Decisions and Verdicts

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Wyoming’s Abortion Bans Are Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

      by

      The ruling found that two state laws — one barring use of abortion pills, and one banning all forms of abortion — violated the state Constitution’s “fundamental right to make health care decisions.” A Wyoming judge ruled on Monday that two state abortion bans — including the first state law specifically banning the use of pills for abortion — violated the Wyoming Constitution and could not be enforced.Judge Melissa Owens of Teton County District Court wrote in her ruling that both the ban on medication abortion and a broader ban against all methods of abortion “impede the fundamental right to make health care decisions for an entire class of people, pregnant women.” She added, “The abortion statutes suspend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions during the entire term of a pregnancy and are not reasonable or necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people.”Enforcement of the two abortion bans, passed last year, had been temporarily halted by Judge Owens while the court case proceeded. Her decision on Monday blocks the laws permanently, although the state is expected to appeal. Efforts to reach the state attorney general’s office and the governor’s office were unsuccessful on Monday night.The suit to block the bans was filed by a group of plaintiffs that included two abortion providers in Wyoming; an obstetrician-gynecologist who often treats high-risk pregnancies; an emergency-room nurse; a fund that gives financing to abortion patients; and a woman who said her Jewish faith required access to abortion if a pregnant woman’s physical or mental health or life was in danger.An amendment to the Wyoming Constitution, approved by an overwhelming majority of the state’s voters in 2012, guarantees adults the right to make their own health care decisions.In court last year, the state, represented by Jay Jerde, a special assistant attorney general for Wyoming, argued that even though doctors and other health providers must be involved in abortions, there were many instances in which abortion was not “health care” because “it’s not restoring the woman’s body from pain, physical disease or sickness.”Mr. Jerde also argued that the constitutional amendment allowing people to make decisions about their own health care did not apply to abortion because terminating a pregnancy affected not just the woman making the decision, but the fetus as well.Judge Owens rejected both of those arguments. She wrote: “The uncontested facts establish that the abortion statutes fail to accomplish any of the asserted interests by the state. The state did not present any evidence refuting or challenging the extensive medical testimony presented by the plaintiffs.”Dr. Giovannina Anthony, an obstetrician-gynecologist and abortion provider who was one of the plaintiffs in the case, said on Monday night that she was “grateful and relieved that the judge agreed that abortion is health care and that abortion bans violate the rights of pregnant women.”Dr. Anthony said she expected the state to appeal. “This is not the end of the fight in Wyoming, but for now we can continue to provide evidence-based care without fear of a prison sentence.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Man With Neo-Nazi Ties Sentenced to Life in Killing of Gay Ex-Classmate

      by

      Samuel Woodward, who espoused anti-gay rhetoric and had ties to Atomwaffen, a neo-Nazi group, stabbed his victim 28 times in a hate-fueled murder, prosecutors said.A California man who expressed allegiance to a neo-Nazi group and espoused anti-gay rhetoric was sentenced to life in prison on Friday after a jury found him guilty of brutally killing a former high school classmate who was gay in a hate-motivated murder, the Orange County District Attorney’s office said.The man, Samuel Lincoln Woodward, 26, of Newport Beach, Calif., had reconnected with his former classmate, Blaze Bernstein, then a 19-year-old student at the University of Pennsylvania, on a dating app for men seeking men, the authorities said.On the evening of Jan. 2, 2018, Mr. Woodward drove Mr. Bernstein, who believed they were going on a romantic encounter, to a park in Lake Forest, Calif., where Mr. Woodward brutally stabbed Mr. Bernstein 28 times and buried his body in a shallow grave in the park, the district attorney’s office said.On Friday, more than four months after a jury found Mr. Woodward guilty of first-degree murder with a hate crime enhancement, a judge in the Superior Court of Orange County sentenced Mr. Woodward to life in prison without parole, according to court records.“With every hateful stab of his knife, Samuel Woodward stabbed at the very heart of our entire community,” Todd Spitzer, the district attorney for Orange County, said in a statement.He added that “those who commit acts of hate against others will be punished and those who are victimized by hate will be protected.”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 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Judge Finds Death Row Inmate Melissa Lucio Innocent In Daughter’s Death

      by

      In a court filing, the judge said the conviction of Melissa Lucio, whose scheduled execution in 2022 was halted, should be overturned. The state’s highest criminal court will now decide.A Texas district judge declared that a mother on death row is innocent in the 2007 death of her 2-year-old daughter, according to court documents filed in October but made public this week.The decision in the case now stands with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court, which in 2022 halted a scheduled execution of the mother, Melissa Lucio, to gather more evidence. That included asking the district judge in the original trial, Arturo Nelson, to file an opinion. An execution date has not been rescheduled.Ms. Lucio, 56, who lived in the border city of Harlingen, was sentenced to death in 2008 after her daughter, Mariah Alvarez, died as a result of what prosecutors said was the mother’s physical abuse. Ms. Lucio and her lawyers have long maintained her innocence, arguing that Mariah died from complications after accidentally falling down a flight of stairs. An autopsy said the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head.Judge Nelson sided with Ms. Lucio in his recent findings, writing that she was “actually innocent; she did not kill her daughter.”He added that, even regardless of that conclusion, Ms. Lucio had a right to have her conviction overturned because the state had used false testimony in her trial and withheld evidence that was favorable to her case. The judge also cited new scientific evidence that was unavailable during her trial.It was unclear on Saturday when the Court of Criminal Appeals would issue its ruling. Vanessa Potkin, one of Ms. Lucio’s lawyers and a special litigation director for the Innocence Project, said it could take a couple of months. Once that court rules, the case could be returned to trial court, at which point a prosecutor would decide if the case should be retried or the charges dismissed.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 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Activists Sent to Prison for Pouring Powder Over Case Holding U.S. Constitution

      by

      One climate activist was sentenced to 18 months in prison, the other to two years. They said that they had meant to draw attention to climate change.Two climate activists who dumped red powder over the display case that holds the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives Museum in February were each sentenced this week to more than a year in prison.Judge Amy Berman Jackson of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday sentenced one activist, Jackson Green, 27, of Utah, to 18 months in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release.On Friday, Judge Jackson sentenced the other activist, Donald Zepeda, 35, of Maryland, to two years in prison with two years of supervised release.They must pay $58,607.59 in restitution to the National Archives, according to court records.In an episode that was captured on video, Mr. Green and Mr. Zepeda poured powder over the display case in the rotunda of the National Archives Museum on Feb. 14 in what prosecutors described as a “stunt” that was meant to draw attention to climate change.The two men also poured powder over themselves and stood in the rotunda, calling for solutions to climate change.The Constitution was not damaged, according to the National Archives Museum, which said that the powder was made of pigment and cornstarch.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Two Militia Founders Are Convicted of Plot to Kill Federal Agents

      by

      “We were going out huntin’,” one of the men said in a video before a planned trip to the Mexico border, where they intended to shoot at immigrants and officials who might stop them, prosecutors said.Two founders of a militia group who were plotting a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border to shoot at immigrants and the authorities who might try to stop them were convicted on Thursday by a federal jury in Missouri of attempting to murder federal agents, prosecutors said.A jury in Jefferson City, Mo., convicted the men, Jonathan S. O’Dell, 34, of Warsaw, Mo., and Bryan C. Perry, 39, of Clarksville, Tenn., of multiple felony counts.Most of the counts were linked to the men shooting at F.B.I. agents who arrived with a search warrant at Mr. O’Dell’s home. Among other charges, Mr. O’Dell and Mr. Perry were also convicted of conspiracy to murder officers and employees of the United States government, prosecutors said.They each face a minimum of 10 years in prison and up to a life sentence. Under federal statutes, neither would be eligible for parole. Lawyers for the men could not be immediately reached for comment on Saturday.Beginning in the summer of 2022, Mr. O’Dell and Mr. Perry tried to recruit others to join what they called the 2nd American Militia, prosecutors said.In September 2022, Mr. Perry posted a video on TikTok in which he said that the U.S. Border Patrol was committing treason by allowing illegal immigrants to enter the United States.In that same video, he said that the penalty for treason was death, court records show. In another video, he said that he was “ready to go to war against this government.”By late September, the two men stepped up their plans. They continued to recruit, acquired paramilitary gear and practiced shooting at targets, according to officials.Mr. Perry posted a video on TikTok in which he said “we’re out to shoot to kill,” and added that “our group is gonna go protect this country.” In early October, he posted another video. In that one he said that “we were going out huntin’,” and that his militia would go to the border on Oct. 8.But on Oct. 7, F.B.I. agents arrived at Mr. O’Dell’s home in an armored vehicle and identified themselves through a loudspeaker. The agents were met with gunfire, officials said, and several rounds hit the vehicle.The agents did not return fire and eventually Mr. O’Dell surrendered, officials said. Mr. Perry was also arrested at the home, but only after he brawled with agents and injured one, according to court documents.Agents found six guns and 23 magazines filled with ammunition inside Mr. O’Dell’s home, officials said. The F.B.I. recovered about 1,800 rounds of other ammunition, two sets of body armor, two gas masks, two ballistic helmets and zip ties. Agents also discovered multiple containers of liquids that would explode upon mixing. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Allows Iowa to Challenge Voters It Suspects of Being Noncitizens

      by

      A federal judge ruled on Sunday that Iowa may continue challenging hundreds of potential ballots cast in the election on the basis that the voters might be noncitizens, a move that critics say could disenfranchise legitimate voters.Iowa’s secretary of state, Paul Pate, a Republican, issued a letter to county commissioners last month challenging the status of 2,176 people on voter rolls, saying that they had previously identified themselves to a state agency as noncitizens. The plaintiffs in the case were four recently naturalized U.S. citizens whose voting status was challenged, despite being eligible to vote. They had asked the court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to rescind the letter and restore the status of any voters removed from the rolls.But Judge Stephen H. Locher of the Southern District of Iowa, who was appointed by President Biden, said that a small minority of the 2,176 registered voters — about 12 percent, or about 250 people — “are indeed registered voters who are not United States citizens,” and that granting an injunction “effectively forces local election officials to allow ineligible voters to vote.”It is a felony for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election, potentially resulting in jail time, a fine and deportation.Judge Locher also pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week that allowed Virginia to purge about 1,600 people from its voter rolls in supporting his decision to allow the challenge to go forward.But he also expressed concern at some of the directives in Mr. Pate’s letter, which he said directed local election officials to challenge the legitimacy of a voter on the list “even when the local officials themselves do not suspect the person is ineligible to vote” and “require voters on the list to file provisional ballots even when they have proven citizenship at the polling place.”In a statement, Mr. Pate said that the ruling was “a win for Iowa’s election integrity,” adding that his role “requires balance — ensuring that on one hand, every eligible voter is able to cast their ballot while ensuring that only eligible voters participate in Iowa elections.” More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Block Count of Some Pennsylvania Provisional Ballots

      by

      Republicans had sought to block the counting of provisional ballots by voters whose mail-in ballots were deemed invalid. Democrats celebrated the ruling as a win in a crucial state.The Supreme Court cleared the way on Friday for some voters in Pennsylvania whose mail-in ballots had been deemed invalid to cast provisional ballots in person, rejecting an appeal by Republicans not to count such votes.Democrats immediately celebrated the decision, which like in many such emergency petitions was unsigned and gave no reasoning, as a victory in a state crucial to each party’s presidential and Senate hopes. It could affect thousands of mail-in ballots in a contest where the latest polls show Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump virtually tied.The ruling was one in a string of court victories for Democrats, whose voters are more likely to use mail ballots and were therefore more likely to have had their votes tossed out if Republicans had succeeded in the case.“In Pennsylvania and across the country, Trump and his allies are trying to make it harder for your vote to count, but our institutions are stronger than his shameful attacks,” the Harris campaign said in a statement after the ruling. “Today’s decision confirms that for every eligible voter, the right to vote means the right to have your vote counted.”The Republican National Committee was “disappointed” in the court’s ruling, a spokeswoman said.In a brief statement attached to the court’s order, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the case was “a matter of considerable importance.” But he said the justices had no way to give the Republicans what they were asking for — a statewide block on allowing these provisional ballots.Only Butler County elections officials were parties to the case, he wrote, which meant the justices could not force elections officials in other counties to block those ballots. He was joined by two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Allows Unusual G.O.P. Strategy to Pump Money Into Senate Races

      by

      Democrats had claimed that the advertising strategy may have violated federal election laws establishing strict limits on spending by national party committees to aid individual candidates.A federal judge ruled on Friday that Senate Republicans may continue to pump tens of millions of dollars into key swing state races in the final days of the 2024 campaign by employing an unusual advertising strategy that Democrats had claimed was potentially illegal.By reclassifying campaign ads as fund-raising appeals, Republicans have been able to avoid strict limits Congress has placed on spending by national party committees to aid individual candidates, helping to offset a significant fund-raising deficit they face in states with critical Senate races, such as Arizona and Pennsylvania.House Democrats’ campaign arm sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to stop the Republicans and sought to either ban the practice or clear the way to use it themselves.But Judge Randolph D. Moss, of the U.S. District Court in Washington, wrote Friday that he was “unpersuaded” to outlaw a practice that the commission had not. He said Democratic and Republican campaign committees — those that support Senate and House candidates — are “all on an even playing field” and the lack of action taken by the Federal Election Commission had not tilted it.His ruling could give Republicans a last-minute boost in the fierce contest for the Senate, where they are favored to pick up the one or two seats they need to regain control of the chamber, but where polls show that several races are close.Sean Cooksey, the Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, also welcomed the ruling. “This is a huge win for the rule of law and political speech!” he wrote on social media.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