ReportWire

Tag: verdict

  • Jury reaches verdict in trial of Judge Hannah Dugan

    [ad_1]

    A jury on Thursday found Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of a federal felony charge that she obstructed or impeded a proceeding before a U.S. department or agency, while acquitting her on a misdemeanor count tied to concealing an individual from discovery and arrest. Her defense team released this statement shortly after the verdict was read: “While we are disappointed in today’s outcome, the failure of the prosecution to secure convictions on both counts demonstrates the opportunity we have to clear Judge Dugan’s name and show she did nothing wrong in this matter. We have planned for this potential outcome and our defense of Judge Dugan is just beginning. This trial required considerable resources to prepare for and public support for Judge Dugan’s defense fund is critical as we prepare for the next phase of this defense.” The judge did not set a sentencing date. The defense plans to fight the conviction. The maximum penalty would be five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.Watch: Defense attorney Steve Biskupic’s post-verdict reaction:On the prosecution side, interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel asked that people keep politics out of the case and the verdict. He said this was not the government trying to make an example of Dugan, but was instead a serious matter they felt necessary to pursue.Watch: Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel delivers remarks after Dugan verdictProsecutors filed the charges after an April 2025 courthouse encounter involving federal agents and a defendant, in Dugan’s court on a state criminal charge, a man they were seeking to arrest. The verdict followed a week of testimony and evidence centered on what jurors heard and saw from April 18, when federal agents came to the sixth floor of the Milwaukee County Courthouse with a warrant to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.In opening statements Monday, prosecutors told jurors that Dugan “knew what she did was wrong” and argued arrests in the courthouse are “standard and routine.”The defense challenged the interpretation of events and questioned witnesses about courthouse practices, confusion over the courthouse policy for interactions with federal immigration officials. What prosecutors allegedJurors were shown surveillance video and listened to audio from inside Dugan’s courtroom, with prosecutors walking through the sequence in detail.Prosecutors pointed jurors to:Hallway surveillance video showing Dugan confronting federal agents outside her courtroom; there was no audio on the hallway video.Audio from inside the courtroom, played alongside a transcript for jurors to follow, including a moment in which Dugan’s clerk is heard saying, “We have 5 ICE guys in the hallway.”Prosecutors’ interpretation of courtroom audio, including that Dugan called Flores-Ruiz’s case out of order and told his attorney to take him out and return for a rescheduled date, which prosecutors argued was intended to get him out of the area.Evidence and testimony jurors heardThe government’s first witness included FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Baker, who testified about his actions at the courthouse that morning and what he observed. Baker described Dugan’s tone during the hallway encounter, saying, “anger would be the best way to describe it.”Jurors also heard testimony and saw exhibits related to communications among judges about how to handle interactions with federal immigration officials in the courthouse, according to the notes.WATCH FBI agents testify about courthouse confusion during immigration arrestDefense caseAfter the prosecution rested on Wednesday, the defense began calling witnesses Thursday morning. The first defense witness was Milwaukee County Judge Katie Kegel, and jurors were shown an email she sent to fellow judges that was displayed in court and included in jurors’ binders. The final witness for the defense was former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a lifelong friend who described her as an “extremely honest” person who will tell you exactly how she feels. Background of the caseThe case stems from the April 18 courthouse encounter in which agents from ICE and other federal agencies arrived outside Dugan’s courtroom with a warrant for Flores-Ruiz’s arrest.Prosecutors alleged Dugan directed agents away from the arrest location and that Flores-Ruiz later left through a restricted area before being arrested outside.Flores-Ruiz’s underlying state case involved a domestic violence allegation. In opening statements, prosecutors referenced the charge he faced that day: battery — domestic abuse — infliction of physical pain or injury. Flores-Ruiz has since been deported.

    A jury on Thursday found Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of a federal felony charge that she obstructed or impeded a proceeding before a U.S. department or agency, while acquitting her on a misdemeanor count tied to concealing an individual from discovery and arrest.

    Her defense team released this statement shortly after the verdict was read:

    “While we are disappointed in today’s outcome, the failure of the prosecution to secure convictions on both counts demonstrates the opportunity we have to clear Judge Dugan’s name and show she did nothing wrong in this matter. We have planned for this potential outcome and our defense of Judge Dugan is just beginning. This trial required considerable resources to prepare for and public support for Judge Dugan’s defense fund is critical as we prepare for the next phase of this defense.”

    Adela Tesnow

    Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan reacts after hearing a guilty guilty in her federal trial

    The judge did not set a sentencing date. The defense plans to fight the conviction. The maximum penalty would be five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

    Watch: Defense attorney Steve Biskupic’s post-verdict reaction:

    On the prosecution side, interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel asked that people keep politics out of the case and the verdict. He said this was not the government trying to make an example of Dugan, but was instead a serious matter they felt necessary to pursue.

    Watch: Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel delivers remarks after Dugan verdict

    Prosecutors filed the charges after an April 2025 courthouse encounter involving federal agents and a defendant, in Dugan’s court on a state criminal charge, a man they were seeking to arrest.

    The verdict followed a week of testimony and evidence centered on what jurors heard and saw from April 18, when federal agents came to the sixth floor of the Milwaukee County Courthouse with a warrant to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.

    In opening statements Monday, prosecutors told jurors that Dugan “knew what she did was wrong” and argued arrests in the courthouse are “standard and routine.”

    The defense challenged the interpretation of events and questioned witnesses about courthouse practices, confusion over the courthouse policy for interactions with federal immigration officials.

    What prosecutors alleged

    Jurors were shown surveillance video and listened to audio from inside Dugan’s courtroom, with prosecutors walking through the sequence in detail.

    Prosecutors pointed jurors to:

    • Hallway surveillance video showing Dugan confronting federal agents outside her courtroom; there was no audio on the hallway video.
    • Audio from inside the courtroom, played alongside a transcript for jurors to follow, including a moment in which Dugan’s clerk is heard saying, “We have 5 ICE guys in the hallway.”
    • Prosecutors’ interpretation of courtroom audio, including that Dugan called Flores-Ruiz’s case out of order and told his attorney to take him out and return for a rescheduled date, which prosecutors argued was intended to get him out of the area.

    Evidence and testimony jurors heard

    The government’s first witness included FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Baker, who testified about his actions at the courthouse that morning and what he observed.

    Baker described Dugan’s tone during the hallway encounter, saying, “anger would be the best way to describe it.”

    Jurors also heard testimony and saw exhibits related to communications among judges about how to handle interactions with federal immigration officials in the courthouse, according to the notes.

    WATCH FBI agents testify about courthouse confusion during immigration arrest

    Defense case

    After the prosecution rested on Wednesday, the defense began calling witnesses Thursday morning.

    The first defense witness was Milwaukee County Judge Katie Kegel, and jurors were shown an email she sent to fellow judges that was displayed in court and included in jurors’ binders.

    The final witness for the defense was former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a lifelong friend who described her as an “extremely honest” person who will tell you exactly how she feels.

    Background of the case

    The case stems from the April 18 courthouse encounter in which agents from ICE and other federal agencies arrived outside Dugan’s courtroom with a warrant for Flores-Ruiz’s arrest.

    Prosecutors alleged Dugan directed agents away from the arrest location and that Flores-Ruiz later left through a restricted area before being arrested outside.

    Flores-Ruiz’s underlying state case involved a domestic violence allegation. In opening statements, prosecutors referenced the charge he faced that day: battery — domestic abuse — infliction of physical pain or injury. Flores-Ruiz has since been deported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cardi B Wins Case Filed By Security Guard Who Claimed Rapper Assaulted Her – KXL

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — A jury gave Cardi B a quick and absolute victory Tuesday at a trial in the lawsuit of a security guard who alleged the rap star assaulted her at a doctor’s office during her then-secret first pregnancy.

    The jury of six men and six women at a small courthouse in Alhambra, California deliberated for only about an hour before finding Cardi not liable in the lawsuit brought by Emani Ellis, who alleged Cardi cut her face with a fingernail and spat on her in the hallway of a Beverly Hills obstetrician in February of 2018.

    Only nine of the 12 jurors were required for a verdict in the civil case, but their decision in Cardi’s favor was unanimous.

    “The next person who tries to do a frivolous lawsuit against me, I’m going to counter-sue, and I’m gonna make you pay, because this is not OK,” she said outside the courthouse, where she posed for pictures with fans. “I am not that celeb that you sue, and you think is going to settle. I’m not gonna settle. Especially when I’m super completely innocent.”

    She said she had to miss her kids’ first day of school because of the trial, and said her forehead was “raw, raw, raw” after all the elaborate wig changes during the trial that at one point even left her lawyer confused over which was her real hair. (None of them were, she said with a laugh.)

    In two days of testimony last week that were livestreamed, widely viewed and full of viral moments, the hip-hop star testified she feared that Ellis was going to make her pregnancy public. She acknowledged that the two argued, but said it never got physical.

    “I will say it on my deathbed. I did not touch that woman,” she said after her win. “I did not touch that girl. I didn’t lay my hands on that girl.”

    Ron Rosen Janfaza, the lawyer for the plaintiff Ellis, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. He said outside court that they plan to appeal the decision.

    After several days off, the trial resumed with closing arguments Tuesday, and the jury got the case in mid-afternoon.

    Cardi said she had been visiting Los Angeles doing promotional work in February 2018 around that year’s NBA All-Star Game. She was four months into her pregnancy with the first of her three children with rapper Offset. She had told her inner circle she was having a baby, but not the public or her parents.

    The obstetrician’s office had been closed to other patients on a Saturday for her privacy.

    She said Ellis, a security guard for the building, followed her to her fifth-floor appointment. Cardi told jurors last week that she heard Ellis say her name into a phone and appeared to be filming her.

    “I told her, ‘Why are you recording?’” Cardi testified, “and she said, ’Oh my bad.’ She practically apologized.’”

    But the argument grew increasingly heated, she said.

    “As we were arguing she’s backing me, she’s walking into me,” Cardi said.

    Ellis testified that the incident left her humiliated and traumatized, and the scar on her face required cosmetic surgery. Ellis, who lost her job over the incident, sought damages that include medical expenses, compensation for emotional and physical suffering, and lost wages, along with punitive damages. She does not specify a total amount in the lawsuit but Cardi said from the stand that she is “suing me for $24 million.”

    A receptionist who broke up the argument between Cardi and Ellis largely backed the rapper’s account in testimony.

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • Jury finds stone companies at fault in lawsuit by countertop cutter sick with silicosis

    Jury finds stone companies at fault in lawsuit by countertop cutter sick with silicosis

    [ad_1]

    A Los Angeles County jury found businesses that make or distribute engineered stone at fault Wednesday for the suffering of a 34-year-old stonecutter afflicted with an incurable disease.

    In a decision watched closely by silicosis experts and the stone industry, jurors deliberating at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown L.A. decided largely in favor of Gustavo Reyes Gonzalez, who was diagnosed with silicosis and had to undergo a double lung transplant after years of cutting engineered stone countertops.

    The decision followed deliberations that spanned five days of the multi-week trial. Before the verdict, the two sides in the case had agreed that economic losses for Reyes Gonzalez exceeded $8 million.

    The jury decided that other damages — which could include physical pain, mental suffering and emotional distress — amounted to more than $44 million. However, because the jury did not deem the defendants wholly responsible for those damages, they will not be collectively liable for the full amount.

    It concluded that Caesarstone USA bore 15% of the responsibility, Cambria 10% and Color Marble 2.5%. The court will ultimately determine how much each defendant must pay.

    Reyes Gonzalez is among scores of California countertop cutters who have sued companies like Caesarstone and Cambria after falling ill with silicosis, which is caused by inhaling tiny particles of crystalline silica.

    His case was the first to go to trial, according to his attorneys. It tested whether companies that manufacture or distribute slabs of artificial stone, commonly marketed as quartz, could be held responsible for the ravages of silicosis, an ancient disease now emerging among countertop cutters barely in middle age.

    Scientists have linked the eruption of silicosis cases among stonecutters to the booming popularity of engineered stone, which is typically much higher in lung-scarring silica than natural stone such as granite or marble. In California, more than a dozen countertop cutters have died of silicosis in recent years. In a recent study of the emerging cases and fatalities, researchers found the median age at death was 46.

    Attorneys for Reyes Gonzalez argued that the companies had failed to provide sufficient warning about the dangers of cutting the slabs and that the risks far outweighed the benefits of their products. Gilbert Purcell, one of his lawyers, told the jury that engineered stone has “nasty, nasty risks” that had not been properly disclosed.

    “A company should never needlessly cause risk to others,” Purcell said, “and that’s what they did.”

    For instance, Purcell argued, Cambria had failed for a decade and a half to warn that silica dust could be an invisible hazard. How can workers avoid breathing dust, he argued, “when you can’t even know you’re breathing it because it’s invisible?”

    A cloud of dust envelops a countertop fabricator cutting engineered stone at a Sun Valley shop last year.

    (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

    Lawyers representing companies that make or distribute engineered stone argued that the operators of the Orange County workshops where Reyes Gonzalez worked were to blame. If they had used the proper protections, he would not have gotten silicosis, said Peter Strotz, an attorney representing Caesarstone USA.

    “They knew what they had to do. They didn’t do it. … Worst of all, they deceived Mr. Reyes Gonzalez. They led him to believe he would be protected when he was not,” Strotz told the jury. He argued Caesarstone USA had done its part by providing safety information and should not be blamed for the “misuse” of its products.

    Cambria attorney Lindsay Weiss said the company had provided warnings, including labels on the slabs themselves, and offered free training to the “fabricators” who cut, grind and polish the material to shape it into countertops.

    She held up a sample of its quartz surfacing material to the jury, telling them it was safe. “The problem is when people don’t follow the law when they handle this product,” Weiss said.

    And Color Marble, a distributor, argued there was no proof that Reyes Gonzalez had cut or polished slabs sold by its company. The jury found Color Marble liable for negligence — as it did Caesarstone USA and Cambria — but did not deem it liable for other claims for product liability as it had for those firms.

    The lawsuit initially targeted a long list of companies, but all but three — Caesarstone USA, Cambria and Color Marble — were dismissed or settled before the jury reached a verdict. Attorney James Nevin, who represents Reyes Gonzalez, said most had “resolved the case pursuant to confidential agreements.”

    Strotz, representing Caesarstone USA, declined to comment on the verdict.

    Weiss said her client, Cambria, disagreed with the decision. “We think this is not a product issue. It’s a workplace safety issue,” she said. “This is handled safely every single day.”

    Raphael Metzger, one of the attorneys representing Reyes Gonzalez, called the decision “a win for public health and occupational safety.”

    He grew emotional as he praised the jurors for their work. “Only in America,” he said, “can Hispanic immigrants come here and receive justice — as they have.”

    The trial, which stretched more than a month, spotlighted the dangers facing workers like Reyes Gonzalez, who testified that he came to the U.S. from the Mexican state of Veracruz as a teenager to escape poverty. For years, he worked from morning to evening cutting slabs for countertops.

    Dust was rampant in the Orange County workshops where he labored, Reyes Gonzalez testified, at times so much that it looked like fog. His mask would grow filthy. Even when he used water while cutting, he said, “a lot of dust would come off” when the liquid had dried.

    His wife, Wendy Torres Hernandez, said that when Reyes Gonzalez got his diagnosis, he called her crying. “He was told that there was no cure for it. There was nothing that he could do,” she said.

    “I told him we would figure something out to help him, because I couldn’t just let him die,” she testified. Despondent, he told her “that he was going to start planning for his funeral.”

    Reyes Gonzalez ultimately became so sick that both his lungs needed to be replaced in a transplant. The surgery may afford him only six more years to live before he needs another set of transplanted lungs — and a doctor testified that if that did happen, he would be unlikely to get a third transplant because of his age.

    He will have to take a host of medications and carefully monitor his health until he dies. Because of the medicines he takes, Reyes Gonzalez said he cannot have children, which pains him because his wife adores them. Doctors might find a way for them in the future, he said, but cannot guarantee it.

    Lawyers for Caesarstone and other companies focused much of their questioning on members of the Silverio family, who paid Reyes Gonzalez for his work in a string of Orange County workshops. When a co-worker named Guillermo Mora de los Santos took the stand, a defense attorney questioned him about whether the Silverio shops had ever provided trainings on workplace safety or had any “silica control program.”

    Mora de los Santos said no. “We didn’t know about that — about that disease,” he said about silicosis.

    Weiss, representing Cambria, stressed to the jury that Reyes Gonzalez had described sweeping up dry dust and using compressed air to clean — practices that send dust into the air — and that he wasn’t provided with an adequate mask. Nor was water used properly, she said.

    In court, one of the Silverios denied having seen safety information from Caesarstone that included a video on silicosis risks, despite having signed a form saying he had received such materials.

    Purcell, in his closing remarks, argued that whatever the Silverios had done or not done could not absolve the defendants. “This chain of safety starts with them.”

    In its verdict, the jury had the opportunity to assign a percentage of the total responsibility to “others” besides Reyes Gonzalez and the engineered stone companies. Jurors assigned 70% to “others” and 2.5% to Reyes Gonzalez himself.

    The Silica Safety Coalition, an industry group that maintains that engineered stone can and should be cut safely, said the 70% fault attributed to “others” was an acknowledgment of the unsafe practices at his workplace.

    “We think the California jury was wrong to blame the slab suppliers for any of Mr. Reyes-Gonzalez’s injuries from his unsafe workplace condition, and we anticipate the verdict will be appealed by one or more parties,” the coalition said in a statement.

    Juror Laura Miller, who said she disagreed with most of her fellow jurors in finding the companies liable, said after the verdict that she felt the blame lay with the Silverios. To reach their decisions in the civil case, at least nine of 12 jurors had to agree on the verdicts.

    “The employer was using no precautions,” Miller said.

    Nevin, one of Reyes Gonzalez’s lawyers, said in a statement that the jury had “rightly rejected” efforts to blame “unsophisticated hirers” who had not been warned of the dangers themselves.

    His firm, Brayton Purcell LLP, now represents more than 150 countertop cutters with silicosis who labored at more than 350 shops, it said in a statement. “The problem is the products, not the shops.”

    Much of the court case revolved around the kinds of measures needed to protect workers from silica dust from engineered stone, as a string of experts testified about the risks of cutting such slabs. Among them was Dr. Kenneth Rosenman, who testified that Reyes Gonzalez got silicosis despite having used some tools that dispense water because they were “not sufficiently protective.”

    “They do not lower the dust level low enough to prevent this severe disease,” said Rosenman, chief of the division of occupational and environmental medicine at Michigan State University.

    Another witness for the plaintiff, industrial hygienist Stephen Petty, said that N95 masks would be “bottom of the barrel” protection for engineered stone dust. Even the most protective respirators, which use a tank of clean air, are not a “permanent solution” because workers tend to adjust them, breaking the seal, he said.

    Defense attorneys turned to other witnesses, including industrial hygienist Brian Daly, who said that engineered stone can be cut and polished safely. Reyes Gonzalez “would not have developed silicosis had his employer had a program that was protective” and followed workplace safety regulations, Daly testified.

    Judge William F. Fahey had excluded testimony that attorneys representing Reyes Gonzalez had sought from Georgia Tech scientist Jenny Houlroyd, saying her study was based on data that were not provided to the court, among other issues. Her analysis had concluded that it wasn’t economically feasible to employ the measures needed to safely cut engineered stone, especially for small workshops.

    Artificial stone is “a uniquely toxic product,” and neither “wet methods” nor wearing a mask would make it safe to cut and grind, Houlroyd wrote in a prepared list of her opinions.

    [ad_2]

    Emily Alpert Reyes

    Source link

  • Sen. Bob Menendez convicted in trial that featured tales of bribes paid in cash, gold and a car

    Sen. Bob Menendez convicted in trial that featured tales of bribes paid in cash, gold and a car

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez was convicted on Tuesday of all the counts he faced at his corruption trial, including accepting bribes of gold and cash from three New Jersey businessmen and acting as a foreign agent for the Egyptian government.The jury’s verdict followed a nine-week trial in which prosecutors said the Democrat abused the power of his office to protect allies from criminal investigations and enrich associates, including his wife, through acts that included meeting with Egyptian intelligence officials and helping that country access millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.As the verdict was read in court, Menendez, 70, looked toward the jury at times as he appeared to mark a document in front of him. Afterward, he sat resting his chin against his closed hands, elbows on the table.Menendez did not testify at the trial, but insisted publicly he was only doing his job as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said the gold bars found in his New Jersey home by the FBI belonged to his wife, Nadine Menendez. She too was charged but her trial was postponed so she could recover from breast cancer surgery. She has pleaded not guilty.The verdict, delivered at a federal courthouse in Manhattan, comes four months before Election Day and potentially dooms Menendez’s chances of campaigning for reelection as an independent candidate.Immediately after the verdict, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a statement, called on Menendez to resign.”In light of this guilty verdict, Senator Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign,” Schumer said.The trial was the second time that the New Jersey Democrat has faced corruption allegations. An earlier prosecution on unrelated charges in 2017 ended with a deadlocked jury.His codefendants, two New Jersey businessmen, were convicted of the charges they faced as well. All three had pleaded not guilty. Another businessman pleaded guilty before trial and testified against Menendez and the other defendants.The jury’s decision is a culmination of a lengthy investigation that included a June 2022 FBI raid on the couple’s home in Englewood Cliffs, a wealthy community just across the Hudson River from New York City. In the home, FBI agents found gold bars worth nearly $150,000 and cash, mostly in stacks of $100 bills, totaling over $480,000. In the garage was a Mercedes-Benz convertible.A supervising agent testified that he ordered the valuables seized because he suspected they might be the proceeds of a crime. Stacks of cash, he said, were found stuffed in boots, shoeboxes and jackets belonging to the senator.At trial, prosecutors argued that the gold bars, cash and car were bribes. Defense lawyers disputed that, arguing that the gold belonged to his wife and she had kept him in the dark about financial troubles so grim that she nearly lost the home to foreclosure. They said the cash stemmed from the senator’s habitual hoarding of cash at home after hearing how his parents escaped Cuba in 1951 with only the cash they had hidden in a grandfather clock.More shocking than the cash or gold, though, were allegations that Menendez had earned some of it by using his powerful perch on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to take actions that benefited Egypt, an important U.S. ally but one that is also often subject to American criticism over alleged human rights abuses.Prosecutors said Nadine Menendez held herself out as a conduit to her powerful husband, exchanging texts with an Egyptian general and helping to arrange a Washington visit by the chief of Egypt’s intelligence service. To one general she texted, “Anytime you need anything you have my number and we will make everything happen.”Sen. Menendez, prosecutors said, took actions to ingratiate himself with Egyptian officials, including providing them with information about the staff at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and ghostwriting a letter to fellow senators encouraging them to lift a hold on $300 million in military aid to Egypt. The senator also told his wife to let her Egyptian contacts know that he planned to sign off on $99 million in tank ammunition.Charges, originally announced last September, were expanded over time, eventually including bribery, extortion, fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and, for Menendez, acting as a foreign agent of Egypt.Menendez went on trial in mid-May along with two New Jersey businessmen who were accused of paying bribes: Wael Hana and Fred Daibes. A third businessman, Jose Uribe, pleaded guilty prior to trial and testified against the others. Lawyers for Daibes and Hana said they are innocent.Prosecutors said serial numbers on the gold bars and fingerprints on tape that bound together the stacks of cash were traced to Hana and Daibes. Some fingerprints on tape, they said, belonged to Menendez.In return for bribes, prosecutors said, Menendez took numerous actions to benefit the businessmen.Those included protecting Egypt’s decision to award Hana a lucrative monopoly to certify that meat sent to Egypt met Islamic dietary requirements. Menendez asked a U.S. agriculture official to drop his opposition to the monopoly deal, which he had questioned over fears it would drive up prices.Uribe testified at the trial that he paid for Nadine Menendez to get a Mercedes-Benz convertible in exchange for the senator’s help assuring that his insurance business would not be affected by New Jersey criminal probes of a trucking company belonging to his friend.Prosecutors also said Sen. Menendez attempted to interfere in a federal criminal prosecution of Daibes, a politically influential real estate developer accused of bank fraud. The U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Philip Sellinger, testified at the trial that Menendez questioned him about the Daibes prosecution and said he believed he was “being treated unfairly.”Prosecutors also presented evidence that Menendez took actions favorable to Qatar’s government to help Daibes secure a multimillion-dollar deal with a Qatari investment fund.Menendez’s political career began in 1974 when, only two years out of high school, he was elected to the education board in Union City, New Jersey. He later served in the state legislature, then was elected to the U.S. House in 1992. He became a U.S. senator in 2006.Menendez had the dubious distinction of being the only U.S. senator indicted twice.In 2015, he was charged with letting a wealthy Florida eye doctor buy his influence through luxury vacations and campaign contributions. After a jury couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict in 2017, New Jersey federal prosecutors dropped the case rather than put him on trial again.Voters accepted the mistrial as an exoneration and returned Menendez to the Senate.After his second indictment last summer, Menendez claimed he was being persecuted, saying some people “cannot accept that a first-generation Latino American from humble beginnings could rise to be a U.S. Senator.”While the trial was underway, he announced he would run for reelection as an independent.

    NEW YORK —

    U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez was convicted on Tuesday of all the counts he faced at his corruption trial, including accepting bribes of gold and cash from three New Jersey businessmen and acting as a foreign agent for the Egyptian government.

    The jury’s verdict followed a nine-week trial in which prosecutors said the Democrat abused the power of his office to protect allies from criminal investigations and enrich associates, including his wife, through acts that included meeting with Egyptian intelligence officials and helping that country access millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

    As the verdict was read in court, Menendez, 70, looked toward the jury at times as he appeared to mark a document in front of him. Afterward, he sat resting his chin against his closed hands, elbows on the table.

    Menendez did not testify at the trial, but insisted publicly he was only doing his job as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said the gold bars found in his New Jersey home by the FBI belonged to his wife, Nadine Menendez. She too was charged but her trial was postponed so she could recover from breast cancer surgery. She has pleaded not guilty.

    The verdict, delivered at a federal courthouse in Manhattan, comes four months before Election Day and potentially dooms Menendez’s chances of campaigning for reelection as an independent candidate.

    AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah

    Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., leaves Manhattan federal court, Tuesday, July, 15, 2024, in New York.

    Immediately after the verdict, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a statement, called on Menendez to resign.

    “In light of this guilty verdict, Senator Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign,” Schumer said.

    The trial was the second time that the New Jersey Democrat has faced corruption allegations. An earlier prosecution on unrelated charges in 2017 ended with a deadlocked jury.

    His codefendants, two New Jersey businessmen, were convicted of the charges they faced as well. All three had pleaded not guilty. Another businessman pleaded guilty before trial and testified against Menendez and the other defendants.

    The jury’s decision is a culmination of a lengthy investigation that included a June 2022 FBI raid on the couple’s home in Englewood Cliffs, a wealthy community just across the Hudson River from New York City. In the home, FBI agents found gold bars worth nearly $150,000 and cash, mostly in stacks of $100 bills, totaling over $480,000. In the garage was a Mercedes-Benz convertible.

    A supervising agent testified that he ordered the valuables seized because he suspected they might be the proceeds of a crime. Stacks of cash, he said, were found stuffed in boots, shoeboxes and jackets belonging to the senator.

    At trial, prosecutors argued that the gold bars, cash and car were bribes. Defense lawyers disputed that, arguing that the gold belonged to his wife and she had kept him in the dark about financial troubles so grim that she nearly lost the home to foreclosure. They said the cash stemmed from the senator’s habitual hoarding of cash at home after hearing how his parents escaped Cuba in 1951 with only the cash they had hidden in a grandfather clock.

    More shocking than the cash or gold, though, were allegations that Menendez had earned some of it by using his powerful perch on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to take actions that benefited Egypt, an important U.S. ally but one that is also often subject to American criticism over alleged human rights abuses.

    Prosecutors said Nadine Menendez held herself out as a conduit to her powerful husband, exchanging texts with an Egyptian general and helping to arrange a Washington visit by the chief of Egypt’s intelligence service. To one general she texted, “Anytime you need anything you have my number and we will make everything happen.”

    Sen. Menendez, prosecutors said, took actions to ingratiate himself with Egyptian officials, including providing them with information about the staff at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and ghostwriting a letter to fellow senators encouraging them to lift a hold on $300 million in military aid to Egypt. The senator also told his wife to let her Egyptian contacts know that he planned to sign off on $99 million in tank ammunition.

    Charges, originally announced last September, were expanded over time, eventually including bribery, extortion, fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and, for Menendez, acting as a foreign agent of Egypt.

    Menendez went on trial in mid-May along with two New Jersey businessmen who were accused of paying bribes: Wael Hana and Fred Daibes. A third businessman, Jose Uribe, pleaded guilty prior to trial and testified against the others. Lawyers for Daibes and Hana said they are innocent.

    Prosecutors said serial numbers on the gold bars and fingerprints on tape that bound together the stacks of cash were traced to Hana and Daibes. Some fingerprints on tape, they said, belonged to Menendez.

    In return for bribes, prosecutors said, Menendez took numerous actions to benefit the businessmen.

    Those included protecting Egypt’s decision to award Hana a lucrative monopoly to certify that meat sent to Egypt met Islamic dietary requirements. Menendez asked a U.S. agriculture official to drop his opposition to the monopoly deal, which he had questioned over fears it would drive up prices.

    Uribe testified at the trial that he paid for Nadine Menendez to get a Mercedes-Benz convertible in exchange for the senator’s help assuring that his insurance business would not be affected by New Jersey criminal probes of a trucking company belonging to his friend.

    Prosecutors also said Sen. Menendez attempted to interfere in a federal criminal prosecution of Daibes, a politically influential real estate developer accused of bank fraud. The U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Philip Sellinger, testified at the trial that Menendez questioned him about the Daibes prosecution and said he believed he was “being treated unfairly.”

    Prosecutors also presented evidence that Menendez took actions favorable to Qatar’s government to help Daibes secure a multimillion-dollar deal with a Qatari investment fund.

    Menendez’s political career began in 1974 when, only two years out of high school, he was elected to the education board in Union City, New Jersey. He later served in the state legislature, then was elected to the U.S. House in 1992. He became a U.S. senator in 2006.

    Menendez had the dubious distinction of being the only U.S. senator indicted twice.

    In 2015, he was charged with letting a wealthy Florida eye doctor buy his influence through luxury vacations and campaign contributions. After a jury couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict in 2017, New Jersey federal prosecutors dropped the case rather than put him on trial again.

    Voters accepted the mistrial as an exoneration and returned Menendez to the Senate.

    After his second indictment last summer, Menendez claimed he was being persecuted, saying some people “cannot accept that a first-generation Latino American from humble beginnings could rise to be a U.S. Senator.”

    While the trial was underway, he announced he would run for reelection as an independent.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NC Republicans had a lot to say about Trump verdict — and most of it was dangerous | Opinion

    NC Republicans had a lot to say about Trump verdict — and most of it was dangerous | Opinion

    [ad_1]

    OPINION AND COMMENTARY

    Editorials and other Opinion content offer perspectives on issues important to our community and are independent from the work of our newsroom reporters.

    Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media on Monday, April 15, 2024 in New York City before entering a Manhattan courtroom for his criminal trial over hush money paid to a porn star.

    Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media on Monday, April 15, 2024 in New York City before entering a Manhattan courtroom for his criminal trial over hush money paid to a porn star.


    ANGELA WEISS

    ANGELA WEISS/Pool via USA TODAY

    A jury unanimously found Donald Trump guilty in his New York hush money trial Thursday — making him the first president in U.S. history to be criminally convicted, let alone convicted of a felony.

    And North Carolina Republicans had a lot to say about it.

    In the wake of the verdict, they took to social media to defend their party’s leader and presumptive presidential nominee, calling the trial a “sham” and insinuating the whole thing was a political orchestrated by Joe Biden and his Democratic allies.

    U.S. Sen. Ted Budd called it a “rigged charade” and encouraged his followers to donate to Trump’s campaign to join him in “fighting back.” U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx called it a “political witch hunt.” Said Rep. Greg Murphy: “We are officially now a banana republic.”

    Others more brazenly chose to lay false blame directly at the feet of Democrats.

    “The American people know that this verdict is election interference and the Biden admin is behind all of it,” Rep. Richard Hudson said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

    (Of course, the Biden administration had nothing to do with this case, as it was brought by the Manhattan district attorney and the conviction was unanimously agreed upon by a jury of 12 New Yorkers.)

    North Carolina Lt. Gov. and GOP gubernatorial nominee Mark Robinson said, “The Democrats know they can’t beat President Trump at the polls so they weaponize our government against him.”

    Those half-truths and lies are dangerous enough. But some Republicans, like Rep. Dan Bishop, opted for even more sinister rhetoric.

    “Lawfare has reached its Waterloo,” Bishop said in an X post. “A reckoning is coming for gangster government.”

    Waterloo, of course, was a bloody battle that marked the final defeat of Napoleon. Nearly 50,000 lives were lost. Is that the kind of “reckoning” Bishop wants to see?

    How interesting — and revealing — to see the crowd that constantly cries about “law and order” turn on that very principle when their ally is the one being brought to justice. It’s particularly rich coming from Bishop, who is running to be the state’s chief law enforcement officer yet seems to be directing strangely ominous threats toward the government itself.

    No one should be above the rule of law, not even an American president. “Law and order” means that everyone must be held to the same standard. Yet Republicans continue to undermine the public’s faith in our justice system, egged on by Trump himself, who insists he is a “political prisoner” and has repeatedly likened himself to Mother Teresa. The lies, the false accusations, the hints of violence — those words carry especially dangerous weight when spoken by those with power and a platform.

    But we shouldn’t be surprised. Nothing, so far, has been enough to cause most Republicans to stray from the man who demands their absolute fealty, despite the severity of his crimes and moral transgressions. They stood by him through an insurrection, the mishandling of classified documents, through credible sexual assault accusations for which he now owes more than $80 million. They’ve bent over backwards and forwards to justify why they still support him, no matter what the truth says. A felony conviction was never going to change that.

    Paige Masten is the deputy opinion editor for The Charlotte Observer. She covers stories that impact people in Charlotte and across the state. A lifelong North Carolinian, she grew up in Raleigh and graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill in 2021.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    [ad_2]

    Paige Masten

    Source link

  • Doomsday plot: Idaho jury convicts Chad Daybell of killing wife and girlfriend’s 2 children

    Doomsday plot: Idaho jury convicts Chad Daybell of killing wife and girlfriend’s 2 children

    [ad_1]

    An Idaho jury has convicted Chad Daybell of murder in the deaths of his wife and his girlfriend’s two youngest children.The verdict marks the end of a years-long investigation that included bizarre claims of zombie children, apocalyptic prophesies and illicit affairs. Now, the jury will be tasked with deciding if Daybell should be sentenced to death for the crimes.Prosecutors charged Daybell and his newest wife, Lori Vallow Daybell, with multiple counts of murder, conspiracy and grand theft in connection with the deaths of Vallow Daybell’s two youngest children, 7-year-old Joshua “JJ” Vallow and 16-year-old Tylee Ryan, in September 2019.Prosecutors also charged the couple in connection with the October 2019 death of Chad Daybell’s wife, Tammy Daybell.Prosecutors had said they would seek the death penalty if Daybell was convicted.Daybell’s defense attorney argued there was not enough evidence to tie Daybell to the killings, and suggested Vallow Daybell’s older brother, Alex Cox, was the culprit.Vallow Daybell was convicted last year and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

    An Idaho jury has convicted Chad Daybell of murder in the deaths of his wife and his girlfriend’s two youngest children.

    The verdict marks the end of a years-long investigation that included bizarre claims of zombie children, apocalyptic prophesies and illicit affairs. Now, the jury will be tasked with deciding if Daybell should be sentenced to death for the crimes.

    Prosecutors charged Daybell and his newest wife, Lori Vallow Daybell, with multiple counts of murder, conspiracy and grand theft in connection with the deaths of Vallow Daybell’s two youngest children, 7-year-old Joshua “JJ” Vallow and 16-year-old Tylee Ryan, in September 2019.

    Prosecutors also charged the couple in connection with the October 2019 death of Chad Daybell’s wife, Tammy Daybell.

    Prosecutors had said they would seek the death penalty if Daybell was convicted.

    Daybell’s defense attorney argued there was not enough evidence to tie Daybell to the killings, and suggested Vallow Daybell’s older brother, Alex Cox, was the culprit.

    Vallow Daybell was convicted last year and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump trial live updates: Jurors zero in on testimony of key witnesses as deliberations resume

    Trump trial live updates: Jurors zero in on testimony of key witnesses as deliberations resume

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (WABC) — The testimony in Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial is all wrapped up after more than four weeks and nearly two dozen witnesses, meaning the case has headed into the pivotal final stretch of closing arguments, jury deliberations, and possibly a verdict.

    It’s impossible to say how long all of that will take, but in a landmark trial that’s already featured its fair share of memorable moments, this week could easily be the most important.

    How might Trump’s campaign be affected if he’s acquitted in his hush money trial?

    Here’s a brief look at what every witness said on the stand during Donald Trump’s hush money trial

    What are the potential outcomes of Trump’s hush money trial?

    Key players in the Trump trial

    More coverage from ABC News

    LIVE UPDATES FROM THE TRUMP TRIAL

    Information from Eyewitness News, ABC News and the Associated Press

    Thursday, May 30

    Jury wants readback on how to consider evidence

    Lauren Glassberg reports from outside the courthouse in Lower Manhattan.

    “We did receive another note” from the jury this morning, Judge Merchan said.

    According to Merchan, the jury wants the readback to begin with a description of how the jury should consider that evidence, and what should be drawn from the testimony.

    Second, the jury said they want headphones “for use with the evidence laptop.”

    Merchan says the jury will get both headphones and a speaker so they can listen to the evidence.

    Day 2 of jury deliberations

    The jury in Donald Trump’s hush money trial is to resume deliberations Thursday after asking to rehear potentially crucial testimony about the alleged hush money scheme at the heart of the history-making case.

    The 12-person jury deliberated for about 4 1/2 hours on Wednesday without reaching a verdict.

    Besides asking to rehear testimony from a tabloid publisher and Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer, the jury also requested to revisit at least part of the judge’s hourlong instructions that were meant to guide them on the law.

    It’s unclear how long the deliberations will last. A guilty verdict would deliver a stunning legal reckoning for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee as he seeks to reclaim the White House while an acquittal would represent a major win for Trump and embolden him on the campaign trail. Since verdicts must be unanimous, it’s also possible the case ends in a mistrial if the jury can’t reach a consensus after days of deliberations.

    Josh Einiger reports on the former president’s trial from Lower Manhattan.

    Wednesday, May 29

    Trump rails about trial after leaving court for the day

    Donald Trump continued to complain about the hush money trial as he left court Wednesday after the first day of jury deliberations.

    “The judge ought to end it and save his reputation,” Trump told reporters after conferring with his campaign and legal teams.

    The former president also railed that “a lot of key witnesses were not called,” even though his side ultimately chose to call only two witnesses to testify.

    He said again it’s “very unfair” that he has to be in court instead of out campaigning” and again labeled the case “a Biden witch hunt” and “weaponization.”

    Judge says jury notes will be addressed tomorrow

    With the just back in the courtroom, Judge Merchan told them the requested readback of testimony would will take at least half an hour, so announced he would dismiss the jury for the day and address both their notes when they return tomorrow.

    Before dismissing the jury for the day, the judge emphasized his standard instruction about the jury not looking up information related to the trial.

    “You are at a critical point in the proceedings,” Merchan said.

    “See you tomorrow morning at 9:30,” the judge said before the jury exited the courtroom.

    Jurors want to rehear instructions

    Before the parties resolved the first note, the jury sent another note asking “to rehear the judge’s instructions.”

    Meanwhile, Trump remained essentially expressionless – almost with a frown on his face as the judge addresses the parties.

    The jury is expected to return to the courtroom shortly.

    Jury note requests portions of testimony

    The parties – including Donald Trump – returned to the courtroom after a bell inside the room went off about 15 minutes ago. Judge Merchan arrived shortly thereafter:

    “Good afternoon. We have received a note,” Merchan said.

    Jurors have requested four items from the court:

    -David Pecker’s testimony about the phone conversation with Donald Trump while at an investor meeting in New Jersey.

    -David Pecker’s testimony about the decision about the assignment of McDougal’s life rights

    -David Pecker’s testimony about Trump Tower Meeting

    -And Michael Cohen testimony about Trump Tower Meeting

    “I will be in the robing room, let me know when you are ready for readback,” Merchan says.

    Todd Blanche and Joshua Steinglass are now conferring about how to respond. The parties are presumably combing through transcripts to find the relevant portions.

    Stuck waiting at the courthouse, Trump rants on social media

    Donald Trump’s complaints on social media about the hush money case persisted Wednesday as the jury deliberated.

    “IT IS RIDICULOUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNAMERICAN that the highly Conflicted, Radical Left Judge is not requiring a unanimous decision on the fake charges against me brought by Soros backed D.A. Alvin Bragg,” he wrote. “A THIRD WORLD ELECTION INTERFERENCE HOAX!”

    Despite his declaration, any verdict in the case has to be unanimous: guilty or not guilty.

    If the jurors disagree, they keep deliberating. If they get to a point where they are hopelessly deadlocked, then the judge can declare a mistrial.

    If they convict, they must agree that Trump created a false entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing another crime – in this case, violating a state election law.

    What the jurors do not have to agree on, however, is which way that election law was violated.

    The jury has been sent to deliberate. What exactly does that mean?

    Jury deliberations proceed in secret, in a room reserved specifically for jurors and through an intentionally opaque process.

    Jurors can communicate with the court through notes that ask the judge, for instance, for legal guidance or to have particular excerpts of testimony read back to them. But without knowing what jurors are saying to each other, it’s hard to read too much into the meaning of any note.

    It’s anyone’s guess how long the jury in Donald Trump’s hush money case will deliberate for and there’s no time limit either. The jury must evaluate 34 counts of falsifying business records and that could take some time. A verdict might not come by the end of the week.

    To reach a verdict on any given count, either guilty or not guilty, all 12 jurors must agree with the decision for the judge to accept it.

    Things will get trickier if the jury can’t reach a consensus after several days of deliberations. Though defense lawyers might seek an immediate mistrial, Judge Juan M. Merchan is likely to call the jurors in and instruct them to keep trying for a verdict and to be willing to reconsider their positions without abandoning their conscience or judgment just to go along with others.

    If, after that instruction, the jury still can’t reach a verdict, the judge would have the option to deem the panel hopelessly deadlocked and declare a mistrial.

    Trump: ‘Mother Teresa could not beat these charges’

    Former President Donald Trump told reporters after jurors began deliberating in his criminal hush money trial that the charges were rigged and again accused the judge of being conflicted. He further said that “Mother Teresa could not beat these charges.”

    “What is happening here is weaponization at a level that nobody’s seen before ever and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen,” Trump said.

    Trump repeated accusations that the criminal charges were brought by President Joe Biden’s administration to hit him, as the president’s main election opponent.

    Jury begins deliberating in historic case

    “That concludes my instructions on the law. Counsel please approach,” Judge Merchan said when he was done instructing the jury.

    He held a sidebar with the attorneys, after which the jurors filed out of the courtroom to begin deliberations.

    Lauren Glassberg is in Lower Manhattan as jury deliberations get underway.

    Judge to jurors: Personal bias must be put aside

    The judge in Donald Trump’s criminal trial reminded jurors Wednesday morning of their solemn responsibility to decide Trump’s guilt or innocence, gently and methodically reading through standard jury instructions that have a special resonance in the former president’s high-profile case.

    “As a juror, you are asked to make a very important decision about another member of the community,” Judge Juan M. Merchan said, underscoring that – in the eyes of the law – the jurors and Trump are peers.

    Merchan also reminded jurors of their vow, during jury selection, “to set aside any personal bias you may have in favor of or against” Trump and decide the case “fairly based on the evidence of the law.”

    Echoing standard jury instructions, Merchan noted that even though the defense presented evidence, the burden of proof remains on the prosecutor and that Trump is “not required to prove that he is not guilty.”

    “In fact,” noted Merchan, “the defendant is not required to prove or disprove anything.”

    Reading of jury instructions underway

    The jury in Donald Trump’s hush money trial has entered the courtroom and taken their seats. Ahead of deliberations, Judge Juan M. Merchan has begun instructing the panel on the law that governs the case and what they can consider as they work toward a verdict.

    Jurors will not receive copies of the instructions, but they can request to hear them again as many times as they wish, Merchan said.

    “It is not my responsibility to judge the evidence here. It is yours,” he told them.

    Trump leaned back in his chair and closed his eyes as Merchan told jurors that reading the instructions would take about an hour.

    Another famous face at the courthouse

    Donald Trump will not be the only big name appearing before a judge in lower Manhattan on Wednesday – fallen movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is expected to appear for a hearing related to the retrial of his landmark #MeToo-era rape case.

    The hearing will take place in the same courthouse where Trump is currently on trial and where Weinstein was originally convicted in 2020.

    Weinstein’s conviction was overturned in April after the court found that the trial judge unfairly allowed testimony against Weinstein based on allegations that weren’t part of the case. His retrial is slated for sometime after Labor Day.

    Weinstein is set to appear for a hearing before a judge in the same courthouse as Donald Trump.

    A motion that still hasn’t been decided

    The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money trial might have one last piece of business to address on Wednesday before jurors receive instructions and can begin deliberations.

    Last Monday, defense lawyers filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that prosecutors had failed to prove their case and there was no evidence of falsified business records or an intent to defraud.

    Prosecutors rebutted that assertion, saying “the trial evidence overwhelmingly supports each element” of the alleged offenses, and the case should proceed to the jury.

    Judge Juan M. Merchan did not indicate at the time when he would issue a decision on the request. More than a week later, it remains unclear whether he will address it before the case goes to the jury.

    Jury set to begin deliberations

    Jurors in Donald Trump’s hush money trial are expected to begin deliberations Wednesday after receiving instructions from the judge on the law and the factors they may consider as they strive to reach a verdict in the first criminal case against a former American president.

    The deliberations follow a marathon day of closing arguments in which a Manhattan prosecutor accused Trump of trying to “hoodwink” voters in the 2016 presidential election by participating in a hush money scheme meant to stifle embarrassing stories he feared would torpedo his campaign.

    “This case, at its core, is about a conspiracy and a cover-up,” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told jurors during summations that stretched from early afternoon into the evening.

    Trump’s lawyer, by contrast, branded the star prosecution witness as the “greatest liar of all time” as he proclaimed his client innocent of all charges and pressed the panel for an across-the-board acquittal.

    The lawyers’ dueling accounts, wildly divergent in their assessments of witness credibility, Trump’s culpability and the strength of evidence, offered both sides one final chance to score points with the jury as it prepares to embark upon the momentous and historically unprecedented task of deciding whether to convict the presumptive Republican presidential nominee ahead of the November election.

    Lindsay Tuchman has the latest in Lower Manhattan on the trial.

    Tuesday, May 28

    Closing arguments conclude; jury deliberations to begin Wednesday

    Donald Trump choreographed “a conspiracy and a coverup” in a brazen attempt to “pull the wool” over voters’ eyes ahead the 2016 presidential election, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said during a lengthy closing argument that stretched into Tuesday evening.

    “The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefitted most: the defendant, former President Donald J. Trump,” Steinglass said.

    With his final pitch to jurors, Steinglass attempted to both rehabilitate the credibility of the government’s key witness, Michael Cohen, and downplay his role in the case, characterizing the onetime fixer as nothing more than a “tour guide” through a “mountain of evidence.”

    In the end, Steinglass argued, jurors need not rely on Cohen alone, because “it’s difficult to conceive of a case with more corroboration.”

    Judge Juan Merchan will instruct jurors on Wednesday morning. After that, deliberations will begin.

    Prosecution dubs ‘Access Hollywood’ tape a ‘Category 5 Hurricane’

    Following a brief afternoon break in closing arguments in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass turned his attention to the publication of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape in October 2016 and the resulting fallout for the then-candidate’s campaign.

    “When you’re a celebrity, they let you do it. You can get away with anything,” Trump could be heard saying on the tape.

    Steinglass reminded jurors how Hope Hicks, then the campaign’s communications director, testified that news coverage of the tape knocked a Category 4 hurricane out of the headlines.

    Steinglass dubbed the tape a “Category 5” hurricane.

    Trump was ‘looming behind everything they’re doing,’ prosecutor says

    Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said on Tuesday during closing arguments that joking texts between Karen McDougal’s lawyer Keith Davidson and then-National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard about hypothetical ambassadorships were clear evidence that they knew the deal would benefit Trump’s presidential campaign.

    “Throw in an ambassadorship for me. I’m thinking Isle of Mann,” Davidson wrote on July 28, 2016, referring to the British territory Isle of Man.

    “I’m going to Make Australia Great Again,” replied Howard, who hails from Australia.

    All joking aside, Steinglass said: “It’s a palpable recognition of what they’re doing. They’re helping Trump get elected.” The prosecutor said the text messages underscore that “Trump is looming behind everything that they’re doing.”

    Prosecutor says case is about Trump and not Michael Cohen

    After Donald Trump’s lawyer had insisted to jurors that the hush money case rested on Michael Cohen and that they couldn’t trust him, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass sought to persuade the group that there is “a mountain of evidence, of corroborating testimony, that tends to connect the defendant to this crime.”

    He pointed to testimony from David Pecker and others, to the recorded conversation in which Trump and Cohen appear to discuss the Karen McDougal deal, and to Trump’s own tweets.

    “It’s not about whether you like Michael Cohen. It’s not about whether you want to go into business with Michael Cohen. It’s whether he has useful, reliable information to give you about what went down in this case, and the truth is that he was in the best position to know,” Steinglass said.

    The prosecutor then accused the defense of wanting to make the case all about Cohen.

    “It isn’t. That’s a deflection,” he said. “This case is not about Michael Cohen. It’s about Donald Trump.”

    Trump campaign holds its own news conference

    Donald Trump’s campaign staffers held their own news conference outside the courthouse Tuesday morning in the exact same spot where actor Robert De Niro and Jan. 6 officers had just spoken on behalf of Joe Biden’s campaign.

    Jason Miller, Trump’s senior campaign advisor, called De Niro “a washed-up actor,” and said the news conference showed that the hush money trial was political.

    “After months of saying politics had nothing to do with this trial, they showed up and made a campaign event out of a lower Manhattan trial day for President Trump,” Miller said.

    Karoline Leavitt, the campaign press secretary, called the Biden campaign “desperate and failing” and “pathetic” and said their event outside the trial was “a full-blown concession that this trial is a witch hunt that comes from the top.”

    Actor Robert de Niro and Jan. 6 first responders speak near Trump’s trial

    Biden campaign deploys actor Robert De Niro, Jan. 6 first responders near Trump’s trial

    Joe Biden’s campaign sent actor Robert De Niro and two law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 to an area in lower Manhattan not far from the criminal court where Donald Trump’s hush money trial is happening.

    Speaking while the former president was stuck in court, De Niro said Trump wants to “destroy not only the city but the country and eventually he could destroy the world.”

    As he spoke, Trump protesters screamed anti-Biden chants.

    Actor Robert De Niro exchanged words with Trump supporters outside the court.

    Defense says Trump watches his finances carefully

    After arguing earlier Tuesday that Donald Trump may not have been fully aware of all his invoices, defense lawyer Todd Blanche stressed to jurors that the former president was a stickler about watching his finances.

    Michael Cohen received $420,000 in all from Trump in 2017, a sum that the ex-lawyer and prosecutors in the former president’s hush money case have said included the $130,000 reimbursement related to Stormy Daniels, a $50,000 repayment for an unrelated expense and a $60,000 bonus. On top of that, prosecutors have said, there was extra money to cover taxes that would be due on the $130,000 as income – taxes that wouldn’t apply if it had simply been paid as a business expense reimbursement.

    “That is absurd,” Blanche told jurors, pointing to “all the other evidence you heard about how carefully President Trump watches his finances.”

    Biden and Trump campaigns hold dueling news conferences outside courthouse

    Joe Biden’s campaign announced on Tuesday that it would hold an event with “special guests” as closing arguments in Donald Trump’s hush money trial are underway.

    Trump spokesman Jason Miller said the former president’s allies will respond with their own event immediately following Biden’s.

    He posted on the social platform X that Biden’s allies “aren’t in PA, MI, WI, NV, AZ or GA – they’re outside the Biden Trial against President Trump,” adding: “It’s always been about politics.”

    Blanche takes aim at Cohen’s testimony

    Insisting that prosecutors haven’t proven their case, defense lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors during closing arguments Tuesday morning that they “should want and expect more” than key prosecution witness Michael Cohen’s testimony, or that of a Trump Organization employee accounts payable staffer talking about how she processed invoices, or the testimony given by Stormy Daniels’ former lawyer Keith Davidson.

    Blanche argued that Davidson “was really just trying to extort money from President Trump” in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

    “The consequences of the lack of proof that you all heard over the past five weeks is simple: is a not guilty verdict, period,” Blanche said.

    Blanche further laid into Cohen and his testimony, telling jurors he’ll come up repeatedly throughout the defense’s summation.

    “You’re going to hear me talk a lot about Michael Cohen, and for good reason. You can not convict President Trump, you can not convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt on the word of Michael Cohen,” Blanche said. Cohen “told you a number of things that were lies, pure and simple,” the lawyer added.

    Closing arguments in Trump trial

    Closing arguments in Donald Trump’s historic hush money trial began Tuesday morning in a Manhattan courtroom, giving prosecutors and defense attorneys one final opportunity to convince the jury of their respective cases before deliberations begin.

    Jurors will undertake the unprecedented task of deciding whether to convict the former U.S. president of felony criminal charges stemming from hush money payments tied to an alleged scheme to buy and bury stories that might wreck Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

    At the heart of the charges are reimbursements paid to Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush money payment that was given to porn actor Stormy Daniels in exchange for not going public with her claim about a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump.

    Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen, Trump’s then-lawyer, were falsely logged as “legal expenses” to hide the true nature of the transactions.

    Monday, May 27

    Closing arguments expected Tuesday

    After 22 witnesses, including a porn actor, tabloid publisher and White House insiders, testimony is over at Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York.

    Prosecutors called 20 witnesses. The defense called just two. Trump decided not to testify on his own behalf.

    The trial now shifts to closing arguments, scheduled for Tuesday.

    After that, it will be up to 12 jurors to decide whether prosecutors have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified his company’s business records as part of a broader effort to keep stories about marital infidelity from becoming public during his 2016 presidential campaign. He has pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing.

    A conviction could come down to how the jurors interpret the testimony and which witnesses they find credible. The jury must be unanimous. The records involved include 11 checks sent to Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, as well as invoices and company ledger entries related to those payments.

    One last thing before the jury deliberates

    A critical moment will take place, perhaps Wednesday morning, before the jury begins its deliberations.

    Judge Juan M. Merchan is expected to spend about an hour instructing the jury on the law governing the case, providing a roadmap for what it can and cannot take into account as it evaluates the Republican former president’s guilt or innocence.

    In an indication of just how important those instructions are, prosecutors and defense lawyers had a spirited debate last week outside the jury’s presence as they sought to persuade Merchan about the instructions he should give.

    The Trump team, for instance, sought an instruction informing jurors that the types of hush money payments at issue in Trump’s case are not inherently illegal, a request a prosecutor called “totally inappropriate.” Merchan said such an instruction would go too far and is unnecessary.

    Trump’s team also asked Merchan to consider the “extraordinarily important” nature of the case when issuing his instructions and to urge jurors to reach “very specific findings.” Prosecutors objected to that as well, and Merchan agreed that it would be wrong to deviate from the standard instructions.

    “When you say it’s a very important case, you’re asking me to change the law, and I’m not going to do that,” Merchan said.

    Prosecutors, meanwhile, requested an instruction that someone’s status as a candidate doesn’t need to be the sole motivation for making a payment that benefits the campaign. Defense lawyers asked for jurors to be told that if a payment would have been made even if the person wasn’t running, it shouldn’t be treated as a campaign contribution.

    ———-

    * Get Eyewitness News Delivered

    * More New York City news

    * Send us a news tip

    * Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts

    * Follow us on YouTube

    Submit a tip or story idea to Eyewitness News

    Have a breaking news tip or an idea for a story we should cover? Send it to Eyewitness News using the form below. If attaching a video or photo, terms of use apply.

    Copyright © 2024 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WABC

    Source link

  • Jury reaches verdict in Jam Master Jay murder trial in New York

    Jury reaches verdict in Jam Master Jay murder trial in New York

    [ad_1]

    BROOKLYN, New York — The jury has reached a verdict in the New York murder trial of Run-DMC star Jam Master Jay.

    The decision will be read at 3:30 p.m. Tuesday.

    Evidence versus eyewitnesses: that’s what it all boiled down to for deliberating jurors in the murder trial. It started five weeks ago in federal court in Downtown Brooklyn.

    Karl Jordan Jr. and Ronald Washington were indicted for committing murder as a result of a drug conspiracy.

    Prosecutors accuse the two long-time friends of the hip-hop pioneer, whose real name is Jason Mizell, of a showing up at his Jamaica Avenue studio in October of 2002, entering through a rarely used back door, and carrying out the murder in retaliation for being cut out of a large cocaine deal.

    The two people who were within feet of Mizelle when he was shot in the head, gave highly emotional, tearful testimony.

    A second shooting victim, Tony Rincon, testified that Jordan “walked directly to Jay, kind of gave him half a handshake and at the same time, that’s when I hear a couple of shots. I see Jay just fall.”

    Darla Miles is in Downtown Brooklyn with the latest.

    Defense attorneys, however, poked holes in the evidence — or lack thereof — in the 21-year-old cold case. No gun was ever recovered.

    The crime scene unit didn’t process the alleged point of entry, the back door, and the only DNA found at the scene was that of a third suspect charged in the case, not Jordan or Washington.

    WATCH | Set the Record Straight: The Jam Master Jay Case

    ABC7’s Darla Miles reveals exclusive new details and insights into the complicated legacy of the rap pioneer in our documentary, “Set the Record Straight: The Jam Master Jay Case.”

    Copyright © 2024 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WABC

    Source link

  • Katy Perry fought for a Montecito mansion in court. The verdict is in, and she likes it

    Katy Perry fought for a Montecito mansion in court. The verdict is in, and she likes it

    [ad_1]

    The verdict is in! Katy Perry’s legal battle over that $15-million Montecito mansion has concluded.

    The “Teenage Dream” hitmaker purchased the mansion for herself and fiancé Orlando Bloom in July 2020 from the founder of 1-800-Flowers. But the entrepreneur tried to call off the sale, alleging he was mentally incapacitated at the time of the agreement due to pain pills.

    On Wednesday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge tentatively ruled that Carl Westcott, 84, had not met his burden of proving he was mentally unfit.

    “Wescott presented no persuasive evidence that he lacked capacity to enter into a real estate contract between June 10, 2020, and June 18, 2020, the days during which he negotiated and signed the contract,” the judgment read.

    The judge said evidence presented by Wescott’s team was not credible or persuasive. The court actually found significant evidence that demonstrated Wescott was well enough to knowingly sign on the dotted line. The evidence included the testimony of a witness who interacted with Westcott while he negotiated and finalized the contract as well as Westcott’s written communications during the same time frame that the court said showed the entrepreneur to be “coherent, engaged, lucid, and rational.”

    Westcott’s medical reports showed that none of his doctors found he lacked capacity to engage in any action before the sales contract or for more than a year afterward. According to the court documents, the contract that Westcott negotiated and signed yielded him a $3.75-million profit. He also had entered into other contracts shortly before and shortly after the real estate agreement with Perry and had not attempted to rescind any of those due to lack of capacity.

    “Today’s proposed decision is clear — the judge found that Mr. Westcott could not prove anything other than he was of perfectly sound mind when he engaged in complex negotiations over several weeks with multiple parties to transact a lucrative sale of the property that netted him a substantial profit,” Perry’s attorney, Eric Rowen, said in a statement to People.

    “The evidence shows that Mr. Westcott breached the contract for no other reason than he had changed his mind,” said Rowen. “We look forward to wrapping this matter up at the scheduled damage trial phase set for February 13 and 14, if not before.”

    Westcott filed a lawsuit against the couple’s business manager, Bernie Gudvi, in August 2020, alleging he was heavily medicated and not of sound mind when he contracted with Perry for the $15-million sale. Shortly after the contract was signed, Westcott and his lawyers alleged that he was unable to properly review the contract because he had been on “several intoxicating pain-killing opiates” at the time.

    Westcott said in his lawsuit that he had a six-hour back surgery several days before being presented with the proposed real estate contract and had been prescribed powerful medications that left him “intoxicated” at signing time.

    The trial began in late September, and the judge has since bifurcated the case. The “Roar” singer is expected to testify in front of the judge in the countersuit regarding damages.

    Westcott’s son, Chart Westcott, told People, “While we do not agree with [the judge’s] ruling and wish he had spelled our father’s name correctly in his ruling, we accept it.” “Katy Perry will now have to testify, in person, on damages and the contradictory claims she has made over lost income for the rental of my father’s home. While this has been a long road, the fight for my father is not over and we will continue to represent him and his legacy of incredible achievements.”

    [ad_2]

    Emily St. Martin

    Source link

  • Judge vacates 67-year-old Sioux City man’s guilty verdict for enticing a minor

    Judge vacates 67-year-old Sioux City man’s guilty verdict for enticing a minor

    [ad_1]

    SIOUX CITY — A judge has vacated a jury verdict in which a Sioux City man was found guilty of offering a 14-year-old girl $600 for sex, ruling there was not enough evidence presented at trial to show the man knew the girl was underage.

    District Judge Jeffrey Neary granted a defense motion for a judgment of acquittal, found Danny Beard not guilty of the charge of enticing away a minor and dismissed the case.






    Beard




    A jury in August found Beard, 67, guilty at the conclusion of a two-day trial in Woodbury County District Court. He had faced a five-year prison sentence for the Class D felony.

    Neary, who presided over the trial, focused his ruling on the fourth element of the crime: that at the time of the Nov. 14 incident, Beard “reasonably believed (the girl) was under 16.”

    In his ruling, Neary said his review of the trial transcript and video exhibits and recollection of the evidence led him to conclude the prosecution presented no definitive evidence Beard knew the girl’s age prior to the incident.

    People are also reading…

    “It is clear to the court on this evidence that the age of (the girl) was not clear at the time of the incident and further that nothing in this evidence would indicate that (she) was under the age of 16 at the time of the incident,” Neary wrote.

    Beard was accused of pulling up next to the girl in his pickup truck as she was walking in the parking lot of her grandmother’s apartment complex, asking what a “pretty girl” like her was doing out so late and then asking, “You want to come with me?” before saying, “I’ll give you 500 (dollars).”

    Beard, who lived in the same apartment complex, parked his pickup and approached the girl as she was entering the apartment building and offered the girl $500 to come up to his apartment, then raised his offer to $600. The girl went to her grandmother’s apartment, and her grandmother filed a police report.

    Beard later told an investigator he thought the girl was someone else and that his offer of money was for cleaning his apartment, not for sex. He told police he did not know the girl’s age until after the incident.

    In his resistance to the defense’s motion for a new trial, Assistant Woodbury County Attorney James Loomis said the evidence should be taken together in context rather than singled out. Video surveillance, he said, showed not only what Beard said to the girl, but how he said it, leaving viewers to conclude he was offering money for sex. The girl also visited her grandmother several times a week and often encountered Beard, who was familiar with her and would have “reasonably known” she was under age 16.

    Neary said in his ruling that in the video and during her trial testimony, the girl appeared mature for her age, and he himself would have guessed she was between age 16-18. Neary also said it was dark at the time Beard encountered the girl, who, the judge said, resembles her older sister who was living with their grandmother.

    The prosecution’s evidence, Neary said, did little more than “raise suspicion, speculation and conjecture” that Beard would have reasonably known the girl was under age 16.

    [ad_2]

    Source link