Decisions and Verdicts

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      3 Men With White Supremacist Ties Sentenced in Plan to Attack Power Station

      by

      Two of the men met through a neo-Nazi online forum and recruited other people to join their scheme, which was rooted in white supremacist ideology, prosecutors said.Three men with white supremacist ties, including two former U.S. Marines, were sentenced to prison last week after plotting to destroy a power station in the northwestern United States, the U.S. Department of Justice said.The men, Paul James Kryscuk, 38; Liam Collins, 25; and Justin Wade Hermanson, 25; received separate sentences on Thursday for charges related to what the Justice Department described as a racially motivated scheme to attack a power grid.The men gathered information on weapons and explosives, manufactured firearms and stole military gear, prosecutors said.Mr. Kryscuk, of Boise, Idaho, was found in October 2020 with a handwritten list of about a dozen places in Idaho and surrounding states that were home to components of the power grid for the northwestern United States, prosecutors said.The Justice Department did not disclose details about where the men wanted to carry out an attack or their ultimate goal. Sentencing documents on the public court system were not available.Mr. Collins, of Johnston, R.I., received the longest sentence of 10 years for aiding and abetting the interstate transportation of unregistered firearms. Mr. Kryscuk was sentenced to six years and six months for conspiracy to destroy an energy facility. Mr. Hermanson, of Swansboro, N.C., was sentenced to one year and nine months for conspiracy to manufacture firearms and ship interstate.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

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      12 Officials Sentenced for Roles in Devastating Libya Flood

      by

      The officials were punished nearly a year after two dams above the seaside city of Derna failed in a storm, killing thousands and destroying much of the area.Twelve Libyan officials were convicted and sentenced on Sunday for their roles in a disaster that killed thousands of people and wrecked a huge swath of eastern Libya, the country’s top prosecutor said.But the verdict left untouched Libya’s entrenched political class, which many Libyans blame for a decade of political stagnation, corruption, violence and chaos that, directly or indirectly, probably contributed to the catastrophe, in which two dams collapsed.The convictions came nearly a year after rainfall from a major storm last September inundated the aging dams above the seaside city of Derna, causing them to fail and sending an avalanche of water hurtling to the areas below. While the official death toll stands at 4,352, according to the United Nations, more than 8,000 people remain missing, many of their bodies believed to have been swept out to sea.The flood destroyed much of Derna and the surrounding areas and displaced nearly 45,000 people. All in all, the disaster affected about 1.5 million people, 22 percent of Libya’s population, a January report by the World Bank, the European Union and the United Nations found.A statement from the office of Libya’s attorney general, Sadiq Al-Sour, said the 12 people convicted on Sunday had been responsible for managing the country’s dams. Though prosecutors did not name them or describe the charges, a Libyan TV channel, Al-Ahrar, reported that among those convicted was Ali Al-Hibri, the general manager of a government fund that had previously been tasked with rebuilding Derna after fighting related to Libya’s years of civil war.Al-Ahrar reported that Derna’s mayor at the time was also convicted on Sunday, as were Mr. Al-Hibri’s predecessor and an employee of the Libyan Central Bank.The defendants were fined and handed prison sentences ranging from nine to 27½ years, with some ordered to return money they had obtained through “illicit means,” the statement said, suggesting charges related to corruption. The court also acquitted four defendants, it said.But the convictions provided little of the accountability many Libyans had sought after the disaster, which occurred despite years of warnings that the dams above Derna needed maintenance and repair. Libya’s top leaders remain in power, though many say that they enabled corruption and neglect that led to the disaster, and that they then botched the response.The flooding damaged or destroyed 18,500 homes, about 7 percent of the country’s entire housing stock, the January report by the international bodies said. The report estimated that the disaster had cost Libya more than $1.6 billion in damages and economic losses.Eleven months after the flooding, reconstruction has barely begun, and most of those displaced are still living in temporary housing or have no homes to return to.Islam Al-Atrash contributed reporting from Tripoli, Libya. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      California School Official Who Embezzled $16.7 Million Gets Nearly 6 Years in Prison

      by

      Jorge Armando Contreras used his position at a school district in Orange County to fund a luxurious lifestyle, prosecutors said.A former California public school official who embezzled more than $16 million from a school district and used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle was sentenced to nearly six years in prison this week, according to the Justice Department.A federal judge on Thursday sentenced Jorge Armando Contreras, 53, who worked for the Magnolia School District in Orange County, to 70 months and ordered him to pay $16,694,942 in restitution. Mr. Contreras, of Yorba Linda, Calif., had pleaded guilty in March to one count of embezzlement, theft and intentional misapplication of funds from an organization receiving federal funds, the U.S. attorney’s office said. Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said in a statement that “instead of using his job at a public school district to help socioeconomically disadvantaged children,” Mr. Contreras had embezzled millions of dollars in a scheme that fraudulently created for him a life of opulence.He used the money to buy a range of luxurious products like Louis Vuitton bags and $2,000 tequila bottles, according to the Justice Department. About $7.7 million in personal and real property traced to the scheme have been seized, officials said.Mr. Contreras’s lawyer, Ronald D. Hedding, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on Saturday.Court documents show that Mr. Contreras’s embezzling scheme appeared to have begun in 2016 and lasted until July 2023. During that period, he worked as the director and senior director of fiscal services at the school district, which serves students from preschool through sixth grade in Anaheim and Stanton, cities about 25 miles southeast of Los Angeles. About 81 percent of those students classify as socioeconomically disadvantaged, prosecutors said.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Before the Alec Baldwin Trial’s End, 2 Jurors Had Doubts About His Guilt

      by

      When the judge threw out the case, the jurors said, they had doubts that Mr. Baldwin was guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of the cinematographer on the set of the film “Rust.”When the judge threw out the involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin earlier this month after finding that the prosecution had withheld evidence that could have helped his defense, it left key questions that have hung over the case for more than two years unresolved.But two members of the jury who spoke about the case publicly for the first time on Saturday said in interviews that they had been far from convinced — given the evidence they had heard before the trial was brought to its abrupt end — that Mr. Baldwin was guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on a film set.“As the week went by, it just didn’t, it didn’t seem like a very strong case,” Johanna Haag, known to the court as juror No. 7, said in a phone interview on Saturday.Gabriela Picayo, who was identified in court documents as juror No. 9, said that she too had been having serious doubts about the case against Mr. Baldwin before it was dismissed.A critical moment for her during the trial, she said, was when she learned that the armorer who had loaded a live round into the gun that day, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, had already been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. “I’m still here, I’m still open to hearing and obviously trying to stay unbiased,” Ms. Picayo said of her thinking at the time, “but I was starting to move towards the direction of thinking that this was very silly and he should not be on trial.”The trial centered on what happened on Oct. 21, 2021, when Mr. Baldwin was rehearsing on the set of the film “Rust” in New Mexico with a gun that he had been told was “cold” — meaning that it should have contained no live ammunition — when it suddenly fired a bullet that killed Halyna Hutchins, the movie’s cinematographer.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

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Ex-Marine Sentenced to Nearly 5 Years for Role in Jan. 6 Riot

      by

      Tyler Bradley Dykes was charged with assaulting law enforcement after prosecutors said he stole a police officer’s riot shield to help break into the Capitol.A South Carolina man who was serving in the United States Marine Corps when he stormed the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and stole a police officer’s riot shield to help break into the building was sentenced on Friday to nearly five years in prison, according to federal prosecutors.The man, Tyler Bradley Dykes, 26, who was previously convicted of a felony for his actions while marching in the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., was sentenced by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to four years and nine months in prison for assaulting law enforcement during the 2021 riot, the U.S. Department of Justice said.“His actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the 2020 presidential election,” the department said.Prosecutors said that Mr. Dykes moved fences to help other members of the crowd get to the Capitol doors, helped push officers back from their posts, gave a Nazi salute, stole a police riot shield and used it to help break into the Capitol.They recommended that Mr. Dykes, who is from Bluffton, S.C., receive a sentence of five years and three months.Lawyers for Mr. Dykes asked for a sentence of two years, arguing that he had acknowledged his wrongdoing when he pleaded guilty in April to the assault charges, that he was only 22 years old at the time of the riot, and that he had enlisted in the Marine Corps to serve his country.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Signs of Scorching Prejudice’ Doomed the Case Against Alec Baldwin for ‘Rust’ Shooting

      by

      A high-pressure manslaughter case against a movie star turned into an interrogation of the prosecution’s conduct.While dismissing the involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin on Friday, the judge did not hold back.She delivered a searing criticism of the prosecution and state law enforcement officials who oversaw the case, declaring that they had intentionally and deliberately withheld from the defense evidence related to the fatal shooting on the set of the film “Rust.”“If this conduct does not rise to the level of bad faith, it certainly comes so near to bad faith as to show signs of scorching prejudice,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said.The judge’s decision to end the case against Mr. Baldwin — without the option for the prosecutors to revive it — was the conclusion of a shocking day at the Santa Fe County Courthouse, in which a high-pressure trial against a movie star turned into an interrogation of the prosecution’s conduct. And it came after a series of missteps by different teams of prosecutors left Mr. Baldwin in legal limbo for more than two years.Shortly before the case was thrown out, the lead prosecutor, Kari T. Morrissey, took the unusual step of calling herself to the witness stand to defend how she handled the situation when a batch of live rounds with a possible connection to the “Rust” shooting was brought to the local sheriff’s office in March.Law enforcement officials testified on Friday that they had inventoried the evidence under a separate case number from other “Rust” evidence. Defense lawyers said they were not told about the ammunition despite asking for all ballistic evidence in the 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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      City Illegally Fined Woman Over Profane Political Yard Sign, U.S. Judge Rules

      by

      A federal judge in Tennessee said that it was unconstitutional for the City of Lakeland, Tenn., to fine Julie Pereira for the sign she posted expressing disapproval of President Biden and Donald J. Trump.A federal judge in Tennessee ruled this week that it was unconstitutional for a city to fine a woman who had displayed a sign in her yard that used profane language to express disapproval of both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.The woman, Julie Pereira, 40, of Lakeland, Tenn., who posted the sign, which said “Fuck Em’ Both 2024,” in January, was fined hundreds of dollars by the city. It told her that the political sign violated its municipal code because it was obscene.In June, Ms. Pereira sued Lakeland in federal court, arguing that she had a First Amendment right to post the sign in her yard.Judge Mark S. Norris of U.S. District Court in Memphis, said in an order issued on Tuesday that Ms. Pereira’s yard sign was not obscene, and that it was unconstitutional for the city of Lakeland to take action against Ms. Pereira over the sign.Judge Norris ordered the city to reimburse her for nearly $700 in fines and pay Ms. Pereira damages of $1 for violating her First Amendment rights, according to the order. Ms. Pereira was also awarded legal fees of $31,000. The judge also barred the city from taking any additional action against her.Julie Pereira’s sign in her yard in Lakeland, Tenn. She won her lawsuit against the city of Lakeland after they fined her hundreds of dollars for putting up the sign.Julie PereiraWe 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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Wisconsin Supreme Court Says Ballot Drop Boxes Can Again Be Used

      by

      The decision by the court’s liberal majority, delivered four months before the November election, reverses a ruling by conservative jurists two years ago.The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s new liberal majority said on Friday that ballot drop boxes can once again be used widely in the state, reversing a ruling issued two years ago when the court had a conservative majority.On a practical level, the ruling changes how Wisconsin, a closely divided state that could tip the Electoral College, will carry out an election that is just four months away. On a symbolic level, the judicial U-turn is likely to fuel Republican claims that the court has become a nakedly partisan force — claims that Democrats made themselves not long ago, when most of the justices were conservatives.Drop boxes were used in Wisconsin for years as one of several ways, along with early in-person and mail-in voting, for voters to submit ballots before Election Day. The widespread use of drop boxes in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, drew the ire of Republicans and prompted a lawsuit that the court’s previous majority decided by mostly banning their use.“Our decision today does not force or require that any municipal clerks use drop boxes,” Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal, wrote for the four-justice majority on Friday. “It merely acknowledges,” she added, what Wisconsin law “has always meant: that clerks may lawfully utilize secure drop boxes in an exercise of their statutorily conferred discretion.”Her conservative colleague, Justice Rebecca Bradley, disagreed, writing in a dissent that “the majority again forsakes the rule of law in an attempt to advance its political agenda.”The ruling on Friday is part of a broader push by Democrats and progressive groups to have the Wisconsin Supreme Court weigh in on some of the state’s thorniest policy issues. After liberals won a 4-to-3 majority last year, the court ordered the redrawing of state legislative district boundaries, which had long been gerrymandered to benefit Republicans. Earlier this week, the justices announced that they would hear a case that asks them to consider whether the State Constitution includes a right to abortion. 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