Ex-Epstein worker tells jury she ‘looked up’ to Maxwell

A former office worker for financier Jeffrey Epstein testified at the sex abuse trial of Ghislaine Maxwell on Thursday that she worked on a daily basis with Maxwell for six years and had only admiration for her. Cimberly Espinosa, the first defense witness, told a jury she was Maxwell’s assistant at Epstein’s New York City office on Madison Avenue from 1996 to 2002. Maxwell was managing Epstein’s multiple high-end properties at the time, she said, calling it a “huge job.” “I highly respected her,” Espinosa said in federal court in Manhattan. “I looked up to her very much.” The defense case began after the jury heard four women detail accusations that they were teens when they became victims of a sex-abuse scheme devised by Maxwell and Epstein. The British socialite’s attorneys are expected to make their case that Maxwell isn’t the one to blame. The government’s case lasted only two weeks and the defense case could last just two days. Both sides streamlined their witness lists without revealing why, making the trial end well short of an original six-week estimate. The start of the defense case has already sparked the usual speculation about whether the high-profile defendant will take the witness stand in her own defense — a gamble that is almost never taken. Either way, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan will have to receive direct confirmation from Maxwell about her decision before the defense can rest. Maxwell was once Epstein’s girlfriend before becoming a trusted employee. Witnesses testified the pair exploited them between 1994 to 2004 at Epstein’s homes, including an estate in Palm Beach, Florida; his posh Manhattan townhouse; and a Santa Fe, New Mexico, ranch. The defense has insisted that Maxwell is being made a scapegoat for alleged sex crimes by Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019. Her lawyers have sought to show that the accusers exaggerated her involvement at the behest of lawyers seeking payouts for the women from civil claims against the Epstein estate.

Both sides planning for new state-by-state abortion fight

As the Supreme Court court weighs the future of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a resurgent anti-abortion movement is looking to press its advantage in state-by-state battles while abortion-rights supporters prepare to play defense. Both sides seem to be operating on the assumption that a court reshaped by former President Donald Trump will either overturn or seriously weaken Roe. “We have a storm to weather,” said Elizabeth Nash, state policy analyst for the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. “We have to weather the storm so that in the future — five, 10, 15 years from now — we’re talking about how we managed to repeal all these abortion bans.” The institute estimates that as many as 26 states would institute some sort of abortion-access restrictions within a year, if permitted by the court. At least 12 states have “trigger bans” on the books, with restrictions that would kick in automatically if the justices overturn or weaken federal protections on abortion access. The current case before the court, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, concerns a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Roe v. Wade, which was reaffirmed in a subsequent 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, allows states to regulate but not ban abortion up until the point of fetal viability, at roughly 24 weeks.

Federal judge in Mississippi to take Senior Status

A federal judge in Mississippi has decided to take senior status beginning Monday. U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal that he’s making the move after serving two decades on the federal bench. Senior status opens a vacancy on the court for the Northern District of Mississippi and will allow Mills to handle a reduced caseload on the federal court. In his Oct. 13 letter to President Joe Biden, he stated he had attained the age and met the service requirements for that status. Still, he said, he intends to continue to carry a full case load until his replacement is sworn in. “It’s been great,” Mills said.. “I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the other judges, lawyers, and staff and hope to continue to do so.” Mills was nominated by former President George W. Bush to the seat after U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers decided to take senior status. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in October 2001. Prior to his service on the federal level, Mills served on the Mississippi Supreme Court, in the state House representing Itawamba and Monroe counties. Longtime friend and attorney Steve Farese told the newspaper that Mills is well versed in the law and applies that knowledge in his decision-making process. “The Northern District of Mississippi has been blessed before and throughout my 44-year career with excellent Article 3 judges,” said Farese. “Judge Mills is certainly of that ilk. A true Renaissance Man, Judge Mills loves literature and the outdoors.” Farese said Mills is empathetic when it’s called for and balances justice with mercy. “His personality and demeanor give all participants a sense of understanding of his procedures,” he said. “I look forward to continuing practicing before him as he takes senior status.” Attorney Rachel Pierce Waide said Mill’s presence in her life as well as on the bench has been a gift. “I’m sad to hear this news. I have known Judge Mills my entire life and his presence both personally and professionally has truly been a gift,” Waide said. “His chief goal in life and on the bench is to be fair and he practices that routinely.”

Federal judge in Mississippi to take Senior Status

A federal judge in Mississippi has decided to take senior status beginning Monday. U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal that he’s making the move after serving two decades on the federal bench. Senior status opens a vacancy on the court for the Northern District of Mississippi and will allow Mills to handle a reduced caseload on the federal court. In his Oct. 13 letter to President Joe Biden, he stated he had attained the age and met the service requirements for that status. Still, he said, he intends to continue to carry a full case load until his replacement is sworn in. “It’s been great,” Mills said.. “I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the other judges, lawyers, and staff and hope to continue to do so.” Mills was nominated by former President George W. Bush to the seat after U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers decided to take senior status. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in October 2001. Prior to his service on the federal level, Mills served on the Mississippi Supreme Court, in the state House representing Itawamba and Monroe counties. Longtime friend and attorney Steve Farese told the newspaper that Mills is well versed in the law and applies that knowledge in his decision-making process. “The Northern District of Mississippi has been blessed before and throughout my 44-year career with excellent Article 3 judges,” said Farese. “Judge Mills is certainly of that ilk. A true Renaissance Man, Judge Mills loves literature and the outdoors.” Farese said Mills is empathetic when it’s called for and balances justice with mercy. “His personality and demeanor give all participants a sense of understanding of his procedures,” he said. “I look forward to continuing practicing before him as he takes senior status.” Attorney Rachel Pierce Waide said Mill’s presence in her life as well as on the bench has been a gift. “I’m sad to hear this news. I have known Judge Mills my entire life and his presence both personally and professionally has truly been a gift,” Waide said. “His chief goal in life and on the bench is to be fair and he practices that routinely.”

Judge to review Arizona audit records for possible release

An Arizona judge on Tuesday ordered the state Senate to immediately provide text messages and emails related to the Senate Republicans’ partisan review of the 2020 vote count. Maricopa County Superior Court judge John Hannah said he will review the records and decide whether they must be given to The Arizona Republic, which has requested them under the state’s public records law. The Senate’s GOP leaders say the records don’t have to be publicly disclosed because of legislative privilege, which is meant to promote frank and honest debate among lawmakers. The Republic has good reason to believe that legislative privilege does not apply to at least some of the records, Hannah wrote in a 13-page ruling. Kory Langhofer, a lawyer representing the Senate, said the records were given to the court. The judge’s ruling did not say how long he would take to review them and decide whether they should be given to the newspaper.

Third judge blocks Gov. Lee’s mask opt out in schools

A third federal judge has blocked Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s order allowing families to opt out of school mask mandates. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday, is the latest development in the ongoing legal battle over Lee’s order launched by parents and advocates alarmed over the spike in coronavirus cases in Tennessee’s schools. Lee issued the order in August after a handful of Republican lawmakers demanded the governor call a special session so the GOP-dominant General Assembly could halt mask mandates in schools and other COVID-19 safety measures. Many students have been attending classes without masks ever since as pediatric hospitalizations reached record highs. Crenshaw’s order only applies to Williamson County, an affluent region just south of Nashville. Earlier that day, a separate judge halted Lee’s executive order in Knox County. A week prior, another judge indefinitely banned Lee’s order after families argued the governor’s executive order endangered their children. All three lawsuits claimed that Lee’s order violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits the exclusion of students with disabilities from public educational programs and activities. Children with certain disabilities are more vulnerable to serious illness or death if they get COVID-19, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said. “Based on the record before the court, due to the rise in COVID-19 cases in Williamson County, including at plaintiffs’ schools, along with a significant number of students who have opted out, plaintiffs have likewise been denied access to a safe, in-person education experience,” Crenshaw wrote in his 18-page decision. “Gov. Lee has offered no affidavits, declarations, or any other factual predicate to support his assertion that universal mask mandates would require significant resources,” the judge added. Lee told reporters Friday that he couldn’t talk about the specific litigation but pointed out that there had been multiple lawsuits against mask mandates. “There are very strong opinions on both sides of this. I think that’s why the strategy we took, which allowed districts to provide a requirement but gave parents an opt-out, was a good way forward,” Lee said. “And we still believe that’s the right direction.” Crenshaw’s ruling is in effect until Oct. 5, the same day Lee’s order is set to expire. The governor has not said if he’ll extend it.

Ex-cop’s murder verdict reversed in Australian woman’s death

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the third-degree murder conviction of a former Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot an Australian woman in 2017, saying the charge doesn’t fit the circumstances in the case. Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond, a dual U.S.-Australian citizen who called 911 to report a possible sexual assault behind her home. He was sentenced to 12 1/2 years on the murder count but was not sentenced for manslaughter. The ruling means his murder conviction is overturned and the case will now go back to the district court, where he will be sentenced on the manslaughter count. He has already served more than 28 months of his murder sentence. If sentenced to the presumptive four years for manslaughter, he could be eligible for supervised release around the end of this year. Caitlinrose Fisher, one of the attorneys who worked on Noor’s appeal, said she’s grateful that the Minnesota Supreme Court clarified what constitutes third-degree murder, and she hopes that will lead to greater equity and consistency in charging decisions. “We’ve said from the beginning that this was a tragedy but it wasn’t a murder, and now the Supreme Court agrees and recognizes that,” she said. Messages left Wednesday with the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted the case, were not immediately returned. The ruling could give former Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin grounds to contest his own third-degree murder conviction in George Floyd’s death in May 2020. But that wouldn’t have much impact on Chauvin since he was also convicted of the more serious count of second-degree murder and is serving 22 1/2 years. Experts say it’s unlikely Chauvin would be successful in appealing his second-degree murder conviction.

Origin story of the Texas law that could upend Roe v. Wade

The road to a Texas law that bans most abortions in the state, sidestepping for now the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, began in a town called Waskom, population 1,600. The Supreme Court’s decision this past week not to interfere with the state’s strict abortion law, provoked outrage from liberals and cheers from many conservatives. President Joe Biden assailed it. But the decision also astonished many that Texas could essentially outmaneuver Supreme Court precedent on women’s constitutional right to abortion. Texas’ abortion law S.B. 8 follows a model first used in Waskom to ban abortion within its boundaries in 2019. The novel legal approach used by the city on Texas’ border with Louisiana is one envisioned by a former top lawyer for the state. Right to Life East Texas director Mark Lee Dickson, 36, a Southern Baptist minister, championed Waskom’s abortion ban. Through his state senator, Bryan Hughes, he met Jonathan F. Mitchell, a former top lawyer for the state of Texas. Mitchell became his attorney and advised him on crafting the ordinance, Dickson said in an interview. The ordinance shields Waskom from lawsuits by saying city officials can’t enforce the abortion ban. Instead, private citizens can sue anyone who performs an abortion in the city or assists someone in obtaining one. The law was largely symbolic, however, because the city did not have a clinic performing abortions.

West African court to rule on Venezuelan’s extradition to US

A protracted legal battle over the extradition from Cape Verde to the United States of a businessman close to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro comes to a head next week when the West African country’s Constitutional Court is due to rule on the case. Alex Saab was arrested when his jet made a refueling stop on the small island chain, formerly a Portuguese colony, on a June 2020 flight to Iran. U.S. officials believe Saab holds numerous secrets about how Maduro, the president’s family and his top aides allegedly siphoned off millions of dollars in government contracts amid widespread hunger in oil-rich Venezuela. Saab is fighting extradition. His lawyers argue that he has diplomatic immunity because he was acting as a special envoy for Venezuela when he was detained in Cape Verde. Jose Pinto Monteiro, Saab’s lead counsel in Cape Verde, said Friday there are two possible outcomes when the Constitutional Court sits on Aug. 13. Either the judges throw out Saab’s appeal and the extradition goes ahead, or they accept that there are unconstitutional elements in the case and send it back to a lower court to correct them, Pinto Monteiro told a press conference via video link. Cape Verde’s Supreme Court ruled last March that the extradition could proceed, and the Constitutional Court appeal is Saab’s last hope. Saab’s international legal team argues that the extradition has a political motive. Federal prosecutors in Miami indicted Saab in 2019 on money-laundering charges connected to an alleged bribery scheme that pocketed more than $350 million from a low-income housing project for the Venezuelan government that was never built.

Los Angeles Web Design Company For Law Firms

Your website is your firm’s greatest asset for marketing and generating leads. How many opportunities have you missed with an outdated site? Poor webs design is often the primary reason for a website’s demise because it fails to engage the user. Also outdated designs or poorly constructed websites can actually hurt your legal business and your firm’s reputation. We will use our best knowledge and legal web design expertise to work with you to create a website that is right for you. Our web design experts have cutting-edge skills in design and SEO technology, the best ways to increase search engine optimization. #1 Law Firm Web Design Company in Los Angeles We believe our work speaks for itself by showcasing quality design while reflecting our extensive experience in the online legal marketing industry. You can expect a high ROI when you entrust your site to the team of experts at Law Promo who know how to attract visitors and convert them into paying clients. A simple initial investment in a website with Law Promo could give you the edge you need to thrive in today’s competitive marketplace. Law Promo’s web services are available at competitive prices to enable your law firm with an excellent online presence. Contact us today to find out what we can do for you.

Parking tickets hit the docket of federal appeals court

A federal appeals court has heard arguments in a challenge to a Michigan city’s practice of marking tires to catch people who ignore time limits on parking. Alison Taylor is appealing a decision that went in favor of Saginaw. Her attorney argues that chalking tires violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case made headlines in 2019 when the same appeals court said marking tires could be illegal without a warrant in some circumstances. The court sent the lawsuit back to a federal judge in Bay City for more work, but he eventually ruled against Taylor again. A different three-judge panel at the appeals court heard arguments Thursday. In court papers, Saginaw said it’s a “novel issue” but not a violation of the constitution. “The city used the chalk to inform vehicle owners that that their vehicle is subject to the time limitations as set forth by the local ordinances,” attorneys for Saginaw said. The city said Taylor had 14 parking tickets, some issued after a tire was marked. Taylor’s attorney, Philip Ellison, said a chalk line on a tire might be “low tech” but it’s still an illegal trespass against her car. He wants to make the case a class-action.

San Bernardino, California Criminal Defense Lawyers

At Bullard & Powell, we believe that every criminal case, just like the person being charged, is unique. To that end, we do not view our cases as simply files to be worked on, but view them from the perspective of our clients. We work closely with our clients to ensure the best possible result, with the highest level of service. We view it as our responsibility to ease the stressful burden that comes with being accused of a crime. We believe in personal, honest, one-on-one relationships with our clients. We only know one way to practice criminal defense and that is to treat every client as if they were our own family. We handle a wide range of matters from DUI to white-collar crimes. San Bernardino Criminal Defense Law Firm. Each client can expect that any advice that is given and the service that is provided, would be the same advice and service that we would provide to our own family.

Tests: Broken pipe didn’t pollute Georgia government center

Two courtrooms in Columbus’ main government building are reopening after tests found a ruptured pipe did not introduce mold or harmful fungi into the air. A ruptured drainpipe from the roof had dumped leaves, bird feces and other debris into the 11th-floor office of Muscogee County Superior Court Judge Gil McBride in June. Documents obtained by the Ledger-Enquirer show tests of pipe debris showed no fungi associated with bird and bat droppings that can cause infections in people with weakened immune systems. Samples also showed no significant amounts of mold. Mold levels in the outside air were higher, suggesting the building’s air filtration system is working. “The courts have been assured by the city that the courtrooms are safe for public use,” McBride wrote in a text message. “This is good news, especially for judges who were without courtrooms for next week.” The 51-year-old building flooded because of water leaks twice in 2018. Columbus leaders say they plan to ask voters to approve a special sales tax in November to repair or replace the building. A nearly 80-pound panel fell in a seventh-floor courtroom and hit a court official a few weeks ago, prompting safety inspections of all courtrooms. Columbus Mayor Skip Henderson could not be reached Friday for an update on inspections. McBride said Muscogee County jurors will continue to be selected at the municipal ice rink for now. Once jurors are selected, trials will take place in the regular courtrooms.

Court refuses appeal of ex-Cleveland cop who shot Tamir Rice

The Ohio Supreme Court announced on Tuesday it would not consider an appeal over the firing of a white police officer who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice outside a Cleveland recreation center in 2014. The appeal was filed in April by the Cleveland Police Patrolment’s Association on behalf former officer Timothy Loehmann. Cleveland fired Loehmann in 2017 not for killing Tamir, who was Black, but for providing false information on his job application. An arbitrator and a county judge upheld his firing. A state appellate court earlier this year dismissed Loehmann’s appeal, citing the union’s failure to serve notice on outside attorneys hired by the city. Loehmann, a rookie, shot Tamir within seconds of a cruiser skidding to a stop near a gazebo where the child had been sitting. Officers responded to a call from a man who said someone was waving a gun around. The man also told a dispatcher the gun could be a fake and the person might be a juvenile. A state grand jury declined to indict Loehmann in Tamir’s shooting and, in December, federal authorities announced they would not bring federal criminal charges. “I am glad that Loehmann will never have a badge and gun in Cleveland again,” Tamir’s mother, Samaria Rice, said in a statement issued Tuesday. A message seeking comment was left with the Loehmann’s union attorney, Henry Hilow.

Religion and free speech among cases justices could add

A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court and its summer break. But even before the justices wrap up their work, likely later this week, they could say whether they’ll add more high-profile issues to what already promises to be a consequential term, beginning in October. This month, the court has already issued big decisions on health care and religious freedom. And next term, the high court has agreed to take on cases about abortion and guns. The court on Monday passed on two potentially big cases but was still considering others. Here are the issues the court declined and others the court has not yet acted on: The court on Monday declined to take an appeal by a Virginia school board asking the justices to uphold a policy that prohibits transgender students from using school bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity. Lower courts had struck down the policy. The case has been around for six years, since then-high school student Gavin Grimm filed a federal lawsuit over the Gloucester County board’s refusal to allow him to use the boys’ bathroom. Seventeen years after shocking photographs of prisoners being abused at the U.S.-run prison in Abu Ghraib were first made public, Iraqis who claim they were victims of torture are still seeking their day in court against a U.S. defense contractor that supplied the military with interrogators. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take an appeal by the company, CACI Premier Technology of Arlington, Virginia. It was appealing to the court on a technical legal issue that could have delayed or even prevented a trial. The inmates say they were beaten and tortured by military police officers who were acting at the direction of civilian interrogators who wanted the inmates “softened up” for questioning. CACI says none of its interrogators is linked to the abuse suffered by the men who are suing. The IDOC imposed a sanction requiring him to pay over $8,000 in restitution for the guard’s medical expenses, according to the Kokomo Tribune. The agency then started taking deposits made to Isby’s prison account and using they money toward restitution. The withdrawals continued after Isby was transferred to Miami Correctional. The appeals court argued the IDOC may impose restitution as a disciplinary action. The court also said while state law governs and provides means for reviewing administrative agency actions, it exempts actions related to an offender within the agency’s jurisdiction.

Judge upholds dismissal of case against resort developer

A U.S. bankruptcy judge has upheld court decisions that the state of Montana lacked legal standing to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition nearly a decade ago against Yellowstone Club co-founder Tim Blixseth. Judge Mike N. Nakagawa of Nevada on June 3 confirmed the ruling by previous judges to dismiss the involuntary petition, noting the case has lingered for nearly 10 years. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 the Montana Department of Revenue (MDOR) lacked legal standing to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Blixseth and referred the case to bankruptcy court to see if it should be dismissed. The Yellowstone Club, a private ski and golf resort in Big Sky founded by Blixseth and his now ex-wife in 1997, filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Blixseth was accused of pocketing much of a $375 million Credit Suisse loan to the resort and later gave up control of the enterprise to his ex-wife during their 2008 divorce. The club, which has touted billionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former Vice President Dan Quayle as members, has emerged from bankruptcy under new ownership. The Montana Department of Revenue had done an audit of Blixseth and in 2009 said he owed $56.8 million in taxes, penalties and interest arising from eight audit issues, court documents stated. The Montana action against Blixseth is separate from Blixseth’s claims against Montana in Nevada for damages due to the involuntary petition , the Independent Record reported. In 2011, Montana joined with the Idaho State Tax Commission and the California Franchise Tax Board against Blixseth, however, those two states had settled agreements and withdrew from the petition, according to court documents. Nakagawa noted that as of the hearing date, close to a decade has passed since the Involuntary Petition was filed. He said that since April 20, 2011, only Montana has continuously pursued this issue against Blixseth. He said Yellowstone Club Liquidating Trustee apparently was interested in pursuing the involuntary proceeding against Blixseth, but gave up nearly two years before the 9th Circuit mandate was received by this bankruptcy court.

Court nixes South Carolina’s lifelong sex offender registry

South Carolina’s Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a state law requiring sex offenders to register for life, without prior judicial review, is unconstitutional. In a unanimous ruling, justices wrote that “requirement that sex offenders must register for life without any opportunity for judicial review violates due process because it is arbitrary and cannot be deemed rationally related to the General Assembly’s stated purpose of protecting the public from those with a high risk of re-offending.” Justices set a 12-month timeline to implement the ruling, to give state lawmakers time to “correct the deficiency in the statute regarding judicial review.” The case stems from a lawsuit originally brought by Dennis Powell, who was arrested in 2008 for criminal solicitation of a minor after authorities said he had graphic online conversations with someone he thought was a 12-year-old girl, but who was actually an undercover officer. After pleading guilty, Powell was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to register as a sex offender, which South Carolina’s statute mandates as a lifelong situation. South Carolina’s sex offender statute requires biannual registration, in-person at a sheriff’s office, but provides for no periodic review by a judge, a situation the Supreme Court called “the most stringent in the country.” “The lifetime inclusion of individuals who have a low risk of re-offending renders the registry over-inclusive and dilutes its utility by creating an ever-growing list of registrants that is less effective at protecting the public and meeting the needs of law enforcement,” justices wrote. “There is no evidence in the record that current statistics indicate all sex offenders generally pose a high risk of re-offending.” The court ruled that Powell should be immediately removed from the state’s sex offender registry. Powell had also challenged a portion of the statute that permits the registry to be published online, which the court upheld. Attorneys for both Powell and the State Law Enforcement Division did not immediately return text messages seeking comment on the ruling.

Ruling: Missed court date in Washington does not imply guilt

The Washington state Supreme Court this month unanimously rejected the notion that a man who skipped his court date could be presented as evidence that he felt guilty about the original crime. State Supreme Court justices agreed that criminalizing a single missed court date could disproportionately harm people of color, poor people or people without reliable transportation or scheduling conflicts due to child care or work, The Daily Herald reported. The ruling came less than a year after the state Legislature revised the bail jumping law, which gives people more time to respond to a warrant. Samuel Slater, 27, had one unexcused absence in his case, which predated the new law. Records show Slater was convicted of violating no-contact orders five times in five years, multiple driving offenses and domestic violence charges. He pleaded guilty in 2016 to assault in Washington state. A judge ordered him not to have contact with the woman, who was not identified, but he showed up within a day of being let out of jail. He was charged in 2017 with alleged felony violation of a no-contact order and felony bail jumping after missing a court date later in the year. Slater’s attorney, Frederic Moll, asked for separate trials on the counts. Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Anita Farris, a former public defender, found that the charges could be tried together for “judicial economy reasons” and that they were cross-admissible, meaning one could be used to prove the other. Judge Ellen Fair presided over the trial and agreed with Farris. State Court of Appeals judges also agreed. During the trial, deputy prosecutor Adam Sturdivant repeatedly noted how the defendant missed his court date, asking: “If he didn’t do it, why didn’t he show up for trial call a year ago?” Slater was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to more than two years in prison and a year of probation.

Judge: Pretrial release OK for man accused in Capitol riot

A judge has ruled that one of two Oregon brothers accused in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol will be released from custody Friday to a third-party guardian, where he will be on home detention and GPS monitoring pending his trial. U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, of the District of Columbia, on Thursday granted Matthew Klein’s pretrial release to a Baker County couple after refusing to allow him to stay with his parents. Moss last week cited text messages that showed Klein’s mother and father warning Matthew’s younger brother and co-defendant Jonathanpeter Klein not to broadcast their roles, noting “braggers get caught,” according to court testimony and documents, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported. Matthew Klein, 24, and Jonathanpeter Klein, 21, both have pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of an official proceeding, obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder, destruction of government property, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, and disorderly conduct in a restricted building or grounds. The judge ordered Matthew Klein to be released to a woman who is retired from Baker County government and lives with her husband, a prison guard at the Powder River Corrections Facility, court documents said. He’ll be released on Friday once he is fitted with a location monitoring device. Jonathanpeter Klein also has asked for pretrial release to a third-party guardian, under home detention and GPS monitoring. Federal prosecutors don’t object. His release hearing will be held in early June.

Lawsuit seeks Confederate statue’s removal from courthouse

Civil rights advocates sued a Maryland county on Wednesday to seek the court-ordered removal of a Confederate monument from a courthouse lawn on the state’s Eastern Shore, calling it a racist symbol of oppression. In their federal lawsuit, an NAACP branch leader and a defense lawyer say the “Talbot Boys” statue in Talbot County is the last Confederate monument remaining on public property in Maryland besides cemeteries and battlefields. The lawsuit claims that a statue glorifying the Confederacy on the lawn outside the county courthouse in Easton, Maryland, is both unconstitutional and illegal under federal and state laws. Keeping it there “sends a message that the community does not value Black people, that justice is not blind, and that Black people are not equal in the eyes of the county,” the suit says. “For Black employees and litigants entering the courthouse, the statue is, in its least damaging capacity, intimidating and demoralizing,” it adds. In August 2020, Talbot County Council members voted 3-2 to keep the memorial on the courthouse lawn. Council President Chuck Callahan was among the three members who voted to keep the memorial. He did not immediately respond Wednesday to an email and phone call seeking comment on the lawsuit. The memorial, dedicated in 1916, commemorates more than 80 soldiers who fought for the Confederacy. A website advocating for it to stay on the courthouse lawn calls it “a piece of history and a splendid work of art that tells the story of brother vs. brother where North and South came together, the border state of Maryland.” The lawsuit says the statute, erected 50 years after the Civil War ended and during the Jim Crow era, was funded primarily by a prominent white lawyer who “embraced ideals of slavery.” “It is also telling that no monument was erected to honor the sacrifices of those from Talbot County who fought for the Union ? particularly since Maryland was not part of the Confederacy,” the suit adds. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs include Richard Potter, president of the Talbot County branch of the NAACP, and Kisha Petticolas, a Black lawyer who works in Talbot County for the Maryland Office of the Public Defender. Plaintiffs’ lawyers, including from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, filed the federal lawsuit in Baltimore. It asks the court to order the statute’s permanent removal from the courthouse area and bar its display at any other county property. It also seeks unspecified monetary damages for the plaintiffs.

Court to hear appeal of Dallas officer who killed neighbor

A Texas court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on overturning the conviction of a former Dallas police officer who was sentenced to prison for fatally shooting her neighbor in his home. An attorney for Amber Guyger and prosecutors are set to clash before an appeals court over whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that her 2018 shooting of Botham Jean was murder. The hearing before a panel of judges will examine a Dallas County jury’s 2019 decision to sentence Guyger to 10 years in prison for murder. It follows the recent conviction of a former Minneapolis police officer who was found guilty of murdering George Floyd, again focusing national attention on police killings and racial injustice. Guyger is not expected to appear in court Tuesday and the appeals panel will hand down a decision at an unspecified later date. More than two years before Floyd’s death set off protests across the country, Guyger’s killing of Jean drew national attention because of the strange circumstances and because it was one in a string of shootings of Black men by white police officers. The basic facts of the case were not in dispute. Guyger, returning home from a long shift, mistook Jean’s apartment for her own, which was on the floor directly below his. Finding the door ajar, she entered and shot him, later testifying that she through he was a burglar. Jean, a 26-year-old accountant, had been eating a bowl of ice cream before Guyger shot him. She was later fired from the Dallas Police Department. The appeal from Guyger, now 32, hangs on the contention that her mistaking Jean’s apartment for her own was reasonable and, therefore, so too was the shooting. Her lawyers have asked the appeals court to acquit her of murder or to substitute in a conviction for criminally negligent homicide, which carries a lesser sentence. In court filings, Dallas County prosecutors countered that Guyger’s error doesn’t negate “her culpable mental state.” They wrote, “murder is a result-oriented offense.” Jean’s mother, Allison Jean, told the Dallas Morning News that the appeal has delayed her family’s healing. ”I know everyone has a right of appeal, and I believe she’s utilizing that right,” Jean said. “But on the other hand, there is one person who cannot utilize any more rights because she took him away. “So having gotten 10 years, only 10, for killing someone who was in the prime of his life and doing no wrong in the comfort of his home, I believe that she ought to accept, take accountability for it and move on,” she said. Guyger could have been sentenced to up to life in prison or as little as two years. Prosecutors had requested a 28-year sentence ? Botham Jean would have been 28 if he were still alive during the trial. Under her current sentence, Guyger will become eligible for parole in 2024, according to state prison records. Following the trial, two members of the jury said the diverse panel tried to consider what the victim would have wanted when they settled on a 10-year prison sentence. Jean ? who went by “Bo” ? sang in a church choir in Dallas and grew up in a devout family on the island nation of St. Lucia. After sentencing, Brandt Jean embraced Guyger in court and told her his older brother would have wanted her to turn her life over to Christ. He said if she asked God for forgiveness, she would get it.

Alaska denied oil check benefits to gay couples, dependents

Alaska discriminated against some same-sex spouses for years in wrongfully denying them benefits by claiming their unions were not recognized even after courts struck down same-sex marriage bans, court documents obtained by The Associated Press show. The agency that determines eligibility for the yearly oil wealth check paid to nearly all Alaska residents denied a dividend for same-sex spouses or dependents of military members stationed in other states for five years after a federal court invalidated Alaska’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2014, and the Supreme Court legalized the unions nationwide in June 2015, the documents show. In one email from July 2019, a same-sex spouse living out-of-state with his military husband was denied a check because “unfortunately the state of Alaska doesn’t recognize same sex marriage yet,” employee Marissa Requa wrote to a colleague, ending the sentence with a frown face emoji. This Permanent Fund Dividend Division practice continued until Denali Smith, who was denied benefits appealed and asked the state to start including her lawyer in its correspondence. Smith later sued the state, seeking an order declaring that state officials violated the federal court decision and Smith’s constitutional rights to equal protection and due process Smith and the state on Wednesday settled the lawsuit. Alaska admitted denying benefits to same-sex military spouses and dependents for five years in violation of the permanent injunction put in place by the 2014 U.S. District Court decision. The state also vowed to no longer use the outdated state law, to deny military spouses and dependents oil checks going forward, and updated enforcement regulations. There were no financial terms to the settlement. In fact, Smith had to pay $400 out of pocket to file the federal lawsuit to get her oil check, and her attorney worked pro bono. In Alaska, the oil wealth check is seen as an entitlement that people use to buy things like new TVs or snowmobiles, fund college savings accounts or, in rural Alaska, weather high heating and food costs. The nest-egg fund, seeded with oil money, has grown into billions of dollars. A portion traditionally goes toward the checks, but the amount varies. Last year, nearly every single resident received $992. The year before, the amount was $1,606. About 800 pages of emails provided by the state for the lawsuit show a clear misunderstanding or outright disregard of the 2014 precedent and reluctance to reach out to the attorney general’s office for guidance.

High court nixes Alex Jones’ appeal in Newtown shooting case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by Infowars host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who was fighting a Connecticut court sanction in a defamation lawsuit brought by relatives of some of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Jones was penalized in 2019 by a trial court judge for an angry outburst on his web show against an attorney for the relatives and for violating numerous orders to turn over documents to the families’ lawyers. Judge Barbara Bellis barred Jones from filing a motion to dismiss the case, which remains pending, and said she would order Jones to pay some of the families’ legal fees. Jones argued he should not have been sanctioned for exercising his free speech rights. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld Bellis’ ruling last year. The families and an FBI agent who responded to the shooting, which left 20 first-graders and six educators dead, are suing Jones and his show over claims that the massacre was a hoax. The families said they have been subjected to harassment and death threats from Jones’ followers because of the hoax conspiracy. Jones, whose show is based in Austin, Texas, has since said he believes the shooting occurred. The U.S. Supreme Court turned down Jones’ request to hear his appeal without comment. Jones’ attorney, Norman Pattis, called the court’s decision “a disappointment.” “Judge Bellis, and the Connecticut Supreme Court, asserted frightening and standardless power over the extrajudicial statements of litigants,” Pattis said in an email to The Associated Press. “Mr. Jones never threatened anyone; had he done so, he would have been charged with a crime. We are inching our way case-by-case toward a toothless, politically correct, First Amendment.” Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, said Jones deserved to be sanctioned for his threatening comments on his show. “The families are eager to resume their case and to hold Mr. Jones and his financial network accountable for their actions,” Koskoff said in a statement. “From the beginning, our goal has been to prevent future victims of mass shootings from being preyed on by opportunists.” The sanction came after Jones, on Infowars in 2019, accused an attorney for the families, Christopher Mattei, of planting child pornography that was found in email metadata files that Jones turned over to the Sandy Hook families’ lawyers. Pattis has said the pornography was in emails sent to Jones that were never opened.

Philippine Supreme Court slams killings of lawyers, judges

The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday condemned the alarming number of killings and threats against lawyers and judges. One legal group has said these attacks are considerably higher under President Rodrigo Duterte compared to the past 50 years under six former presidents. The 15-member high court asked lower courts, law enforcement agencies and lawyers and judges’ groups to provide information about such attacks in the last 10 years, in order for the court to take preemptive steps. The attacks, it said, endanger the rule of law in an Asian bastion of democracy. “To threaten our judges and our lawyers is no less than an assault on the judiciary. To assault the judiciary is to shake the very bedrock on which the rule of law stands,” the high court said in a rare, strongly-worded censure of the attacks. “This cannot be allowed in a civilized society like ours.” The court said it would not “tolerate such acts that only perverse justice, defeat the rule of law, undermine the most basic of constitutional principles and speculate on the worth of human lives.” The Free Legal Assistance Group, a prominent group of lawyers, said at least 61 lawyers have been killed in the five years of Duterte’s presidency compared to at least 25 lawyers and judges slain under six presidents since 1972, when dictator Ferdinand Marcos placed the Philippines under martial law. Lawyers’ groups said the court’s denunciation was long overdue but nevertheless welcomed it. “We have been sounding out the clarion call and providing information and concrete recommendations for the longest time,” said lawyer Edre Olalia, who heads the left-wing National Union of People’s Lawyers. A number of lawyers who represented suspected drug dealers or were linked to the illegal drug trade were among those gunned down under Duterte’s rule. When he took office in mid-2016, Duterte launched a massive anti-drug crackdown that has left more than 6,000 mostly petty suspects dead and alarmed Western governments and human rights groups.

Colorado court: Speed-reading bills violates constitution

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that state Senate Democrats violated the constitution in 2019 when they responded to Republicans’ request that bills be read at length by having computers speed-read the bills in an intelligible garble. The Colorado Sun reports that in a 4-3 ruling released Monday, the court ruled the speed-reading tactic violated the constitution’s mandate that legislation be read at length upon request. “There are unquestionably different ways by which the legislature may comply with the reading requirement,” Justice Carlos Samour Jr. wrote in the majority opinion. “But the cacophony generated by the computers here isn’t one of them.” Minority Senate Republicans were trying to delay Democrats’ attempts to overhaul oil and gas regulations by asking that bills be read aloud ? including a 2,000-page measure. When Democrats resorted to computers, Republicans sued. A lower court found for the minority party. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Monica M. Marquez wrote that the court should give direction on how legislation ought to be read in the future. In 2019, Democrats began negotiating with Republicans to avoid further stalling tactics ? and the GOP has since slowed down work on other occasions to force Democrats to make deals.

Supreme Court likely to uphold Arizona voting restrictions

The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to uphold voting restrictions in Arizona in a key case that could make it harder to challenge a raft of other voting measures Republicans have proposed following last year’s elections. All six conservative justices, appointed by Republican presidents, suggested they would throw out an appellate ruling that struck down the restrictions as racially discriminatory under the landmark Voting Rights Act. The three liberal members of the courts, appointed by Democrats, were more sympathetic to the challengers. Less clear is what standard the court might set for how to prove discrimination under the law, first enacted in 1965. The outcome could make it harder, if not impossible, to use the Voting Rights Act to sue over measures making their way through dozens of Republican-controlled state legislatures that would make it more difficult to vote. Civil rights group and Democrats, argue that the proposed restrictions would disproportionately affect minority voters, important Democratic constituencies. Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, have proposed national legislation that would remove obstacles to voting erected in the name of election security.

Missouri medical marijuana lawyers worry about discipline

Attorneys who represent clients in the medical marijuana industry are concerned they might face discipline under a state Supreme Court directive that appears to put federal law in conflict with state law. The directive, which took effect July 1, says attorneys cannot participate in — or advise clients how to participate in — acts that are illegal under federal law but legal under state law. Medical marijuana is illegal under federal law but was approved by Missouri voters in 2018. Attorney Dan Viets, of Columbia, who represents medical marijuana clients, said he recently asked the state Supreme Court Advisory Committee whether he could be disciplined under the directive, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. Viets said attorneys drafting the 2018 constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana anticipated the conflict and included protections in the amendment’s text for attorneys working in the legal marijuana industry. The Missouri amendment says, in part: “An attorney shall not be subject to disciplinary action by the state bar association or other professional licensing body for owning, operating, investing in, being employed by, contracting with, or providing legal assistance to prospective or licensed” medical cannabis businesses. “I was very concerned,” Viets said, adding the state Supreme Court’s directive “appears to contradict the Missouri Constitution. ... I just don’t understand how the court can do that.” The Supreme Court’s ruling followed the filing of more than 800 lawsuits by medical marijuana entrepreneurs who had been denied business licenses by the state after a controversial application process. Beth Riggert, spokeswoman for the Missouri Supreme Court, said the court would not comment on the order.

More protests called in Moscow to demand Navalny’s release

Moscow braced for more protests seeking the release of jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who faces a court hearing Tuesday after two weekends of nationwide rallies and thousands of arrests in the largest outpouring of discontent in Russia in years. Tens of thousands filled the streets across the vast country Sunday, chanting slogans against President Vladimir Putin and demanding freedom for Navalny, who was jailed last month and faces years in prison. Over 5,400 protesters were detained by authorities, according to a human rights group. One of those taken into custody for several hours was Navalny’s wife, Yulia, who was ordered Monday to pay a fine of about $265 for participating in an unauthorized rally. While state-run media dismissed the demonstrations as small and claimed that they showed the failure of the opposition, Navalny’s team said the turnout demonstrated “overwhelming nationwide support” for the Kremlin’s fiercest critic. His allies called for protesters to come to the Moscow courthouse on Tuesday. “Without your help, we won’t be able to resist the lawlessness of the authorities,” his politician’s team said in a social media post. Mass protests engulfed dozens of Russian cities for the second weekend in a row despite efforts by authorities to stifle the unrest triggered by the jailing of 44-year-old Navalny. He was arrested Jan. 17 upon returning from Germany, where he spent five months recovering from nerve-agent poisoning that he blames on the Kremlin. Russian authorities reject the accusation. He faces a prison term for alleged probation violations from a 2014 money-laundering conviction that is widely seen as politically motivated. Last month, Russia’s prison service filed a motion to replace his 3 1/2-year suspended sentence from the conviction with one he must serve. The Prosecutor General’s office backed the motion Monday, alleging Navalny engaged in “unlawful conduct” during the probation period.

Woman accused of helping steal Pelosi laptop freed from jail

A Pennsylvania woman facing charges that she helped steal a laptop from the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the attack on the U.S. Capitol will be released from jail, a federal judge decided Thursday. U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson directed that Riley June Williams be released into the custody of her mother, with travel restrictions, and instructed her to appear Monday in federal court in Washington to continue her case. “The gravity of these offenses is great,” Carlson told Williams. “It cannot be overstated.” Williams, 22, of Harrisburg, is accused of theft, obstruction and trespassing, as well as violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. Carlson noted Williams has no prior criminal record. The FBI says an unidentified former romantic partner of Williams tipped them off that she appeared in video from the Jan. 6 rioting and the tipster claimed she had hoped to sell the computer to Russian intelligence. Williams’ defense lawyer, Lori Ulrich, told Carlson the tipster is a former boyfriend who had been abusive to Williams and that “his accusations are overstated.” Video from the riot shows a woman matching Williams’ description exhorting invaders to go “upstairs, upstairs, upstairs” during the attack, which briefly disrupted certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral victory. “It is regrettable that Ms. Williams took the president’s bait and went inside the Capitol,” Ulrich told the judge. Williams surrendered to face charges on Monday. She was expected to leave the county jail in Harrisburg later Thursday, and will be on electronic monitoring to await trial.

Supreme Court won't hear PA abortion clinic free speech case

The Supreme Court is declining to get involved in a case about free speech outside a Pittsburgh abortion clinic. The high court turned away the case Monday. The court's decision not to hear the case leaves in place a 2019 appeals court decision that upheld a Pittsburgh ordinance creating a 15-foot “buffer zone” where protests are barred around entrances to health care facilities. The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed “sidewalk counseling” within that zone. The appeals court said the city can restrict congregating, picketing, patrolling and demonstrating in the immediate vicinity of clinics, but the zone restrictions do not apply to “calm and peaceful” one-on-one conversations by anti-abortion activists seeking to speak with women entering a clinic. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that he agreed with the court's decision not to take up this particular case because it "involves unclear, preliminary questions about the proper interpretation of state law." But he said the court should take up the issue of buffer zones in an appropriate case.

Arizona Supreme Court upholds election challenge dismissal

 The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court decision dismissing the last in a series of challenges that sought to decerify Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

The high court ruling is the second time the majority-Republican court has turned aside an appeal of a court loss by backers of President Donald Trump seeking to overturn the results of the election. In all, eight lawsuits challenging Biden’s Arizona win have failed. It comes the day before a divided Congress is set to certify Biden’s victory.

Tuesday’s ruling from a four-judge panel of the high court agreed with a trial court judge in Pinal County that plaintiff Staci Burk lacked the right to contest the election. That’s because she wasn’t a registered voter at the time she filed her lawsuit, as required in state election contests. Both courts also agreed that she made her legal challenge too late, after the five-day period for filing such an action had passed.

Burk said in her lawsuit that she was a qualified Arizona voter, but officials said they discovered she wasn’t registered to vote. She later said she mistakenly thought “qualified electors” were people who were merely eligible to vote, and that her voter registration was canceled because election workers were unable to verify her address.

The Supreme Court said the fact that she wasn’t a registered voter was fatal to her ability to file an election challenge and that Burk admitted she knew she wasn’t registered.

“There is nothing before the Court to indicate that Appellant timely contacted the appropriate authorities to correct any problems with her voter registration,” Chief Justice Robert Brutinel wrote. “An election challenge ... is not the proper vehicle to reinstate voter registration.”

Biden won the state over Republican President Donald Trump by more than 10,000 votes and the results were certified last month.

The lawsuit brought by Burk, who isn’t a lawyer but represented herself, is nearly identical to a lawsuit dismissed in early December in federal court in Phoenix.

Burk’s lawsuit alleged Arizona’s election systems have security flaws that let election workers and foreign countries manipulate results. Opposing attorneys said the lawsuit used conspiracy theories to make allegations against a voting equipment vendor without any proof to back up claims of widespread election fraud in Arizona.

No evidence of voter or election fraud has emerged in Arizona. Despite that, Republicans who control the Legislature are pushing to review how Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, ran its election. Two subpoenas issued by the state Senate seeking an audit and to review voting machines, ballots and other materials are being challenged by Maricopa County.

Two of the failed legal challenges focused on the use of Sharpies to complete ballots were dismissed. Another lawsuit in which the Trump campaign sought inspection of ballots was dismissed after the campaign’s lawyer acknowledged the small number of ballots at issue wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

A judge dismissed a lawsuit in which the Arizona Republican Party tried to determine whether voting machines had been hacked.

Then a separate challenge by Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward was tossed out by a judge who concluded the Republican leader failed to prove fraud and that the evidence presented at trial wouldn’t reverse Trump’s defeat. The state Supreme Court upheld that decision in an earlier ruling.

And a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by conservative lawyer Sidney Powell, who alleged widespread election fraud through the manipulation of voting equipment. Burk’s lawsuit repeated some of Powell’s allegations word-for-word.