Bragg, Alvin

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares45 Views

    Inside the Jury Room at the Weinstein Trial, Rancor and Recrimination

    by

    As the panelists deliberated over whether the former Hollywood mogul should be convicted of sex crimes for a second time in Manhattan, accusations began to fly.Inside the jury room at the second New York sex crime trial of Harvey Weinstein, things were getting tense.The 12 jurors had already acquitted the former Hollywood mogul on one felony sex crime charge, and they had begun to deliberate on a second when the discussions suddenly turned pointed, and personal.One juror, who had been calm and had even prayed with the others, abruptly began accusing another of having been “bought out” by Mr. Weinstein or his lawyers.The moment, which occurred on the second day of deliberations in a case that was brought by the Manhattan district attorney’s office after its earlier sex crime conviction against Mr. Weinstein was overturned, foreshadowed the rancor and dysfunction that would ultimately consume the panel, leading it to deadlock on Thursday over the question of whether Mr. Weinstein raped an aspiring actress in a hotel room in 2013.This account of what occurred in the jury room is based on interviews with several jurors, particularly one panelist who came forward twice to voice concerns to the judge about the behavior of his fellow jurors.That panelist, juror No. 7, described the interactions as having grown increasingly contentious and marked by personal attacks.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares65 Views

      in Elections

      Weinstein Juror Complains to Judge About ‘Playground Stuff’ by Others

      by

      A member of the jury at Harvey Weinstein’s Manhattan retrial on sex crime charges said that another had become the subject of a “bit of a shunning” during deliberations.As the Manhattan jurors deciding Harvey Weinstein’s fate were about to begin their second day of deliberations on Friday, a note was delivered to the judge. One of the 12 had a concern.The juror, a young man, was summoned to the courtroom. He sat in the jury box and began to vent his frustrations.He wanted to “report what I heard and saw yesterday,” he told Justice Curtis Farber of State Supreme Court, who is overseeing the trial. The man said he had overheard others on the jury — in an elevator and outside the courthouse on Thursday — talking about another member of the group. What he had observed, he believed, amounted to misconduct.Justice Farber thanked the man and sent him back to the jury room. The judge then denied a motion by Mr. Weinstein’s lawyers for a mistrial, saying it did not appear that the discussions cited by the juror involved actual trial evidence.“Notably,” the judge said, “whoever was the topic of conversation has not reported it to the court.”The surprising episode provided a rare peek into the friction that can develop among jurors in a high-stakes trial, disagreements that generally remain behind closed doors. It also seemed, at least briefly, as though it might derail the disgraced film mogul’s second New York trial on sex crime charges, and create another twist in the long-running case.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares87 Views

      in Elections

      Video Shows Fiery Fatal Crash After Police Chase

      by

      Francisco Guzman Parra, 31, died after crashing a stolen Honda in Upper Manhattan. Two officers chasing him drove away after the car caught fire, according to video surveillance footage.Video surveillance footage obtained from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority shows the incident in Upper Manhattan in April.Jeremy G. Feigenbaum via MTAIt was still dark when the driver of a stolen Honda CRV sped down a ramp off the Henry Hudson Parkway and careened out of control into a building in Upper Manhattan.Flames immediately erupted from the rear of the vehicle, according to video surveillance footage released by a lawyer for the driver’s family on Thursday. About 10 seconds later, at 4:40 a.m. on April 2, the police car that had been chasing the S.U.V. drove down the same ramp. The flames had diminished but still appeared to be flickering when the cruiser, its siren lights off, reached the bottom of the ramp.The officer driving the cruiser slowed down, but instead of turning toward the Honda he turned left on Dyckman Street in the Inwood neighborhood of Manhattan and left the wreckage behind. The driver, Francisco A. Guzman Parra, 31, died from blunt impact injuries to the head and torso and “thermal injuries,” according to the medical examiner’s office.The video, which the family obtained from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, gave the first visual account of a crash that is now being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney’s office and led to the suspension of the two officers in the cruiser. Mr. Guzman Parra’s family said the video confirmed what they had feared for months: that the police left him to die.“They could have helped get him out,” said Carmen Colon, his stepmother, who, along with Mr. Guzman Parra’s sisters, spoke with reporters after watching the video at their lawyer’s office in Lower Manhattan.“I think that when we see that video we’re seeing a crime being committed,” she said.About 16 minutes after the crash, firefighters and officers from the 34th Precinct, which covers Inwood, received a 9-1-1 call about a car on fire. When they arrived, they found the Honda fully engulfed in flames.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares118 Views

      in Elections

      Met Museum Surrenders Artifacts Thought Looted From Iraq

      by

      The Manhattan district attorney’s office said the objects had been identified as illicit during an investigation of an art dealer suspected of having trafficked in stolen antiquities.Three ancient artworks that for years had been part of the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and are now thought to have been looted were returned on Monday to the Republic of Iraq, the Met and the Manhattan district attorney’s office said in statements.The artworks were recovered following criminal investigations into looted art, including one into the British antiquities dealer Robin Symes, the district attorney’s office said. Mr. Symes, who died in 2023, was long suspected by investigators to have been a trafficker.The artifacts were returned in an official ceremony at the district attorney’s office in Lower Manhattan that was attended by Met officials and representatives from Iraq.“Through the Museum’s cooperation with the Manhattan DA’s office, and as a result of its investigation into Robin Symes, the museum recently received new information that made it clear that the works should be repatriated, resulting in a constructive resolution,” the Met said in a statement.The artifacts include a Sumerian vessel made of gypsum alabaster dating to around 2600 to 2500 B.C., which passed through Symes’s hands and was given to the museum in 1989 by a private collection; and two Babylonian ceramic sculptures, a head of a male and a head of a female, dating to around 2000 to 1600 B.C.The head of a male was sold by Symes to the Met in 1972; the head of a female was a gift from the same private collection in 1989. All three were seized by the district attorney’s antiquities trafficking unit earlier this year.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Luigi Mangione Death Penalty Bid May Pit Prosecutors Against Each Other

      by

      State and federal prosecutors have both accused Mr. Mangione of killing a health insurance executive. Attorney General Pam Bondi is pushing aggressively for capital punishment.Luigi Mangione is being prosecuted for murder by two agencies: the Department of Justice, which answers to President Trump, and the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is led by the only prosecutor to convict President Trump.Mr. Trump and the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, are far from natural allies. And the high-profile case of Mr. Mangione, who is charged with killing a health care executive, could set their offices on a collision course.When Mr. Mangione was arrested in December, before President Trump took office, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York said the state prosecution would occur first. But last week, Mr. Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, signaled that the Justice Department might move quickly, saying that federal prosecutors would seek the death penalty for Mr. Mangione.“The president’s directive was very clear: We are to seek the death penalty when possible,” Ms. Bondi said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday.”Deliberations over whether to seek the federal death penalty can take a year or more in the Southern District and the Justice Department. Ms. Bondi’s swift announcement was all the more unusual given that Mr. Mangione has yet to be formally indicted in federal court.Mr. Mangione’s case has become an arena for Ms. Bondi to show her commitment to the president. Her decision “is more political theater than anything else,” said Cheryl Bader, a law professor at Fordham University.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Emboldened by Re-election, Trump Renews Bid to Overturn His Conviction

      by

      Donald J. Trump’s lawyers have moved in recent days to throw out his criminal case in Manhattan, underscoring his expansive view of presidential power and its supremacy over the rule of law.President-elect Donald J. Trump is mounting a resurgent bid to dismiss his criminal conviction in New York in the wake of his electoral victory, hoping to clear his record of 34 felonies before returning to the White House, court records unsealed on Tuesday show.Emboldened by the election results, Mr. Trump’s lawyers moved in recent days to throw out the case against the former and future president, who was convicted in May of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Mr. Trump, asked to pause decisions in the case until Nov. 19 so it could weigh how to respond. And the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan, promptly granted the pause, effectively freezing any progress for the next week.Justice Merchan was set to rule on several crucial issues this month, including Mr. Trump’s sentence, but that schedule is now on hold.In requesting the pause, one of the Manhattan prosecutors emailed the judge on Sunday to acknowledge the “unprecedented circumstances” and the need to weigh the competing interests of the jury’s verdict against “the office of the president,” a copy of the email posted publicly on Tuesday shows.In reply, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Emil Bove, wrote that “the stay, and dismissal, are necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.”Mr. Trump — the nation’s first former president to become a felon, and its first felon to become a president-elect — has his election to thank for this reversal in his legal fortunes. After his victory, a judge paused all filing deadlines in his federal criminal case in Washington while prosecutors weighed whether to drop the charges now that Mr. Trump was returning to the White House.This is a developing story and will be updated. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump’s Win Helps Him Fight Off His Legal Charges

      by

      By triumphing at the ballot box, Donald Trump can dispense with federal charges against him while postponing or derailing other pending cases that have dogged him.For all that former President Donald J. Trump’s election to a second term was a remarkable political comeback, it was also the culmination of an audacious and stunningly successful legal strategy that could allow him to evade accountability for the array of charges against him.The string of accusations lodged during the two years of Mr. Trump’s candidacy, seemingly enough to end the career of almost any politician, became in his hands a fund-raising bonanza and a rallying cry, a deep pool of fuel for his rage and a call to demand retribution. The intensity of his campaign fed off the recognition that his personal freedom could be on the line.He was indicted not just once but twice for plotting to overturn the last election. He was accused of mishandling national security secrets and obstruction. He was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, and for inflating his net worth. And he was found guilty of criminal charges stemming from a hush money payment to a porn star.Throughout it all, however, starting with his first indictment in the hush money case, legal proceedings that were meant to hold him to account only seemed to strengthen his support. His political standing strengthened, he was relentless in fighting off some charges, delaying a trial on others and banking on the election itself to settle what he could not win in the courtroom.The Justice Department has taken the position under administrations of both parties that prosecutors cannot pursue criminal charges against a sitting president to avoid interfering with his performance of his constitutional duties. That is a legal principle that the Trump administration Justice Department and his defense lawyers will surely press state courts and local prosecutors to adhere to as well.The result is that the decision by voters this week to return Mr. Trump to the White House could lead all or many of the proceedings against him to be postponed or derailed altogether.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Will Trump Get Jail Time? We Looked at Similar Cases to Find Out.

      by

      Donald J. Trump faces sentencing on Nov. 26. The election three weeks earlier may determine not only if he returns to the presidency, but if he ends up behind bars.In November, after voters decide whether to return Donald J. Trump to the White House, the judge who oversaw his criminal trial could send him to jail.And despite Mr. Trump’s political status, the judge has ample grounds to do so, a New York Times examination of dozens of similar cases shows.The former president’s unruly behavior at the trial, held in New York in April and May, makes him a candidate for jail time, as does his felony crime of falsifying business records: Over the past decade in Manhattan, more than a third of these convictions resulted in defendants spending time behind bars, The Times’s examination found. Across New York State, the proportion is even higher — about 42 percent of those convictions led to jail or prison time. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Prosecutors in Trump Hush-Money Trial Leave Decision on Sentencing to Judge

      by

      Lawyers for Donald J. Trump had asked to move the sentencing in his Manhattan criminal case to after the election. In a letter, prosecutors disputed many of their arguments.Manhattan prosecutors took no clear position on Donald J. Trump’s latest request to delay his sentencing in his criminal hush-money case, deferring to a judge alone to decide whether to postpone until after Election Day.In a letter to the judge overseeing the case, Justice Juan M. Merchan, prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to endorse either the existing schedule or a delay — but also disputed many of Mr. Trump’s arguments for needing additional time. The former president had asked to postpone the sentencing until after the election partly so he had more time to challenge his conviction.The sentencing is currently set for Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when Mr. Trump, now a felon, will square off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency. The prosecutors, the letter said, are “prepared to appear for sentencing” at any date the judge chooses.“The people defer to the court on the appropriate post-trial schedule that allows for adequate time” for Mr. Trump to challenge his conviction, “while also pronouncing sentence without unreasonable delay,” the prosecutors wrote in the letter, dated Aug. 16 and released on Monday.The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, appeared to strike a middle ground in hopes of navigating around a partisan backlash so close to Election Day.If Mr. Bragg had opposed a postponement, Mr. Trump would have accused him of meddling in the election. But explicitly consenting to Mr. Trump’s delay tactics might have alienated Mr. Bragg’s liberal Manhattan base as it demands accountability for the former president, who was convicted in May of falsifying business records to conceal a sex scandal.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More