed fear about potential retaliation and professional harm.

    “The boys’ allegation are supported by medical findings and by their therapist,” Brandenburg-Koch said. “Their accounts were specific and not exaggerated.”

    Arguing for Busfield’s release, defense attorney Amber Fayerberg said her client will be under intense scrutiny because of publicity surrounding the charges.

    “That bell can’t be un-rung,” Fayerberg said. “The idea that he (Busfield) could then go out and be dangerous with a child — in the world where everybody knows who he is — is absurd.”

    Busfield submitted letters vouching for his character, and his attorneys say he passed an independent polygraph test.

    Legal experts say New Mexico is among a few states that allow polygraph evidence in criminal cases, but a judge has final say over whether one can be used. There are strict requirements for admission in court.

    ___

    Lee reported from Santa Fe, New Mexico.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Mexico judge orders release of actor Timothy Busfield from jail pending child sex abuse case

    [ad_1]

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A judge ordered that actor Timothy Busfield be released from jail pending trial on child sex abuse charges, at a detention hearing Tuesday.

    The order from state district court Judge David Murphy is linked to accusations that Busfield inappropriately touched a minor while working as a director on the set of the series “The Cleaning Lady.”

    Busfield will be supervised upon release by a pretrial services office in Albuquerque, and can leave the state to return home, the judge said.

    Busfield, an Emmy Award-winning actor who is known for appearances in “The West Wing,” “Field of Dreams” and “Thirtysomething,” was ordered to be held without bond last week at his first court appearance. Busfield called the allegations lies in a video shared before he turned himself in.

    The judge acknowledged evidence that Busfield is accused of crimes that are inherently dangerous and involve children, but said prosecutors didn’t prove that there are no conditions of release that would protect the public’s safety.

    “There’s no evidence of a pattern of criminal conduct, there are no similar allegations involving children in his past,” Murphy said. “Rather this defendant self-surrendered and submitted himself to this court’s jurisdiction, demonstrating compliance with the court order for his arrest.”

    At the hearing, Busfield was handcuffed and dressed in an orange jail uniform in a New Mexico state district court, while wife and actor Melissa Gilbert watched from the court gallery.

    Gilbert was tearful while exiting the courtroom after the judge ordered Busfield’s release.

    Gilbert, who played Laura Ingalls in the 1970s to ’80s TV series “Little House on the Prairie,” was on the list of potential witness submitted ahead of the hearing.

    Albuquerque police issued a warrant for Busfield’s arrest earlier this month on two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and one count of child abuse. A criminal complaint alleges the acts occurred on the set of the series “The Cleaning Lady.”

    According to the criminal complaint, an investigator with the police department says the child reported Busfield touched him on private areas over his clothing on one occasion when he was 7 years old and another time when he was 8. The boy’s twin brother told authorities he was also touched by Busfield, but did not specify where. He said he didn’t say anything because he didn’t want to get in trouble.

    On Monday, Busfield’s attorneys submitted two brief audio recordings of initial police interviews in which the children say Busfield did not touch them in private areas. The attorneys in a court filing argue that the complaint characterizes the interviews as a failure to disclose abuse, but an “unequivocal denial is materially different from a mere absence of disclosure.”

    According to the criminal complaint, one of the boys disclosed during a therapy session that he was inappropriately touched by the show’s director. Those records were obtained by police during the investigation.

    Arguing Tuesday for Busfield’s continued detention, Assistant District Attorney Savannah Brandenburg-Koch called evidence of abuse against Busfield strong and specific.

    “The boys’ allegation are supported by medical findings and by their therapist,” Brandenburg-Koch said. “Their accounts were specific and not exaggerated.”

    She also described a documented pattern of sexual misconduct, abuse of authority and grooming behavior by Busfield over the past three decades. Prosecutors also say witnesses have expressed fear regarding retaliation and professional harm.

    “GPS is not going to tell this court if he is around children or talking to witnesses,” Brandenburg-Koch said.

    Busfield’s attorneys have argued that the allegations emerged only after the boys lost their role in the TV show, creating a financial and retaliatory motive. The filings detailed what the attorneys said was a history of fraud by both the boys’ father and mother. They cited an investigation by Warner Bros. into the allegations that found the allegations unfounded.

    Busfield also submitted letters vouching for his character, and his attorneys say he passed an independent polygraph test.

    Legal experts say New Mexico is among a few states that allow polygraph evidence in criminal cases, but a judge has final say over whether one can be used. There are strict requirements for admission.

    ___

    Morgan reported from Santa Fe, New Mexico.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prince Harry’s court battle against British tabloids reaches final chapter

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — Prince Harry has arrived in a London court for the third and final chapter in his legal quest to tame the British tabloids.

    Harry, also known as the Duke of Sussex, is the lead litigant in a case full of high-profile plaintiffs who accuse the publisher of the Daily Mail of invading their privacy by using unlawful information-gathering tactics to snoop on them for sensational headlines.

    The seven plaintiffs, including Elton John and actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, allege that Associated Newspapers Ltd. hired private investigators to bug their cars, gain access to their private records and eavesdrop on phone calls.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

    Millions of dollars are on the line as Prince Harry returns to court this week for the third and final chapter that starts Monday in his legal quest to tame the British tabloids.

    The Duke of Sussex is the lead litigant in a case full of high-profile plaintiffs who accuse the publisher of the Daily Mail of invading their privacy by using unlawful information-gathering tactics to snoop on them for sensational headlines.

    Harry, Elton John and actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost are among a group of seven who allege that Associated Newspapers Ltd. hired private investigators to bug their cars, view their private records and eavesdrop on phone calls.

    The publisher has denied the allegations and called them preposterous.

    The trial in London’s High Court is expected to last nine weeks and will see the return of Harry to the witness box for the second time since he made history in 2023 by becoming the first senior member of the royal family to testify in more than a century.

    The case was one of many that has emerged from the widespread phone hacking scandal in which some journalists began intercepting voicemail messages around the turn of this century and continued for more than a decade.

    Harry won a court judgment in 2023 that condemned the publishers of the Daily Mirror for “widespread and habitual” phone hacking. Last year, Rupert Murdoch’s flagship U.K. tabloid made an unprecedented apology for intruding on his life for years, and agreed to pay substantial damages to settle his privacy invasion lawsuit.

    Harry’s self-proclaimed mission to reform the media is more personal and goes far beyond headlines that attempted to document his party boy youth and romance ups and downs.

    He holds the press responsible for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi in Paris. He also blames them for persistent attacks on his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, that led them to leave royal life and move to the United States in 2020.

    The trial comes as Harry tries to repair a damaged relationship with his family since he moved to America and burned the bridge behind him by penning a scorching 2023 memoir, “Spare,” and airing other family grievances in a Netflix series.

    Frosty relations with his father, King Charles III, appear to be thawing a bit after the two met for tea last fall when Harry was last in town.

    But a reunion this time looks unlikely.

    The start of the trial coincides with Charles’ trip to Scotland and Harry’s visit is expected to be limited to the opening of the trial and his early testimony.

    The case against the Mail was filed in 2022 and has been the subject of several contentious hearings that have led to rulings that each side has claimed as victories.

    Lawyers for Associated Newspapers had argued that the case should be thrown out because claims dating as far back as 1993 were brought too late. But in a ruling saying the cases have a “real prospect of succeeding,” Judge Matthew Nicklin said the papers had “not been able to deliver a ‘knockout blow’” to the claims.

    In the same ruling, Nicklin handed a win to the Mail in saying Harry and the others could not use records that allegedly showed payments by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday to private investigators because they had been disclosed in confidence to a government inquiry into phone hacking.

    But Harry’s lawyers later got permission from U.K. government officials to use the documents.

    A private investigator whose name is on a sworn statement supporting the claims of Harry and the celebrities has filed another statement denying he ever snooped on them.

    During an early hearing in the case, attorney David Sherborne said his clients were not aware they were phone hacking victims until Gavin Burrows and other investigators came forward in 2021 to “do the right thing” and help those he targeted.

    Burrows said he “must have done hundreds of jobs” for the Mail between 2000 and 2005, and that Harry, John and his husband, David Furnish, and Hurley and Frost were “just a small handful of my targets.”

    But he has since signed another statement saying he had not been hired by Associated Newspapers to do any unlawful work.

    It’s unclear what impact his conflicting statements will have on the case.

    The other claimants are anti-racism activist Doreen Lawrence and former politician Simon Hughes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Dances with Wolves’ actor Nathan Chasing Horse standing trial in Las Vegas

    [ad_1]

    LAS VEGAS — The jury trial for Nathan Chasing Horse, the former “Dances with Wolves” actor accused of sexually abusing Indigenous women and girls, is expected to begin Tuesday in Las Vegas.

    Prosecutors allege he used his reputation as a spiritual leader and healer to take advantage of his victims over two decades. Chasing Horse has pleaded not guilty to 21 charges, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a minor, first degree kidnapping of a minor and the use of a minor in producing pornography.

    The case sent shock waves across Indian Country when he was arrested and indicted in early 2023. There were many setbacks and delays, but the case finally proceeded to trial after prosecutors added allegations that he filmed himself having sex with a child.

    Best known for portraying the character Smiles A Lot in the 1990 movie “Dances with Wolves,” Chasing Horse was born on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota, which is home to the Sicangu Sioux, one of the seven tribes of the Lakota nation.

    After starring in the Oscar-winning film, according to prosecutors, Chasing Horse proclaimed himself to be a Lakota medicine man while traveling around North America to perform healing ceremonies.

    Prosecutors claim Chasing Horse led a cult called The Circle, and his followers believed he could speak with spirits. His victims went to him for medical help, according to a court transcript from a grand jury hearing.

    One victim was 14 years old when she approached him hoping he would heal her mother, who was diagnosed with cancer. Chasing Horse previously had treated the victim’s breathing issues and her mother’s spider bite, according to a court transcript. He allegedly told her the spirits wanted her to give up her virginity in exchange for her mother’s health. He allegedly had sex with her and said her mother would die if she told anyone, according to the victim’s testimony to the grand jury.

    The original indictment was dismissed in 2024 after the Nevada Supreme Court ruled prosecutors abused the grand jury process when they provided a definition of grooming as evidence without any expert testimony.

    The high court, specifying that the dismissal had nothing to do with his innocence or guilt, left open the possibility of charges being refiled. In October 2024, the charges were refiled with new allegations that he recorded himself having sex with one of his accusers when she was younger than 14.

    Prosecutors have said the recordings, made in 2010 or 2011, were found on cellphones in a locked safe inside the North Las Vegas home that Chasing Horse is said to have shared with five wives, including the girl in the videos.

    Jury selection will begin Tuesday. The trial is expected to last four weeks, and prosecutors plan to call 18 witnesses. A week before the trial, Chasing Horse attempted to fire his private defense attorney, saying his lawyer hadn’t come to visit him. Judge Jessica Peterson removed Chasing Horse from the courtroom when he tried to interrupt her, and she denied his request.

    This case is a reminder that violence also occurs within Native communities and is not just something committed by outsiders, said Crystal Lee, CEO and founder of the organization United Natives, which offers services to victims of sexual abuse.

    Chasing Horse’s trial requires hard conversations about Native perpetrators, she said.

    “How do we hold them accountable?” she said. “How do we start these tough conversations?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harvey Weinstein says jurors were bullied into convicting him. A judge is set to rule

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — Harvey Weinstein returns to court Thursday, seeking to get his latest sex crime conviction thrown out because anger and apprehensions flared among jurors during deliberations last spring.

    It’s the latest convoluted turn in the former Hollywood honcho’s path through the criminal justice system. His landmark #MeToo-era case has spanned seven years, trials in two states, a reversal in one and a retrial that came to a messy end in New York last year. Weinstein was convicted of forcing oral sex on one woman, acquitted of forcibly performing oral sex on another, and the jury didn’t decide on a rape charge involving a third woman — a charge prosecutors vowed to retry yet again.

    Weinstein, 73, denies all the charges. They were one outgrowth of a stack of sexual harassment and sex assault allegations against him that emerged publicly in 2017 and ensuing years, fueling the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct. Early on, Weinstein apologized for “the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past,” while also denying that he ever had non-consensual sex.

    At trial, Weinstein’s lawyers argued that the women willingly accepted his advances in hopes of getting work in various capacities in show business, then falsely accused him to net settlement funds and attention.

    The split verdict last June came after multiple jurors took the unusual step of asking to brief the judge on behind-the-scenes tensions.

    In a series of exchanges partly in open court, one juror complained that others were “shunning” one of the panel members; the foreperson alluded to jurors “pushing people” verbally and talking about Weinstein’s “past” in a way the juror thought improper; yet a third juror opined that discussions were “going well.” The foreperson later came forward again to complain to the judge about being pressured to change his mind, then said he feared for his safety because a fellow panelist had said he would “see me outside.” The foreperson eventually refused to continue deliberating.

    In court, Judge Curtis Farber cited the secrecy of ongoing deliberations and reminded jurors not to disclose “the content or tenor” of them. Since the trial, Weinstein’s lawyers have talked with the first juror who openly complained and with another who didn’t.

    In sworn statements, the two said they didn’t believe Weinstein was guilty, but had given in because of other jurors’ verbal aggression.

    One said that after a fellow juror insulted her intelligence and suggested the judge should remove her, she was so afraid that she called two relatives that night and “told them to come look for me if they didn’t hear from me, since something was not right about this jury deliberation process.” All jurors’ identities were redacted in court filings.

    Weinstein’s lawyers contend the tensions amounted to threats that poisoned the process, and that the judge didn’t look into them enough before denying the defense’s repeated requests for a mistrial. Weinstein’s attorneys are asking him to discard the conviction or, at least, conduct a hearing about the jury strains.

    Prosecutors maintain that the judge was presented with claims about “scattered instances of contentious interactions” and handled them appropriately. Jurors’ later sworn statements are belied, prosecutors say, by other comments from one of the same jury members. He told the media right after the trial that there “was just high tension” in the group.

    Prosecutors also said the foreperson’s concerns about discussions of Weinstein’s past were vague and the topic wasn’t entirely off-limits. Testimony covered, for example, 2017 media reports about decades of sexual harassment allegations against him.

    The judge is expected to respond Thursday. He could set the conviction aside, order a hearing or let the verdict stand without any further action. Whatever he decides could be appealed.

    Meanwhile, prosecutors have said they’re prepared to retry Weinstein on the rape charge the jury couldn’t decide last spring. Currently being held in New York, he also is appealing a rape conviction in Los Angeles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nick Reiner to be arraigned in killing of parents Rob and Michele Singer Reiner

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — LOS ANGELES (AP) — Nick Reiner is set to be arraigned and enter a plea Wednesday in the killing of his parents, Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

    His scheduled appearance in a Los Angeles Superior Court comes 3 1/2 weeks after the beloved actor-director and his wife of 36 years were found dead with stab wounds in their home in the upscale Brentwood section of Los Angeles, authorities said.

    Nick Reiner, 32, the youngest of Rob Reiner’s four children, was arrested hours later, and has been held without bail since. He was charged two days later with two counts of first-degree murder. He did not enter a plea during a brief first court appearance Dec. 17, when he wore shackles and a suicide prevention smock.

    His attorney, Alan Jackson, has given no indication of the plans for his defense. Nearly all defendants in criminal cases plead not guilty at this stage. Jackson could also ask for another delay before a plea is entered.

    If Nick Reiner pleads not guilty, the case would normally head toward a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence for him to stand trial. His mental competence for trial could also be a factor.

    A decade ago, Nick Reiner publicly discussed his severe struggles with addiction and mental health after making a movie with his father, “Being Charlie,” that was very loosely based on their lives.

    Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Singer Reiner, 70, were killed early on the morning of Dec. 14, and they were found in the late afternoon, authorities said. The LA County Medical Examiner said in initial findings that they died from “multiple sharp force injuries,” but released no other details, and police have said nothing about possible motives.

    Jackson is a high-profile defense attorney and former LA County prosecutor who represented Harvey Weinstein at his Los Angeles trial and Karen Read at her intensely followed trials in Massachusetts. After the initial Reiner hearing, Jackson called the case “a devastating tragedy.” He said the proceedings will be very complex and asked that the circumstances be met “not with a rush to judgment.”

    The counts against Reiner come with special circumstances of multiple murders and an allegation that he used a dangerous weapon, a knife. The additions could mean a greater sentence.

    Prosecutors have said they have not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty.

    The prosecution is being led by Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian, whose recent cases included the Menendez brothers’ attempt at resentencing and the trial of Robert Durst.

    Rob Reiner was a prolific director whose work included some of the most memorable and endlessly watchable movies of the 1980s and ’90s. His credits included “This is Spinal Tap,” “Stand By Me,” “A Few Good Men,” and “When Harry Met Sally,” during whose production he met Michele Singer, a photographer, and married her soon after.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know about the Uvalde school shooting’s first trial over police response

    [ad_1]

    HOUSTON — Former Uvalde, Texas, schools police Officer Adrian Gonzales was among the first officers to arrive at Robb Elementary after a gunman opened fire on students and teachers.

    Prosecutors allege that instead of rushing in to confront the shooter, Gonzales failed to take action to protect students. Many families of the 19 fourth-grade students and two teachers who were killed believe that if Gonzales and the nearly 400 officers who responded had confronted the gunman sooner instead of waiting more than an hour, lives might have been saved.

    More than 3½ years since the killings, the first criminal trial over the delayed law enforcement response to one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history is set to begin.

    It’s a rare case in which a police officer could be convicted for allegedly failing to act to stop a crime and protect lives.

    Here’s a look at the charges and the legal issues surrounding the trial.

    Gonzales was charged with 29 counts of child endangerment for those killed and injured in the May 2022 shooting. The indictment alleges he placed children in “imminent danger” of injury or death by failing to engage, distract or delay the shooter and by not following his active shooter training. The indictment says he did not advance toward the gunfire despite hearing shots and being told where the shooter was located.

    Each child endangerment count carries a potential sentence of up to two years in prison.

    State and federal reviews of the shooting cited cascading problems in law enforcement training, communication, leadership and technology and questioned why officers from multiple agencies waited so long before confronting and killing the gunman, Salvador Ramos.

    Gonzales’ attorney, Nico LaHood, said his client is innocent and public anger over the shooting is being misdirected.

    “He was focused on getting children out of that building,” LaHood, said. “He knows where his heart was and what he tried to do for those children.”

    Jury selection in Gonzales’ trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 5 in Corpus Christi, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Uvalde. The trial was moved after defense attorneys argued Gonzales could not receive a fair trial in Uvalde.

    Gonzales, 52, and former Uvalde schools police chief Pete Arredondo are the only officers charged. Arredondo was charged with multiple counts of child endangerment and abandonment. His trial has not been scheduled, and he is also seeking a change of venue.

    Prosecutors have not explained why only Gonzales and Arredondo were charged. Uvalde County District Attorney Christina Mitchell did not respond to a request for comment.

    It’s “extremely unusual” for an officer to stand trial for not taking an action, said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a University of Houston Law Center professor.

    “At the end of the day, you’re talking about convicting someone for failing to act and that’s always a challenge,” Thompson said, “because you have to show that they failed to take reasonable steps.”

    Phil Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University who maintains a nationwide database of roughly 25,000 cases of police officers arrested since 2005, said a preliminary search found only two similar prosecutions.

    One involved a Florida sheriff’s deputy, Scot Peterson, who was charged after the 2018 Parkland school massacre for allegedly failing to confront the shooter — the first such prosecution in the U.S. for an on-campus shooting. He was acquitted by a jury in 2023.

    The other was the 2022 conviction of former Baltimore police officer Christopher Nguyen for failing to protect an assault victim. The Maryland Supreme Court overturned that conviction in July, ruling prosecutors had not shown Nguyen had a legal duty to protect the victim.

    The justices in Maryland cited a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision on the public duty doctrine, which holds that government officials like police generally owe a duty to the public at large rather than to specific individuals unless a special relationship exists.

    Michael Wynne, a Houston criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor not involved in the case, said securing a conviction will be difficult.

    “This is clearly gross negligence. I think it’s going to be difficult to prove some type of criminal malintent,” Wynne said.

    But Thompson, the law professor, said prosecutors may nonetheless be well positioned.

    “You’re talking about little children who are being slaughtered and a very long delay by a lot of officers,” she said. “I just feel like this is a different situation because of the tremendous harm that was done to so many children.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, contributed.

    ___

    Follow Juan A. Lozano: https://x.com/juanlozano70

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs seeks immediate release from prison in appeals argument

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Lawyers for hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs urged a federal appeals court in New York late Tuesday to order his immediate release from prison and reverse his conviction on prostitution-related charges or direct his trial judge to lighten his four-year sentence.

    The lawyers said in a filing with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan that Combs was treated harshly at sentencing by a federal judge who let evidence surrounding charges he was acquitted of unjustly influence the punishment.

    Combs, 56, incarcerated at a federal prison in New Jersey and scheduled for release in May 2028, was acquitted of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking at a trial that ended in July. Combs was convicted under the Mann Act, which bans transporting people across state lines for any sexual crime.

    Lawyers for Combs said Judge Arun Subramanian acted like a “thirteenth juror” in October when he sentenced Combs to four years and two months in prison. They said he erred by letting evidence surrounding the acquitted charges influence the sentence he imposed.

    They noted that Combs was convicted of two lesser counts, prostitution offenses that didn’t require force, fraud, or coercion. They asked the appeals court, which has not yet heard oral arguments, to acquit Combs, order his immediate release from prison or direct Subramanian to reduce his sentence.

    “Defendants typically get sentenced to less than 15 months for these offenses — even when coercion, which the jury didn’t find here, is involved,” the lawyers wrote.

    “The judge defied the jury’s verdict and found Combs ‘coerced,’ ‘exploited,’ and ‘forced’ his girlfriends to have sex and led a criminal conspiracy. These judicial findings trumped the verdict and led to the highest sentence ever imposed for any remotely similar defendant,” the lawyers wrote.

    At sentencing, Subramanian said that when calculating the prison term, he considered Combs’ treatment of two former girlfriends who testified that the Bad Boy Records founder beat them and coerced them into having sex with male sex workers while he watched and filmed the encounters, sometimes masturbating.

    At the trial, former girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura testified that Combs ordered her to have “disgusting” sex with strangers hundreds of times during their decade-long relationship that ended in 2018. Jurors saw video of him dragging and beating her in a Los Angeles hotel hallway after one such multiday “freak-off.”

    The second former girlfriend, who testified under the pseudonym “ Jane,” said she was pressured into sex with male workers during what Combs called “hotel nights,” drug-fueled sexual encounters from 2021 to 2024 that also could last days.

    At sentencing, Subramanian said he “rejects the defense’s attempt to characterize what happened here as merely intimate, consensual experiences, or just a sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll story.”

    He added: “You abused the power and control that you had over the lives of women you professed to love dearly. You abused them physically, emotionally, and psychologically. And you used that abuse to get your way, especially when it came to freak-offs and hotel nights.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Luigi Mangione’s Lawyers Acquire a Cult Following of Their Own

    [ad_1]

    A 32-year-old marketing professional now based in Los Angeles, Kimmy initially became drawn to the case after learning that Mangione is also from Maryland. “Otherwise it’s just another shooting in America,” she says. Her interest deepened, though, as the political stakes developed and potentially complicated the legal proceedings. (Erika Kirk recently wondered in a CBS appearance “how social media will impact that court case, just how it might impact mine,” referring to the similar surfeit of attention that has accompanied the assassination of her late husband, Charlie Kirk.)

    Soon she was captivated by the Agnifilos themselves, and the legal strategy they were building. “The case itself is already so interesting,” Kimmy says, “but the fight to control the narrative bleeding in and out of court adds another incredibly interesting layer.” (Mangione has pleaded not guilty in this case as well as a parallel federal case.)

    The Agniflos met in 1992, when they were both working in the Manhattan district’s attorney office and Karen assisted Marc on a case involving one deliveryman cutting off another’s hand with a machete amid a feud over a parking spot. Their work, together and apart, eventually took them to some of the most knotty and high-profile spots in defense law.

    Former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn sits with Marc Agnifilo.Richard Drew/AFP/Getty Images.

    Image may contain Crowd Person Adult Clothing Glove Accessories Jewelry and Necklace

    Karen Friedman Agnifilo addresses the Mangione press corps.Bryan R. Smith/AFP/Getty Images.

    When Marc’s firm represented Dominique Strauss-Kahn in his 2011 sexual assault case, Karen, still working as a prosecutor, had to recuse herself. (Prosecutors ultimately dropped criminal charges of attempted rape against Strauss-Kahn, and a civil case was settled.) 50 Cent’s recent Netflix documentary about Sean “Diddy” Combs includes footage of the mogul screaming at Marc on the phone over the state of his case, leading TMZ to describe the attorney as the “true victim in all of this.” Agnifilo was Combs’s lead attorney in his federal racketeering and sex trafficking trial, which was largely regarded as a victory for Combs after he was convicted only on lesser prostitution counts.

    In Mangione, the couple has found a celebrity defendant drawing a particularly personal degree of investment from his fans, with his facial expressions and movements in court dissected for meaning in online communities. A, a London-based paralegal who asked to be identified by her first initial, co-runs an advocacy platform for Mangione called Free Luigi NYC and devotes time to breaking down the legal maneuvering in the case. She attended a day of the court proceedings this month and attested that the Agnifilos had become stars.

    [ad_2]

    Dan Adler

    Source link

  • WSJ’s parent firm on trial in Hong Kong, accused of dismissing reporter over union role

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — A former Hong Kong reporter at the Wall Street Journal began testifying Monday against the newspaper she accuses of terminating her due to her union activities in a trial — a closely watched case that has raised concerns about press freedom in the city.

    Former WSJ reporter Selina Cheng, also chairperson of the trade union Hong Kong Journalists Association, launched a private prosecution against her ex-employer, Dow Jones Publishing Co. (Asia) Inc., the parent company of the Journal, after losing her job in July 2024.

    At that time, Cheng said she believed that the termination was linked to her refusal to comply with her former supervisor’s request to withdraw from the election for the union role, instead of the news outlet’s restructuring, as she was told.

    In the witness box, Cheng said her supervisor took issue with her running in the election.

    “She said my participation in the union election was problematic and she said she needed to discuss this with Wall Street Journal management in New York and also with legal,” Cheng said, referring to in-house lawyers at Dow Jones.

    Dow Jones faces two charges under the city’s Employment Ordinance. The company pleaded not guilty to both charges, each of which carries a maximum fine of 100,000 Hong Kong dollars (about $12,850).

    The first charge alleges the company had prevented or deterred an employee from exercising union participation rights. The second alleges the company had terminated employment, penalized, or discriminated against an employee for exercising those rights.

    Before Cheng’s testimony, Dow Jones representative Benson Tsoi last week accused her of abusing the criminal process and acting in bad faith when seeking to get the court to admit certain email exchanges. Tsoi highlighted emails showing Cheng had demanded 3 million Hong Kong dollars ($385,500) as settlement or reinstatement with a formal apology.

    Tsoi said while Cheng had told the Labor Tribunal she didn’t intend to settle out of court, the emails showed she had pressed for mediation with the company.

    Hong Kong, which returned to Chinese rule in 1997 after some 150 years under British control, was once considered a bastion of press freedom in Asia. Yet despite the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution which guarantees its Western-style civil liberties to be kept intact under a “one country, two systems” approach, the ability of the media to operate there has seen drastic changes.

    After Beijing imposed a national security law in 2020, two local news outlets known for critical coverage of the government, Apple Daily and Stand News, were forced to shut down following the arrest of their senior management, including Apple Daily publisher Jimmy Lai.

    Lai was convicted under the security law last Monday, facing up to life in prison. While the government insists his case has nothing to do with press freedom, rights groups expressed concerns. Amnesty International said the conviction “feels like the death knell for press freedom in Hong Kong.”

    Two former editors at Stand News were also convicted in August 2024, the first journalists found guilty of sedition under a separate law since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule.

    Cheng’s termination alarmed many journalists who are already operating in an increasingly restricted media environment in the city, where foreign outlets have traditionally faced less pressure than local news outlets.

    Hong Kong ranked 140th out of 180 countries and territories in Reporters Without Borders’ latest World Press Freedom Index, down from 80 in 2021.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Advocates raise alarms after Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan found guilty of obstruction

    [ad_1]

    MADISON, Wis. — Defenders of a Wisconsin judge found guilty of felony obstruction for helping a Mexican immigrant evade federal officers raised alarms Friday about judicial independence and said they hope the conviction will be overturned on appeal.

    A jury found Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan guilty on Thursday night after a four-day trial and six hours of deliberation. The jury found her not guilty of a misdemeanor concealment charge. No sentencing date had been set as of Friday morning. She could be sentenced to a maximum five years in prison.

    The verdict was a victory for President Donald Trump, whose administration filed the charges against Dugan and touted her arrest earlier this year, posting photos of her being led away in handcuffs.

    U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the verdict on X, saying nobody is above the law, even judges.

    The case inflamed tensions over Trump’s immigration crackdown, with his administration branding Dugan an activist judge and Democrats countering that the administration is trying to make an example of Dugan to blunt judicial opposition to the operation.

    U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel, a former Republican Wisconsin attorney general and judge, denied the case was political and urged people to accept the verdict peacefully.

    “Some have sought to make this about a larger political battle,” Schimel said. “While this case is serious for all involved, it is ultimately about a single day, a single bad day, in a public courthouse. The defendant is certainly not evil. Nor is she a martyr for some greater cause.”

    Dugan’s defense attorney told the jury in closing arguments that the “top levels of government” were involved in bringing charges against Dugan. But prosecutors argued Dugan put her personal beliefs above the law.

    “You don’t have to agree with immigration enforcement policy to see this was wrong,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka told the jury in closing arguments. “You just have to agree the law applies equally to everyone.”

    Dugan did not testify. Dugan and her attorneys left the courtroom, ducked into a side conference room and closed the door without speaking to reporters.

    Steve Biskupic, her lead attorney, later said he was disappointed with the ruling and didn’t understand how the jury could have reached a split verdict since the elements of both charges were virtually the same.

    Dugan’s attorneys were expected to appeal the verdict.

    A coalition of 13 advocacy groups, including Common Cause Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters Wisconsin, said “higher courts must carefully review the serious constitutional questions this case raises about due process, judicial authority, and federal overreach.”

    Dugan was suspended as a judge after she was charged and the Wisconsin Constitution bars convicted felons from holding office. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which oversees disciplining of judges in the state, did not respond to a request Friday for information about what happens next in Dugan’s case.

    On April 18, immigration officers went to the Milwaukee County courthouse after learning 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz had reentered the country illegally and was scheduled to appear before Dugan for a hearing in a state battery case.

    Dugan confronted agents outside her courtroom and after they had left led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a private jury door. Agents spotted Flores-Ruiz in the corridor, followed him outside and arrested him after a foot chase. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in November he had been deported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NASCAR settles federal antitrust case, gives all teams the permanent charters they wanted

    [ad_1]

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Michael Jordan and NASCAR chairman Jim France stood side-by-side on the steps of a federal courthouse as if they were old friends following a stunning settlement Thursday of a bruising antitrust case in which the Basketball Hall of Famer was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit accusing the top racing series in the United States of being a monopolistic bully.

    The duo was flanked by three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin and Curtis Polk, the co-owners of 23XI Racing with Jordan, Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins and over a dozen lawyers as they celebrated the end to an eight-day trial that ultimately led NASCAR to cave and grant all its teams the permanent charters they wanted.

    “Like two competitors, obviously we tried to get as much done in each other’s favor,” Jordan said, towering over the 81-year-old France. “I’ve said this from Day 1: The only way this sport is going to grow is we have to find some synergy between the two entities. I think we’ve gotten to that point, unfortunately it took 16 months to get here, but I think level heads have gotten us to this point where we can actually work together and grow this sport. I am very proud about that and I think Jim feels the same.”

    France concurred.

    “I do feel the same and we can get back to focusing on what we really love, and that’s racing, and we spent a lot of time not really focused on that so much as we needed to be,” France said. “I feel like we made a very good decision here together and we have a big opportunity to continue growing the sport.”

    A charter is the equivalent of the franchise model used in other sports and in NASCAR it guarantees 36 teams a spot in every top-level Cup Series race and a fixed portion of the revenue stream. The system was implemented in 2016 and teams have argued for over two years that the charters needed to be made permanent — they had been revokable by NASCAR — and the revenue sharing had to change.

    NASCAR, founded and privately owned by the Florida-based France family, never considered making the charters permanent. Instead, after two-plus years of bitter negotiations, NASCAR in September 2024 presented a “take-it-or leave-it” final offer that gave teams until end of that day to sign the 112-page document.

    23XI and Front Row refused and sued, while 13 other organizations signed but testimony in court revealed many did so “with a gun to our head” because the threat of losing the charters would have put them out of business.

    Jordan testified early in the trial that as a new team owner to NASCAR — 23XI launched in 2021 — he felt he had the strength to challenge NASCAR. Eight days of testimony went badly for NASCAR, which when it began to present its case seemed focused more on mitigating damages than it did on proving it did not violate antitrust laws.

    Although terms of the settlement were not released — NASCAR was in the process of scheduling a Thursday afternoon call with all teams to discuss the revenue-sharing model moving forward — both Jordan and NASCAR said that charters will now be permanent for all teams. 23XI and Front Row will receive their combined six charters back for 2026.

    An economist previously testified that NASCAR owes 23XI and Front Row $364.7 million in damages, and that NASCAR shorted 36 chartered teams $1.06 billion from 2021-24.

    “Today’s a good day,” Jordan said from the front-row seat he’s occupied since the trial began Dec. 1 as he waited for the settlement announcement.

    U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell, who had presided over two days of failed settlement talks before the trial began, echoed the sentiment. Bell told the jury that sometimes parties at trial have to see how the evidence unfolds to come to the wisdom of a settlement.

    “I wish we could’ve done this a few months ago,” Bell said in court. “I believe this is great for NASCAR. Great for the future of NASCAR. Great for the entity of NASCAR. Great for the teams and ultimately great for the fans.”

    The settlement came after two days of testimony by France and the Wednesday night public release of a letter from Bass Pro Shops founder Johnny Morris calling for NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps to be removed.

    The discovery process revealed internal NASCAR communications in which Phelps called Hall of Fame team owner Richard Childress a “redneck” and other derogatory names; Bass Pro sponsors Childress’ teams, as well as some others, and Morris is an ardent NASCAR supporter.

    Childress gave fiery testimony earlier this week over his reluctance to sign the charter agreement because it was unfair to the teams, which have been bleeding money and begged NASCAR for concessions. Letters from Hall of Fame team owners Joe Gibbs, Rick Hendrick, Jack Roush and Roger Penske were introduced in which they pleaded with France for charters to become permanent; France testified he was not moved by the men he considers good friends.

    Hendrick and Penske, who were both scheduled to testify Friday, expressed gratitude that a settlement had been reached. Penske called it “tremendous news” and said it cleared the way to continue growing the series.

    “Millions of loyal NASCAR fans and thousands of hardworking people rely on our industry, and today’s resolution allows all of us to focus on what truly matters — the future of our sport,” Hendrick said. “This moment presents an important opportunity to strengthen our relationships and recommit ourselves to building a collaborative and prosperous future for all stakeholders. I’m incredibly optimistic about what’s ahead.”

    The settlement came abruptly on the ninth day of the trial. Bell opened expecting to hear motions but both sides asked for a private conference in chambers. When they emerged, Bell ordered an hourlong break for the two sides to confer. That turned into two hours, all parties returned to the courtroom and Kessler announced an agreement had been reached.

    “What all parties have always agreed on is a deep love for the sport and a desire to see it fulfill its full potential,” NASCAR and the plaintiffs said in a joint statement. “This is a landmark moment, one that ensures NASCAR’s foundation is stronger, its future is brighter and its possibilities are greater.”

    ___

    AP auto racing: https://apnews.com/hub/auto-racing

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Louisiana death row inmate released on bail after decades behind bars

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS — A Louisiana man who spent nearly three decades on death row has been released on bail Wednesday after his conviction was overturned earlier this year.

    Jimmie Duncan had originally been convicted of first-degree murder in 1998 after prosecutors accused him of raping and drowning 23-month-old Haley Oliveaux, the daughter of his then-girlfriend Allison Layton Statham.

    Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Alvin Sharp threw out that conviction in April after hearing expert testimony that the forensic evidence which put Duncan behind bars was “not scientifically defensible” and that Oliveaux’s death appeared to be the result of an “accidental drowning.” Similar faulty forensic bite mark analysis has led to dozens of other wrongful convictions or charges.

    “The presumption is not great that he is guilty,” Sharp wrote in his order Friday granting Duncan bail, citing the new evidence presented at an evidentiary hearing last year and Duncan’s lack of prior criminal history.

    Duncan’s attorneys said in a statement that Sharp’s ruling earlier this year provided “clear and convincing evidence showing that Mr. Duncan is factually innocent.” They added that Duncan’s release on bail “marks a significant step forward for Mr. Duncan’s complete exoneration.”

    Since 1973, more than 200 people on death row have been exonerated, including 12 people in Louisiana, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. In Louisiana, which has one of the highest wrongful conviction rates in the nation, the last death row exoneration came in 2016. Earlier this month, a man who served decades in prison before being exonerated won election to serve as the chief recordkeeper of New Orleans’ criminal court.

    Duncan, whose vacated conviction is still being reviewed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, was released after posting a $150,000 bond. He plans to live with a relative in central Louisiana.

    Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who is pushing to hasten executions of death row inmates, said that Duncan should not be released on bail while the Louisiana Supreme Court reviews his case.

    But the high court agreed to let a district judge rule on Duncan’s bail request.

    During Duncan’s bail hearing in Ouachita Parish, the mother of the girl he was accused of killing told the judge that she had become convinced of Duncan’s innocence. Instead, Statham believed her daughter, who she said had a history of seizures, had accidentally drowned in a bathtub.

    Her daughter “wasn’t killed,” Statham said according to court records. “Haley died because she was sick.”

    Statham told the court that the lives of her family and Duncan “have been destroyed by the lie” she believed prosecutors and forensic experts had concocted.

    Prosecutors had relied on bite mark analysis and an autopsy conducted by two experts later linked to at least 10 wrongful convictions, according to Duncan’s legal team, which described the pair as discredited “charlatans.”

    Mississippi-based forensic dentist Michael West and pathologist Steven Hayne examined Oliveaux’s body.

    A video recording of the examination shows West “forcibly pushing a mold of Mr. Duncan’s teeth into the child’s body — creating the bite marks” later used to convict him, a court-filing from Duncan’s legal team stated. A state-appointed expert, unaware of this method, testified during trial that the bite marks on the body matched Duncan’s.

    “The horror story that they put out and desecrated my baby’s memory makes me infuriated,” Statham said.

    “I was not informed of anything that would have exonerated Mr. Duncan at all,” she added. “Had I been then, things would have turned out a lot different for Mr. Duncan and all of our families.”

    An Associated Press review from 2013 found at least two dozen wrongful convictions or charges based on bite mark evidence since 2000.

    “Bite mark evidence is junk science, and there is no more prejudicial type of junk science that exists than bite mark evidence,” M. Chris Fabricant, an Innocence Project lawyer representing Duncan, told the court during the bail hearing.

    Hayne, the pathologist, is deceased. West has previously said that DNA testing has made bite mark analysis obsolete, yet he has defended his work in other cases that led to overturned convictions. The pair’s testimony led two Mississippi men, Levon Brooks and Kennedy Brewer, to serve a combined three decades in prison in two separate cases for the rape and murder of young girls until DNA evidence cleared them of the crimes.

    Prosecutors are seeking to reinstate Duncan’s conviction and pointed to the 1994 grand jury indictment in his case as grounds for keeping him locked up, court records show. The office of Ouachita Parish District Attorney Robert Tew declined to comment, citing the Louisiana Supreme Court’s pending review.

    Duncan was one of 55 people on death row in Louisiana, held at the state prison in Angola. After a 15-year hiatus, Louisiana carried out its first execution in March.

    Duncan’s legal team described him as a “model prisoner” who helped other death row inmates obtain their GEDs and has “strong community support for his release.”

    ___

    Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California labor leader pleads not guilty to misdemeanor over immigration protest

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — The leader of a major labor union in Southern California who was arrested while protesting an immigration raid earlier this year has pleaded not guilty to a misdemeanor charge and will face trial in January.

    David Huerta is president of the Service Employees International Union California. He was arrested June 6 while joining a large crowd of demonstrators outside a business in Los Angeles where federal agents were investigating suspected immigration violations.

    Huerta was initially charged with obstruction, resistance or opposition to a federal officer — a class A felony. However, federal prosecutors last month dismissed the original felony charge of conspiracy to impede an officer.

    On Tuesday, he entered a not guilty plea to misdemeanor obstruction of justice. His trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 20, 2026, the Los Angeles Times reported.

    During the June protest, Huerta sat down in front of a vehicular gate and encouraged others to walk in circles to try to prevent law enforcement from going in or out, a special agent for Homeland Security Investigations, which is part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, wrote in an earlier federal court filing.

    An officer told Huerta to leave, then put his hands on Huerta to move him out of the way of a vehicle, the agent wrote. Huerta pushed back, and the officer pushed Huerta to the ground and arrested him, according to the filing.

    Huerta’s union represents hundreds of thousands of janitors, security officers and other workers across California. His arrest became a rallying cry for immigrant advocates across the country as they called for his release and an end to President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

    Abbe David Lowell and Marilyn Bednarski, Huerta’s attorneys, said in a statement that they will seek “the speediest trial” to vindicate him.

    [ad_2]

    Source link