Tag Archives: verdicts

NYC bike path terror suspect found guilty on all counts



CNN
 — 

Sayfullo Saipov was found guilty of murder by a federal jury for using a rented truck to fatally strike eight people on a New York City bike path on Halloween Day in 2017.

Jurors deliberated about six hours over two days in the case involving the deadliest terrorist attack New York had seen since 9/11 – which left six foreign tourists and two Americans dead.

The same jury will determine whether Saipov is sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty. The vote must be unanimous for the death penalty to be imposed. The penalty phase of the trial is scheduled to begin on February 6.

The trial was the first federal death penalty case heard during the administration of President Joe Biden, who had campaigned against capital punishment at the federal level.

Jury deliberations began Wednesday afternoon after Judge Vernon Broderick read them instructions.

Saipov had pleaded not guilty.

He was convicted Thursday in the Southern District of New York of counts of murder in aid of racketeering activity, assault with a dangerous weapon and attempted murder in aid of racketeering activity, attempted murder in aid of racketeering activity, provision of material support to ISIS, and violence and destruction of a motor vehicle.

In closing arguments, defense attorney David Patton did not dispute the facts of the attack Saipov is accused of committing. But the defense disputed the prosecution’s claim that Saipov was motivated to commit the attack to gain entry to ISIS. Patton argued that the attack was spurred by religious fervor to please his God and “ascend to paradise” in his religion.

Prosecutors told jurors that Saipov carried out the attack to become a member of the terrorist group.

“People who ISIS relies upon to conquer territory and kill non-believers, those are its soldiers. Of course they are part of ISIS. That is common sense,” prosecutor Amanda Leigh Houle said. “An organization engaged in a worldwide war needs its soldiers and its soldiers are part of the group.”

The charges stemmed from the 2017 attack in which Saipov drove a U-Haul truck into cyclists and pedestrians on Manhattan’s West Side bike path. He then crashed the vehicle into a school bus and left the truck while brandishing a pellet gun and paintball gun, authorities said at the time. He was shot by an NYPD officer and taken into custody, officials said.

Investigators said Saipov told them he planned the attack for about a year and was inspired by ISIS videos, according to a criminal complaint.

Saipov became radicalized by consuming extremist content during lengthy solo stints as a long-haul truck driver, his attorney said.

He grew up culturally Muslim in Uzbekistan but was not exposed to any significant amount of religious study, and his family members are not ISIS supporters, Patton said.

Saipov came to the United States from Uzbekistan in 2010 and was living in New Jersey before the attack. He lived with his wife and three children and drove for Uber, according to officials.

Saipov came to the US on a diversity immigrant visa, which allows people from countries with low recent immigration to apply for a visa and green card, according to the Department of Homeland Security. He later became a legal permanent resident, officials said.

Of the eight people killed in the attack, five were from Argentina, two were Americans, and one was from Belgium, police said.

The Argentinians were part of a group celebrating the 30th anniversary of their high school graduation in New York City.

Argentina’s Foreign Affairs Ministry identified them as Hernán Diego Mendoza, Diego Enrique Angelini, Alejandro Damián Pagnucco, Ariel Erlij and Hernán Ferruchi.

Nicholas Cleves, 23, from New York, and Darren Drake, 32, from New Milford, New Jersey, were the two Americans killed.

Ann-Laure Decadt, a 31-year-old Belgian woman, was also among those killed, according to a statement from her husband, Alexander Naessens. Decadt, a mother of two young sons, was on a trip to New York with her two sisters and her mother, Naessens said after the attack.

Read original article here

Trump Org. fined $1.6 million after conviction for 17 felonies, including tax fraud


New York
CNN
 — 

The Trump Organization was fined $1.6 million – the maximum possible penalty – by a New York judge Friday for running a decade-long tax fraud scheme, a symbolic moment because it is the only judgment for a criminal conviction that has come close to former President Donald Trump.

Two Trump entities, The Trump Corp. and Trump Payroll Corp., were convicted last month of 17 felonies, including tax fraud and falsifying business records.

Under New York law, the most the companies can be fined is about $1.6 million, a penalty the Trump Organization can easily afford.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Judge Juan Merchan to make the Trump Org. pay the maximum fine, though he admitted that it will have a “minimal impact” on a multibillion-dollar company.

“We all know that these corporations cannot go to jail as Allen Weisselberg has,” Steinglass said Friday, referring to the Trump Organization’s long-time chief financial officer who was sentenced to five months in jail earlier this week as part of a deal he reached with prosecutors. “The only way to effectively deter such conduct is to make it as expensive as possible.”

New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, told CNN that the fine against the Trump Org. is important but he also wants lawmakers to raise the fines for companies that break the law.

“It’s important regardless of who the defendant is, because it’s cheating and greed and cheating the taxpayers,” Bragg said. “It obviously becomes more consequential given that it involved the former president’s corporation and CFO. It sends a message – I hope it sends a message to New Yorkers that you know we’re one system of justice and that this kind of conduct, regardless of who you are, won’t be countenanced in Manhattan.”

But, Bragg said, the fine isn’t enough of a penalty.

“It isn’t sufficient. Plain and simple,” Bragg said, saying the law should “reflect what I think many of us see, particularly those who sat through the trial and saw the 13 year you know pattern of deep greed and misconduct laid bare, we should have stiffer penalties for conduct like that.”

The Trump Org. entities have 14 days to pay the fine.

The real estate business is not at risk of being dismantled because there is no mechanism under the law to dissolve the company. No individual will go to jail based on the jury’s verdict. However, a felony conviction could impact the Trump Organization’s reputation and ability to do business or obtain loans or contracts.

Trump and his family were not charged in this case, but the former president was mentioned repeatedly during the trial by prosecutors about his connection to the un-taxed benefits doled out to certain executives, including company-funded apartments, car leases and personal expenses. One prosecutor said Trump “explicitly sanctioned” tax fraud.

One of the jurors told CNN that the jury saw a “culture of fraud,” at the Trump Organization, but referred to Trump as a nondescript “Bob Smith” at times when talking about the company owner’s awareness of the crimes in relation to the charges.

Weisselberg last year pleaded guilty to 15 felonies related to the tax fraud scheme and agreed to testify truthfully against the company at trial.

He remained on paid leave at the Trump Organization, where he was compensated a little more than $1 million a year, until Tuesday when he was sentenced. Weisselberg received a severance package that one person familiar with the deal called “generous.”

Merchan, who sentenced Weisselberg, said at the time that but for the deal he would have given Weisselberg more time in jail after listening to the evidence at trial.

Merchan said he found most “offensive” a $6,000 payroll check Weisselberg had made out to his wife, who never worked for Trump, so she could become eligible for Social Security benefits.

A Trump Org. spokesperson said that Weisselberg “is a victim,” as is the company and former president.

“New York has become the crime and murder capital of the world, yet these politically motivated prosecutors will stop at nothing to get President Trump and continue the never ending witch-hunt which began the day he announced his presidency,” the spokesperson said. “We did nothing wrong and we will appeal this verdict.”

The Manhattan district attorney’s office continues to investigate the company’s business practices.

Prosecutors are conducting a wide-ranging investigation and in recent months their focus has returned to the company’s involvement in hush-money payments made to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels from going public with an affair with Trump just before the 2016 election, people familiar with the matter said. Trump has denied the affair.

Prosecutors are also looking into potential insurance fraud after new material came to light from the New York attorney general’s civil investigation into the accuracy of the Trump Organization’s financial statements, the people said.

The biggest threat currently facing the company could be New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million civil lawsuit, which has alleged Trump, his three eldest children, Weisselberg and others defrauded lenders, insurers and tax authorities by inflating the value of multiple Trump Org. properties for more than a decade.

In addition to money, James, a Democrat, is seeking to permanently bar Trump and the children named in the lawsuit from serving as a director of a business registered in New York state. She is also seeking to cancel the Trump Organization’s corporate certificate, which if granted by a judge, could effectively force the company to cease operations in New York state.

The judge overseeing the lawsuit put an independent monitor in place to review the Trump Organization’s financial statements and business decisions. He recently denied motions to dismiss the case and said he considered sanctioning Trump’s attorneys. The trial is set for October.

Trump has denied wrongdoing and said the lawsuit is politically motivated.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Read original article here

Ana Montes, American convicted of spying for Cuba, released from US federal prison after 20 years



CNN
 — 

Ana Montes, an American citizen convicted of spying for Cuba, has been released from US federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas, according to Federal Bureau of Prison online records.

Cuba recruited Montes for spying in the 1980s and she was employed by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency as an analyst from 1985-2001. She was eventually promoted to be the DIA’s top Cuba analyst.

The FBI and DIA began investigating her in the fall of 2000 but, in response to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, she had access to plans for US attacks against Afghanistan and the Taliban.

On September 21, 2001, Montes was arrested in Washington, DC, and charged with conspiracy to deliver defense information to Cuba.

In early 2002, she was sentenced to 25 years in prison after pleading guilty to espionage. The judge who sentenced Montes ordered her to be supervised on release from prison for five years.

Regarding Montes’ release, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio slammed Montes for betraying the US and assisting Cuba’s communist regime.

“Americans should remember Ana Belén Montes for who she really is, despite the fact that she has served her time in prison. If we forget this spy’s story, it will surely repeat itself,” Rubio said in a statement released on Saturday.

Ana Montes, now 65, was known as the Queen of Cuba, an American who for over a decade and a half handed over so many US military secrets to Havana that experts say the US may never know the full extent of the damage.

In 1984, Montes was working a clerical job at the Justice Department in Washington and studying for a master’s degree at Johns Hopkins University.

She often found herself railing against President Ronald Reagan’s support for rebels fighting pro-communist regimes in Central America.

“She felt that the US didn’t have the right to impose its will on other countries,” said FBI Special Agent Pete Lapp, the man who eventually led the investigation against Montes, and ultimately arrested her.

Her anger about US foreign policy complicated her relationships and drew the attention of Cubans who enticed her to turn her back on friends, family and her own country.

Someone at Johns Hopkins noticed Montes’ passionate views about Cuba and soon she was introduced to recruiters, and agreed to help the Cuban cause.

At about the same time, Montes applied for a job at the Defense Intelligence Agency, where workers handle US military secrets on a daily basis. When she started there in 1985, the FBI says she was already a fully recruited Cuban spy.

One night in 1996, Montes was called to consult at the Pentagon during an ongoing international incident, but she broke protocol by failing to remain on duty until dismissed. This raised suspicion.

Four years later, DIA counterintelligence officer Scott Carmichael heard the FBI was looking for a mole – an unidentified spy inside the DIA who was working for Cuba.

The suspect had traveled to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at a specific time. When he looked up a list of DIA employees who visited Gitmo during those dates, a familiar name popped up – Ana Montes.

“The moment I saw her name, I knew,” Carmichael said.

After that, Carmichael and FBI agent Lapp teamed up to prove that the DIA’s Queen of Cuba was really a spy.

Thanks to “very sensitive” intelligence, it was known that the unidentified DIA mole had bought a specific brand, make and model of computer at a specific time in 1996 from an unknown store in Alexandria, Virginia.

Lapp was able to find the store’s original record that linked that computer to Montes, confirming their beliefs.

Read original article here

Harvey Weinstein: Los Angeles jury deadlocks on factors that could have increased his sentence



CNN
 — 

After convicting former film producer Harvey Weinstein of rape and sexual assault, a Los Angeles jury could not reach a unanimous verdict Tuesday on alleged aggravating factors that could have increased his sentence.

The three charges Weinstein was convicted of – rape, sexual penetration by foreign object and forcible oral copulation – were all tied to one of his accusers, Jane Doe 1, a model and actress who testified the movie mogul assaulted her in a Beverly Hills hotel room in February 2013.

Jurors were asked to determine if Jane Doe 1 was harmed and particularly vulnerable, and if Weinstein committed the crimes with planning, professionalism, or sophistication.

Ten members of the jury found the aggravating factors had been met, but two jurors could not be swayed, one of the jurors told CNN.

“The jury has said they are not able to reach a unanimous verdict on these issues,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa Lench said, according to a pool report. “I am going to declare a mistrial with respect to the allegations.”

Had the jury found Weinstein guilty of the aggravating factors, a new California law would have then allowed the judge to enact a harsher sentence.

Jurors had deliberated for several hours Tuesday. After the jury indicated further deliberations would not sway them, neither the prosecution or the defense pushed to have the jurors deliberate further.

When Lench asked prosecutor Paul Thompson if Weinstein will be retried on the deadlock counts, the pool report said he responded: “We need to consult the victims first and foremost.”

Weinstein’s sentencing was tentatively set for January 9, with Lench allowing only Jane Doe 1 to offer a victim impact statement. He is expected to serve 18 years.

“Harvey Weinstein forever destroyed a part of me that night in 2013. I will never get that back,” said Jane Doe 1 in a statement released through her attorney. “The criminal trial was brutal. Weinstein’s lawyers put me through hell on the witness stand. But I knew I had to see this through the end, and I did … I hope Harvey Weinstein never sees the outside of a prison cell during his lifetime.”

The disgraced movie mogul was found guilty Monday of three of seven charges against him in his second sexual assault trial. The jury acquitted Weinstein of one count of sexual battery by restraint against a massage therapist in a hotel room in 2010.

They were a hung jury on one count of sexual battery by restraint, one count of forcible oral copulation and one count of rape related to two other women – including Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker and first partner to California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Weinstein had pleaded not guilty to all charges against him. His spokesman said he was “disappointed” with the outcome of the trial but “he is prepared to continue fighting for his innocence.”

The verdict was reached as jurors entered their third week of deliberations, meeting for a total of 41 hours over a period of 10 days following weeks of oftentimes emotional testimony.

Two jurors who spoke with CNN after they were dismissed from court Tuesday shared their thoughts on the trial, both saying politics played absolutely no role in their deliberations.

“Everyone realized the weight of this trial. There’s a lot riding on this for both sides,” said Michael, a 62-year-old juror who declined to share his last name.

Michael said the contact the accusers had with Weinstein following their alleged assaults was a key factor in deciding the verdict. That was specifically applied to Siebel Newsom, who, according to dozens of emails presented as evidence in the trial, maintained contact with Weinstein.

Michael said he found Jane Doe 1 to be the most convincing.

“We felt horrible for everybody,” but felt like the addition of uncharged witnesses became confusing for some jurors, said Jay, another juror who also declined to share his last name.

“Everybody seemed believable. It’s hard to prove all of them with time and memory,” Jay added.

Elizabeth Fegan, an attorney representing Siebel Newsom, who was identified in court as Jane Doe 4, said they were disappointed the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the charges related to her client.

“My client, Jane Doe 4, shared her story not with an expectation to testify but to support all the survivors who bravely came forward,” Fegan said in a statement to CNN. “While we are heartened that the jury found Weinstein guilty on some of the counts, we are disappointed that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on Jane Doe 4. She will continue to fight for all women and all survivors of abuse against a system that permits the victim to be shamed and re-traumatized in the name of justice.”

Weinstein is two years into a 23-year sentence for a 2020 New York conviction, which his attorneys have appealed, putting more attention on the outcome of the trial in Los Angeles.

The weekslong Los Angeles trial saw emotional testimony from Weinstein’s accusers – a model, a dancer, a massage therapist and Siebel Newsom – all of whom were asked to recount the details of their allegations against him, provide details of meetings with the producer from years ago, and explain their reactions to the alleged assaults.

Additionally, four women testified they were subjected to similar behavior by Weinstein in other jurisdictions.

Weinstein initially faced 11 charges, but four counts connected to an unnamed woman were dropped without explanation. She did not testify in the trial.

In closing arguments, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez called Weinstein a “titan” who used his power in Hollywood to prey on and silence women.

Meanwhile, Weinstein’s attorneys maintained the allegations are either fabricated or occurred consensually as part of a “transactional relationship” with the movie producer, repeatedly saying there is no evidence of assault.

Defense attorney Alan Jackson called the accusers “fame and fortune seekers.”

Jane Doe 2, who was identified as Lauren Young, told her attorney Gloria Allred by phone that she was happy Weinstein was convicted on some counts despite there being a mistrial on her count, Allred said in a news conference after the verdict.

“I am relieved that Harvey Weinstein has been convicted because he deserves to be punished for the crimes that he committed, and he can no longer use his power to intimidate and sexually assault more women,” Young said in a statement read by Allred.

Read original article here

Harvey Weinstein: Jury reaches verdict in sexual assault trial



CNN
 — 

[Breaking news update, published at 6:05 p.m. ET]

A Los Angeles jury reached a verdict Monday in the sexual assault trial of Harvey Weinstein, the former movie producer who is accused of using his Hollywood influence to lure women into private meetings and assault them. The verdict will be announced shortly.

Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to seven charges in all: two counts each of forcible rape, sexual battery by restraint and forcible oral copulation, and one count of sexual penetration by foreign object.

If found guilty, Weinstein could face 60 years to life in prison, plus an additional five years.

The verdict was reached as jurors entered their third week of deliberations, meeting for a total of 41 hours over a period of 10 days.

Weinstein was convicted of similar charges in New York in 2020 and was sentenced to 23 years in prison.

[Original story, published at 2:02 p.m. ET]

A Los Angeles jury resumed deliberations Monday in Harvey Weinstein’s second sexual assault trial, meeting for a tenth day to decide on a verdict after weeks of testimony.

The disgraced movie mogul, who is accused of using his Hollywood influence to lure women into private meetings and assault them, awaits a decision from behind bars.

Weinstein faces two counts of forcible rape and five counts of sexual assault related to accusations from four women, including Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker and the wife of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who alleged Weinstein raped her in a hotel room in 2005.

Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to all seven charges against him. He initially faced 11 charges, but four counts connected to an unnamed woman were dropped after she did not testify.

The jury had already deliberated for about 37 total hours when they adjourned last Wednesday, without a verdict reached.

The former film producer is already serving a 23-year sentence for a New York sexual assault conviction. His attorneys have appealed that conviction, which has placed more attention on the outcome of the trial in Los Angeles.

If the jury in Los Angeles finds him guilty, Weinstein could face 60 years to life in prison, plus an additional five years.

The Los Angeles jury has deliberated longer than the New York jury in Weinstein’s first criminal trial, in which he was convicted of criminal sex act and third-degree rape after 26 hours of deliberations.

As deliberations went on in Los Angeles, the jury asked the court a question and at least twice asked for testimony to be read back. Los Angeles Superior Court officials have not provided specifics on those requests.

The weekslong Los Angeles trial saw emotional testimony from Weinstein’s accusers – a model, a dancer, a massage therapist and Siebel Newsom – all of whom were asked to recount the details of their allegations against him, provide details of meetings with the producer from years ago, and explain their reactions to the alleged assaults.

In closing arguments, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez called Weinstein a “titan” who used his power in Hollywood to prey on and silence women.

“Rapists rape. You can look at the pattern,” fellow prosecutor Paul Thompson told jurors.

“You have irrefutable, overwhelming evidence about the nature of this man and what he did to these women,” Thompson said.

Meanwhile, Weinstein’s attorneys have maintained the allegations are either fabricated or occurred consensually as part of a “transactional relationship” with the movie producer, repeatedly saying there is no evidence of assault.

Defense attorney Alan Jackson called the accusers “fame and fortune seekers.”

The trial in Los Angeles included testimony from the four accusers identified as Jane Does in court, and other witnesses, including experts, law enforcement, friends of accusers and former aides to Weinstein.

Additionally, four women testified they were subjected to similar behavior by Weinstein in other jurisdictions.

Each morning at trial, Weinstein was brought from a correctional facility and wheeled into the Los Angeles courtroom wearing a suit and tie and holding a composition notebook.

His accusers all began their oftentimes emotional testimonies by identifying him in the courtroom as he looked on.

“He’s wearing a suit, and a blue tie and he’s staring at me,” Siebel Newsom said last month, before what was one of the most emotional moments of the trial.

On Thursday of last week, defense attorney Jackson asked jurors if they could “accept what (the Jane Does) say as gospel,” arguing what they said was a lack of forensic evidence supporting their claim.

“Five words that sum up the entirety of the prosecution’s case: ‘Take my word for it,’” Jackson said. “‘Take my word for it that he showed up at my hotel room unannounced. Take my word for it that I showed up at his hotel room. Take my word for it that I didn’t consent. Take my word for it, that I said no.’ “

Siebel Newsom described an hourslong “cat-and-mouse period,” which preceded her alleged assault. She, like other accusers, described feeling “frozen” that day.

Attorneys for Weinstein do not deny the incident occurred, but said he believed it was consensual.

Jackson called the incident “consensual, transactional sex,” adding: “Regret is not the same thing as rape. And it’s important we make that distinction in this courtroom.”

Women’s rights lawyer Gloria Allred, who is representing Jane Doe 2 in the case, told CNN she hopes the jury sees her client “has no motive at all to do anything but tell the truth.”

“She never sought or received any compensation … She doesn’t live in California anymore. But she is testifying because she’s been asked to testify and I hope that they see her as the young woman that she was when she met Harvey Weinstein, and the woman that she is today approximately nine to 10 years later. Her life has changed,” Allred said.

“To be willing to subject yourself to what could be a very brutal cross-examination. That takes a very special person to do that. And she is a special person. I’m very proud,” Allred said.

In her closing arguments, Martinez also highlighted the women who testified chose to do so despite knowing they would face tough conditions in court.

“The truth is that, as you sit here, we know the despicable behavior the defendant engaged in. He thought he was so powerful that people would … excuse his behavior,” Martinez said. “That’s just Harvey being Harvey. That’s just Hollywood. And for so long that’s what everyone did. Everyone just turned their heads.”

Read original article here

Aaron Dean trial: Former Texas police officer found guilty of manslaughter for the shooting death of Atatiana Jefferson at her home



CNN
 — 

A former Forth Worth, Texas, police officer was found guilty of manslaughter Thursday in the 2019 shooting of 28-year-old Atatiana Jefferson in her home.

Aaron Dean, who is White,  faces up to 20 years in prison for the conviction. Jefferson was Black.

He had pleaded not guilty to murder, a charge which carried a possible sentence of five to 99 years. Jurors were instructed Wednesday to also consider the lesser included offense of manslaughter. The sentencing phase begins Friday, CNN affiliate WFAA reported.

Dean, in a gray suit, showed no emotion as the verdict was read.

Members of Jefferson’s family were expressionless in the courtroom as the judge announced the verdict, WFAA reported. There was no immediate comment from family members.

“We’re glad there was a guilty verdict. That’s progress,” the Rev. Crystal Bates, a minister and activist, told WFAA outside court.

“But there’s so much work to be done… How he is sentenced is going to send a message not only to him but to other law enforcement to not be so trigger happy when you see somebody of color.”

Defense attorneys had said Dean fired in self-defense, but prosecutors argued there was no evidence he saw a gun in the woman’s hand before firing through a bedroom window.

Jefferson’s 11-year-old nephew, who was with her at the time, and Dean’s police partner – who responded with him to what they believed was a burglary – were the primary witnesses to the shooting and testified at trial. Dean took the stand and said he fired at Jefferson because she pointed a gun at him.

The verdict comes more than three years after the deadly encounter in which Dean and his partner responded to Jefferson’s house around 2:25 a.m. on October 12, 2019. They arrived at her house after a neighbor called a nonemergency police line to report that her doors were open.

Trial testimony, which touched on fraught issues of race, police violence, gun rights and body-camera footage, began on December 5.

The verdict was announced after jurors deliberated for more than 13 hours, reported WFAA. The manslaughter conviction of a police officer who was on duty is a first in Tarrant County, the station reported.

Jurors got the case Wednesday afternoon following closing arguments in which the state portrayed Dean as a power-hungry former cop whose preconceived notions about the neighborhood where Jefferson lived tainted his conduct the night of the shooting.

The defense countered that Dean fired his weapon in self-defense while fearing for his life in what attorneys said was a tragic accident but not a criminal act.

Dean resigned days afterward and was arrested and charged in the killing of Jefferson.

“If you can’t feel safe in your own home, where can you feel safe?” Tarrant County Prosecutor Ashlea Deener told jurors in closing arguments on Wednesday. “When you think about your house, you think about safety. It’s where you go to retreat, to get away from the world.”

Dean, the prosecutor said, had a “tremendous amount of power” when he put on his uniform.

“When you put on that badge and you put on that uniform you say you’re going to serve and protect us all. That means her too,” Deener said of Jefferson.

“And the Fort Worth Police Department – those officers that do serve and protect us, that don’t have those preconceived notions, that did a thorough investigation in this case – are ashamed that they ever called somebody like him a brother in blue,” she added, referring to the former officer.

Defense attorney Bob Gill told jurors Dean feared for his life as he peered through the bedroom window that night.

“The state cannot prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not self-defense,” Gill said. “It’s tragic, but is not an offense under the state of Texas.”

Holding his hands in the air to show the size of the gun Dean claimed he saw through the bedroom window, Gill told the jury: “What is immediately more necessary than having a handgun stuck in your face? And you have heard from several people, starting with Aaron, that that handgun was this big when he saw it.”

Gill added, “If you believe that Aaron was legitimately defending a third person, and reasonably defending a third person, or if you had a reasonable doubt about whether he was doing such, then you are to acquit Aaron. And you don’t have to agree that it was self-defense or defense of a third person. You just have to decide in your mind that he reasonably believed he was doing one of those two things.”

Dean testified Monday that he fired at Jefferson because she pointed a gun at him.

“As I started to get that second phrase out, ‘Show me your hands,’ I saw a silhouette,” the former officer said. “I was looking right down the barrel of a gun, and when I saw the barrel of that gun pointed at me, I fired a single shot from my duty weapon.”

Dean said he had his weapon out because he believed the home was in the midst of being robbed. He fired at her through the window “because we’re taught to meet deadly force with deadly force. We’re not taught that we have to wait,” he said.

In cross-examination, however, Dean admitted many of his actions that night were “bad police work,” including firing without seeing her hands or what was behind her, failing to tell his partner he saw a gun and rushing into the home without fully ensuring it was safe.

“You’ve got another fellow officer from the Fort Worth Police Department entering a home which you have determined to be a burglary in progress with a possible armed assailant, and you didn’t think to tell your partner, ‘Hey there’s a gun inside?’” prosecutor R. Dale Smith asked.

“No,” Dean said.

– Source:
CNN
” data-fave-thumbnails=”{“big”:{“uri”:”https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/191012202603-02-fort-worth-police-shooting.jpg?q=x_36,y_19,h_1042,w_1853,c_crop/h_540,w_960″},”small”:{“uri”:”https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/191012202603-02-fort-worth-police-shooting.jpg?q=x_36,y_19,h_1042,w_1853,c_crop/h_540,w_960″}}” data-vr-video=”” data-show-name=”New Day” data-show-url=”https://www.cnn.com/shows/new-day” data-check-event-based-preview=”” data-network-id=”” data-details=””>

Woman shot and killed by police officer in her own home

“You didn’t think to tell her, ‘Hey I saw somebody with a gun?’” Smith asked.

“No,” he said.

Dean’s testimony is pivotal in the trial, which also featured body-camera footage of the shooting and testimony from the primary witnesses, Dean’s police partner Carol Darch and Jefferson’s 11-year-old nephew.

On the stand, Dean described the silhouette he saw as being “bent over” facing the window with upper arm movement.

He grew emotional as he spoke about the moments after he shot Jefferson.

“I observed the person that we now know is Ms. Jefferson. I heard her scream and saw her fall like this,” Dean said, gesturing in a downward motion. “And I knew that I’d shot that person.”

He said after firing the shot he tried opening the window to render aid but couldn’t get it open, so they ran around to the front door and entered the home. He and Darch went into the bedroom and saw a child there.

“I’m thinking, who brings a kid to a burglary? What is going on?” Dean said.

The prosecution’s first witness was Zion Carr, who was 8 years old and in the bedroom with his “Aunt Tay” when she was shot.

Now 11, the boy testified they had accidentally burned hamburgers earlier in the night, so they opened the doors to air the smoke out of the house.

He and his aunt were up late playing video games when Jefferson heard a noise outside, and she then went to her purse to get her gun, he testified. He did not see her raise her firearm toward the window, he testified.

Zion said he did not hear or see anything outside the window, but he saw his aunt fall to the ground and start crying.

“I was thinking, ‘Is it a dream?’” he testified. “She was crying and just shaking.”

Prosecutors also called to the stand Dean’s police partner, Darch, who testified she was with Dean when they went to investigate the home.

She said she believed the home was being burglarized because two doors were open, lights were on inside, cabinets were wide open and things were strewn about the living room and kitchen area.

She had her back to the window when Dean began to yell out commands for Jefferson to put her hands up, she testified. Darch said she started to turn around, heard a gunshot, then looked over Dean’s shoulder and could see a face in the window with eyes “as big as saucers.”

She testified she did not see Jefferson holding a gun and didn’t recall Dean ever saying Jefferson had a gun.

An attorney for Jefferson’s family said she was trying to protect her nephew from what they both thought was a prowler. She had moved into her ailing mother’s Fort Worth home a few months earlier to take care of her, family attorney S. Lee Merritt said at the time. She also took care of her nephews.

Jefferson graduated from Xavier University of Louisiana in 2014 with a degree in biology and worked in pharmaceutical equipment sales, according to her family’s attorney.

Read original article here

Elizabeth Holmes sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for fraud



CNN
 — 

Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison on Friday following her conviction in January for defrauding investors while running the failed blood testing startup Theranos.

Judge Edward Davila imposed a sentence of 11 years and three months in prison, with another three years of supervision after Holmes is released. The sentence also includes a fine of $400, or $100 for each count of fraud. Restitution will be set at a later date. Holmes was ordered to turn herself into custody on April 27, 2023.

Holmes, who was found guilty in January on four charges of defrauding investors, faced up to 20 years in prison as well as a fine of $250,000 plus restitution for each count.

Lawyers for the government asked for a 15-year prison term, as well as probation and restitution, while Holmes’ probation officer pushed for a nine-year term. Holmes’ defense team asked Davila, who presided over her case, to sentence her to up to 18 months of incarceration followed by probation and community service.

Before the sentencing was announced, a tearful Holmes spoke to the court in San Jose, California. “I loved Theranos. It was my life’s work,” she said. “The people I tried to get involved with Theranos were the people I loved and respected the most. I am devastated by my failings.”

She also apologized to the employees, investors and patients of Theranos. “I’m so, so sorry. I gave everything I had to build our company and to save our company,” she said. “I regret my failings with every cell in my body.”

In arguments before the judge on Friday over her sentence, Kevin Downey, one of Holmes’ lawyers, said that unlike other defendants in corporate fraud cases, the Theranos founder did not express greed by cashing out shares or spending money on “yachts and planes.” Instead, the money was “used to build medical technology.”

Federal prosecutor Jeffrey Schenk pointed out that Holmes did gain fame, admiration, and a lifestyle from the fraud, even if she did not make financial gains. “These still are benefits she’s receiving,” he said.

Friday’s sentencing hearing caps off Holmes’ stunning downfall. Once hailed as a tech industry icon for her company’s promises to test for a range of conditions with just a few drops of blood, she is now the rare tech founder to be convicted and face prison time for her company’s missteps.

Holmes, now 38, started Theranos in 2003 at the age of 19 and soon thereafter dropped out of Stanford University to pursue the company full-time. After a decade under the radar, Holmes began courting the press with claims that Theranos had invented technology that could accurately and reliably test for a range of conditions using just a few drops of blood taken from a finger prick.

Theranos raised $945 million from an impressive list of investors, including media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Walmart’s Walton family and the billionaire family of former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. At its peak, Theranos was valued at $9 billion, making Holmes a billionaire on paper. She was lauded on magazine covers, frequently wearing a signature black turtleneck that invited comparisons to late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. (She has not worn that look in the courtroom.)

The company began to unravel after a Wall Street Journal investigation in 2015 found the company had only ever performed roughly a dozen of the hundreds of tests it offered using its proprietary blood testing device, and with questionable accuracy. Instead, Theranos was relying on third-party manufactured devices from traditional blood testing companies.

In 2016, Theranos voided two years of blood test results. In 2018, Holmes and Theranos settled “massive fraud” charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but did not admit to or deny any of the allegations as part of the deal. Theranos dissolved soon after.

In her trial, Holmes alleged she was in the midst of a decade-long abusive relationship with her then-boyfriend and Theranos COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani while running the company. Balwani, she alleged, tried to control nearly every aspect of her life, including disciplining her eating, her voice and her image, and isolating her from others. (Balwani’s attorneys denied her claims.)

In July, Balwani was found guilty on all 12 charges in a separate trial and faces the same potential maximum prison time as her. Balwani is scheduled to be sentenced on December 7.

“The effects of Holmes and Balwani’s fraudulent conduct were far-reaching and severe,” federal prosecutors wrote in a November court filing regarding Holmes’ sentencing. “Dozens of investors lost over $700 million and numerous patients received unreliable or wholly inaccurate medical information from Theranos’ flawed tests, placing those patients’ health at serious risk.”

More than 100 people wrote letters in support of Holmes to Davila, asking for leniency in her sentencing. The list includes Holmes’ partner, Billy Evans, many members of Holmes’ and Evans’ families, early Theranos investor Tim Draper, and Sen. Cory Booker. Booker described meeting her at a dinner years before she was charged and bonding over the fact that they were both vegans with nothing to eat but a bag of almonds, which they shared.

“I still believe that she holds onto the hope that she can make contributions to the lives of others, and that she can, despite mistakes, make the world a better place,” Booker wrote, noting that he continues to consider her a friend.

Ahead of the hearing, there were also questions over how Holmes’ sentencing could be complicated by developments in her life after stepping down from Theranos. Holmes and her partner, Evans, who met in 2017, have a young son. Holmes is also pregnant, as confirmed by recent court filings and her most recent court appearance in mid-October.

Mark MacDougall, a white-collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, told CNN Business before the hearing that the fact that Holmes has a young child could impact how she is sentenced.

“I don’t know how it can’t, just because judges are human,” he said.

MacDougall also said he doesn’t see what a long prison sentence accomplishes. “Elizabeth Holmes is never going to run a big company again,” he said. “She’s never going to be in a position to have something like this happen again.”

Read original article here

MH17 trial verdict: Dutch court finds two Russians, one Ukrainian separatist guilty



CNN
 — 

A Dutch court on Thursday found two Russians and a separatist Ukrainian guilty of mass murder for their involvement in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014.

Igor Girkin, a former colonel of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), and Sergey Dubinskiy, who worked for Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, were convicted along with Ukrainian separatist Leonid Kharchenko, who is believed to have led a combat unit in Donetsk in July 2014.

The three were sentenced to life in prison and ordered to pay the victims more than 16 million euros, but as the convictions were handed down in absentia, none of them are likely to serve their sentences. A fourth suspect, Russian national Oleg Pulatov, a former soldier of the Russian special forces Spetsnaz-GRU, was acquitted.

“Causing the crash of Flight MH17 and the murders of all persons on board is such a serious accusation, the consequences are so devastating, and the attitude of the accused is so reprehensible, that a limited period of imprisonment will not suffice,” the court said following the verdict.

Flight MH17 was on its way from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014, when it was shot out of the sky over territory held by pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. All 298 people on board were killed, including 15 crew members and 283 passengers from 17 countries.

The downing of the jet happened in the early phase of the conflict between pro-Russia separatists and Ukrainian forces, a precursor to Moscow’s full invasion of Ukraine earlier this year.

Thursday’s verdict, which follows a two-year trial at the highly secured Schiphol Judicial Complex in Badhoevedorp, marks the first time that independent judgment has been passed on the incident, and may provide some small amount of justice for the families of the victims.

The case has become more significant in light of Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine, which is nearly in its ninth month. One legal expert told Reuters that the ruling could impact other cases involving Russia, including one at the United Nation’s top court, the International Court of Justice.

The verdict comes weeks after Moscow sought to illegally annex four Ukrainian regions, including the area where the court said the missile that brought down MH17 was fired from eight years earlier. It also comes two days after a missile landed in Poland, raising fears that Russia’s assault on Ukraine could spill over into neighboring countries.

The court found that Flight MH17 was hit by a Russian Buk missile launched from farmland outside a village in eastern Ukraine that was held at the time by pro-Russian rebels who were under the control of Moscow, and that the missile system had been moved back to Russia after the strike.

The three convicted men all played key roles in and transporting the Buk system and its crew into Ukraine, the court ruled, though it found there was insufficient evidence to determine who fired the missile.

Presiding judge Hendrik Steenhuis said the court found that the firing of the missile at MH17 was a premeditated act intended to bring down a plane – and while the crew likely believed they were firing at a military aircraft, it would have been “crystal clear” to them that no one on board any targeted aircraft would survive.

“A Buk weapon system is designed to shoot down aircraft and cannot simply be used at random. Such deployment requires preparation, including determination of and transport to a launch site. Firing the missile needs to be very deliberate and carefully considered in accordance with a technical procedure and requires a highly trained crew. The likelihood of persons on board an aircraft surviving an attack by a Buk missile is nil. Anybody who deploys a specialized, costly weapon such as a Buk TELAR will be aware of this,” the court said in a statement.

The court also ruled that since the defendants were not official parties to the conflict and thus did not have combat immunity, they were not allowed to shoot down any aircraft, military or civilian.

Moscow has repeatedly denied any responsibility for the attack, and Russian officials and state media have put out a range of often contradictory explanations for the tragedy.

But on Thursday, Steenhuis cited a range of evidence for the court’s verdict and ruled out any alternative explanations for the incident.

The evidence reviewed by the court included fragments of a Buk missile found embedded in the aircraft and the bodies of some victims, intercepted telephone calls and witness statements, and videos and images of the scene and of a Buk system being moved into eastern Ukraine from Russia and then back again.

The convicted men have a right to appeal. Moscow described the verdict as “politically motivated” and said it would not extradite the sentenced Russians to the Netherlands.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky described the verdict as an important moment for accountability. “Holding to account masterminds is crucial too, as the feeling of impunity leads to new crimes. We must dispel this illusion. Punishment for all [Russia’s] atrocities then & now is inevitable,” he tweeted.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said the United States welcomed the court’s decision but that there was more work to do.

“While this is a solid step towards justice, more work lies ahead to meet the UN Security Council’s demand in resolution 2166 that “those responsible … be held to account,” Blinken said in a statement.

Read original article here

Darrell Brooks: Man who drove SUV into Waukesha Christmas parade found guilty of intentional homicide



CNN
 — 

Darrell Brooks was found guilty of six counts of first-degree intentional homicide on Wednesday for driving his SUV into a crowd of Christmas parade attendees in Waukesha, Wisconsin, last November, killing six people and wounding dozens more.

He faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison for the convictions.

Brooks, 40, also was convicted of 61 counts of recklessly endangering safety with the use of a dangerous weapon, six counts of fatal hit and run, two counts of felony bail jumping and one count of misdemeanor domestic battery – a clean sweep for the prosecution.

Brooks represented himself in court and has been combative throughout the trial, repeatedly speaking over the judge to make inane and outlandish arguments. Yet as the stream of guilty verdicts were read Wednesday, he looked down, put his head on his hands and sat silently.

The trial comes less than a year after he drove a red SUV through the crowd in Waukesha’s Christmas parade on November 21, killing an 8-year-old boy and several members of the “Dancing Grannies” group.

Brooks had been released from jail less than two weeks prior in a domestic abuse case, on a $1,000 bail that prosecutors later acknowledged was “inappropriately low.” In that case, he allegedly ran over a woman who said she’s the mother of his child, according to court documents.

Prosecutors said in closing arguments Tuesday he intentionally drove through the crowd at significant speeds and hit 68 individual parade-goers, turning a joyous afternoon into a horrific one.

‘It was zooming’: Man marching in parade describes SUV plowing through crowd

“He reached speeds of approximately 30 mph. That’s intentional. He plowed through 68 different people. 68. How can you hit one and keep going? How can you hit two and keep going?” Waukesha County District Attorney Susan Opper said.

“His intent I do have to prove, and I submit without any doubt there’s overwhelming evidence that this was an intentional act by Darrell Brooks and an act of utter disregard for human life.”

In his own closing arguments, Brooks attempted to raise questions about the vehicle and about his intent. He repeatedly said there had been “misconceptions” and “lies” told about him during the trial.

“I’ve never heard of someone trying to intentionally hurt someone while attempting to blow their horn while attempting to alert people of their presence,” Brooks said.

Jurors deliberated on Tuesday night for just under two hours and then resumed again on Wednesday morning.

In court, a series of videos and witnesses detailed the disturbing sights of the SUV ramming through the parade route.

“The band had just passed us, a red SUV … going maybe 30, 40 miles per hour, just went straight over the Waukesha South (high school) band,” said Kyle Jewell, a spectator who tried unsuccessfully to catch up to the SUV to stop it. “And it’s not like it stopped, it went over … it looked like it went in the air, like over a pretty big object, and it was just like a big old speed bump and kept going.”

Nicole White, who prosecutors said was the first person struck by Brooks’ vehicle, testified she sustained injuries to her spine and tailbone and suffered ligament damage to her right knee.

“I just remember being struck by the vehicle from behind on my back and then I fell to my knees and kind of rolled under the vehicle,” White said.

Brooks’ trial has been marked by his unusual decision to represent himself in court and his persistent disruptions. Throughout the trial, he has spoken over prosecutors and the judge, asked vague questions, challenged the court’s jurisdiction and declared “Darrell Brooks” is not his name.

Judge Jennifer Dorow has repeatedly removed Brooks from the court for his outbursts and placed him in a nearby courtroom, where he can communicate via a monitor and microphone which is most often muted.

On Tuesday, after removing him for the prosecution’s closing arguments due to interruptions, she called him “stubbornly defiant.”

“He continues to not respect the fact that a ruling has been made, and he wants to argue and reargue and reargue points that this court has already gone over,” she said.

Brooks previously pleaded not guilty by insanity, but his public defenders withdrew the insanity plea in September. The attorneys later filed a motion to withdraw from the case, and the judge ruled to allow Brooks to represent himself at trial.

Opper, the prosecuting attorney, told jurors in her closing arguments not to be distracted in their deliberations by Brooks’ conduct during the trial.

“You must not, not, not consider anything about Darrell Brooks other than his conduct in downtown Waukesha on the evening of November 21, 2021,” Opper told the jury. “Nothing he’s done before that, nothing he’s done since that. When you go back to that deliberation room, please obey Judge Dorow. Confine your comments to his conduct on November 21.”

Read original article here

Kevin Spacey civil trial: Jury finds Kevin Spacey not liable for battery



CNN
 — 

In a victory for Kevin Spacey, a New York jury on Thursday afternoon found him not liable for battery on allegations he picked up actor Anthony Rapp and briefly laid on top of him in a bed after a party in 1986.

Jurors deliberated for about an hour, and concluded Rapp did not prove that Spacey “touched a sexual or intimate part” of Rapp.

Judge Lewis Kaplan formally dismissed the case. Attorneys seated on either side of Spacey immediately put their hands on his back when the verdict was read.

“We are very grateful to the jury for seeing through these false allegations,” Jennifer Keller, one of Spacey’s attorneys, said later while leaving court. Spacey did not speak to reporters when he left.

Best known for his role in “Star Trek: Discovery,” Rapp had alleged that in 1986, Spacey, then 26, invited Rapp, then 14, to his Manhattan home where he picked Rapp up, laid him down on his bed, grabbed his buttocks and pressed his groin into Rapp’s body without his consent.

The judge dismissed Rapp’s claim of assault before the trial started and dismissed his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress after Rapp’s attorneys rested his case, leaving the jury to decide only the battery claim. Under New York law, battery is touching another person, without their consent, in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive.

CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson saw Thursday’s verdict as a huge win for Spacey, one that demonstrates a jury can tune out the noise involving a celebrity’s alleged reported misdeeds in the Me Too movement and evaluate a case based on the facts presented in court.

The case was also problematic legally, with two counts tossed by the court – assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress – leaving the jury to consider only the battery claim, Jackson said.

“The jury clearly did not accept factual assertions made by Rapp, thereby not finding him credible,” Jackson added.

But the win was a “Pyrrhic victory” for Spacey given other charges that “hang over him, including criminal charges in the UK,” CNN Legal Analyst Paul Callan said.

“Spacey has now notched two victories in sex abuse charges against him including this case and the one previously dropped in Nantucket,” Callan said. “He, however, faces an uphill battle facing other accusers and more serious criminal charges in UK.”

Spacey was charged with four counts of sexual assault against three men and one count of causing a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent by Britain’s Crown Prosecuting Service in May. Spacey has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In the Nantucket case, a man alleged Spacey groped him when he was an 18-year-old busboy at a restaurant. Spacey had pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors eventually dropped the criminal case against Spacey after the accuser pleaded the Fifth on the witness stand when being questioned about his missing cellphone and about whether he deleted text messages.

In his closing argument, Rapp’s attorney Richard Steigman suggested Spacey twisted his testimony at trial to suit his defense, pointing to Spacey’s 2017 apology to Rapp when he first came forward.

“Don’t listen to what I said in real time. I’m defending a lawsuit now. Listen to me now. I’ve got it straightened out,” Steigman said, mocking Spacey’s attempt to convince the jury he was coerced by publicists to give the statement he testified he now regrets.

Steigman called Spacey’s testimony rehearsed in comparison to the raw testimony given by his client.

“When you’re rehearsed, and a world class actor and you’re following the script and following the testimony of someone else, you can take that stand and be perfectly polished,” Steigman said. “When you’re merely coming to court coming forward and telling the truth of your experience, especially one like this that’s a little bit complicated.”

Steigman also batted down the defense argument that Rapp wanted to out Spacey as gay.

“The point of the story is not that Kevin Spacey is gay. It’s that he sexually abused him when he was 14. That’s what he’s sharing with people, he’s sharing his experience – nothing more, nothing less. Where’s the proof that he said to any media outlet, you know, Kevin Spacey is gay, you really should run with this?”

Keller, Spacey’s attorney, began her closing argument by addressing the shadow of the Me Too movement on the case, stating that Rapp “hitched his wagon” to the movement when he came forward.

“This isn’t a team sport where you’re either on the Me Too side, or you’re on the other side,” Keller told the jury. “This is a very different place. Our system requires evidence, proof, objective support for accusations provided to an impartial jury. However polarized as society may be today, it really should not have a place here.”

Keller suggested that Rapp cribbed his allegations against Spacey from a nearly identical scene from the Broadway show “Precious Sons,” which Rapp was performing in with Ed Harris in 1986 at the time of the alleged incident.

“We’re here because Mr. Rapp has falsely alleged abuse that never occurred at a party that was never held in a room that did not exist,” she said.

Spacey’s attorney concluded her remarks by asking the jury not to compromise their verdict by finding Spacey liable of battery but only awarding Rapp a single dollar in damages.

“You’re here to be judges of the facts. Did it happen? It didn’t happen. One penny is too much for something that did not happen,” Keller said.

Read original article here