Decisions and Verdicts

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Passenger Who Tried to Open Cockpit Gets 19 Months in Prison

      by

      Juan Rivas, who threatened flight attendants with a champagne bottle and a plastic knife, tried to open an exit door of an American Airlines plane, prosecutors said.A California man who tried to intimidate flight attendants on an American Airlines flight using plastic silverware from a service cart and a glass champagne bottle, and then tried unsuccessfully to open an exit door and the cockpit, was sentenced on Wednesday to 19 months in prison.The man, Juan Remberto Rivas, 52, was arrested and charged with interfering with flight crew members on Feb. 13, 2022, after a flight from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Missouri.During the flight, Mr. Rivas, who, according to court records, admitted to using methamphetamines before the flight, began to panic and told flight attendants that the plane was not moving and that his family was in danger, court records said.His behavior led to a physical struggle that forced the plane to make an emergency landing in Kansas City, Mo.Mr. Rivas, who pleaded guilty in January, had faced a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison but prosecutors sought a sentence of 41 to 51 months despite him threatening to “bring down the plane,” court records and the attorney’s office said.“The government believes that the defendant’s actions were reckless because of his use of methamphetamine, rather than an intentional effort to bring down the aircraft,” the prosecution, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul S. Becker, argued in a sentencing memorandum.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Further Narrows Voting Rights Act’s Scope

      by

      Reversing decades of precedent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in a Texas case that different minority groups cannot jointly claim that their votes have been diluted.A federal appeals court further narrowed the scope of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ruling that members of separate minority groups cannot join together to claim that a political map has been drawn to dilute their voting power.The 12-to-6 ruling on Thursday by the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned almost four decades of legal precedent, as well as an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the same appeals court. It applies only in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, the three states where the court has jurisdiction, but the decision has national implications and may be appealed to the Supreme Court.The case involved districts for county commissioners in Galveston County, Texas, a community of about 350,000 people, where the last round of redistricting redrew a district in which Black and Hispanic voters together made up a majority of voters. The redrawn boundaries reduced their combined share of the district’s electorate to 38 percent, and a lawsuit claimed that doing so violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits drawing maps that dilute minority voting power.A lower court and the three-judge appellate panel both ruled that the new map was a clear violation of the law. But the full Fifth Circuit disagreed, saying that the law does not explicitly allow voters from more than one minority group to “combine forces” to claim their votes were diluted.The 12 judges in the majority were all appointed by Republican presidents. Five of the six dissenters were named by Democratic presidents. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      N.F.L. Sunday Ticket Verdict Is Thrown Out by Judge

      by

      The decision, five weeks after a jury awarded $4.7 billion in damages in an antitrust case, is a reprieve for the league.The $4.7 billion verdict against the National Football League for colluding to raise prices for its Sunday Ticket television package was overturned late Thursday by a federal judge, who disqualified expert testimony used by the jury to determine damages.The judge, Philip Gutierrez of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, ruled a day after lawyers for the N.F.L. had asked him to exclude testimony from key witnesses for plaintiffs representing thousands of customers who bought Sunday Ticket, a season-long package that showed all out-of-town games and was sold by DirecTV.The jury’s verdict five weeks ago in favor of those plaintiffs threatened to upend the league’s strategy of selling exclusive television packages to broadcasters.In his 16-page decision, Judge Gutierrez said the plaintiffs’ two economic witnesses had used flawed methodology in their attempts to show that the league overcharged Sunday Ticket customers. The jury’s calculations of damages were thrown out because they were based on the witnesses’ testimony, which included comparisons to how college games are broadcast and unsubstantiated speculation on how the N.F.L. might sell games individually, the judge said.“The court finds that the jury’s damages awards were not based on the ‘evidence and reasonable inferences’ but instead were more akin to ‘guesswork or speculation,’” he wrote.Judge Gutierrez also said the jury had not followed his instructions for calculating damages, which in antitrust cases like this one are tripled and would have led to a $14.1 billion verdict against the league.“We are grateful for today’s ruling in the Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit,” the league said in a statement. “We believe that the N.F.L.’s media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love, including local broadcasts of every single game on free over-the-air television.”Calls and text messages to Bill Carmody, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, were not immediately returned.Before the judge’s decision, the N.F.L. said it was prepared to appeal the jury’s verdict. The plaintiffs can potentially appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The monthlong trial featured testimony from the N.F.L.’s commissioner, Roger Goodell; Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys; and Sean McManus, who recently retired as the chairman of CBS Sports.Last season, the N.F.L. ended its relationship with DirecTV and sold the rights to the Sunday Ticket package to YouTube for as much as $2.5 billion annually. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Utah Supreme Court Upholds a Block on a Strict Abortion Ban

      by

      Utah cannot enforce its near-total ban on abortion while a challenge to the law proceeds in the courts, the State Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. The Utah Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a suspension of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, meaning the procedure remains legal while a court challenge to the law proceeds. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, it cleared the way for two Utah laws to come into force: a ban on most abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy, which was passed in 2019 and is currently in effect, and a near-total abortion ban passed in 2020 that would prohibit the procedure at any time during pregnancy, with very limited exceptions, including for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.The near-total abortion ban took effect in 2022, but the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah almost immediately filed a lawsuit in the state seeking to block the ban. The organization argued that the ban violated several provisions in the State Constitution, including those that guarantee a right to determine family composition and a right to gender equality.A trial court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2022 blocking the state from enforcing the near-total ban while the case proceeded. Utah state officials appealed, but the State Supreme Court ruled against them on Thursday and left the injunction in place. Camila Vega, a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the litigators on the case, said after the state’s appeal was filed last August that the organization would “once again make the case that the trigger ban violates the Utah constitution, which protects pregnant Utahns’ ability to make their own medical decisions and their right to determine when and whether to have a family.”In court filings, the state argued that the Utah constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and that the injunction imposed “severe irreparable harm on the State side of the balance, given the profound state and public interest at stake — the preservation of human life, both the mother’s and the unborn child’s.” The state challenged Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s standing to file the lawsuit, and argued that the trial court had abused its discretion and erred in issuing the injunction. The State Supreme Court rejected those arguments on Thursday. Whether abortion up to 18 weeks will remain permanently legal in the state of Utah depends on the outcome of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the near-total ban. The ruling on Thursday did not decide that question; rather, it said that the lower courts were right to let the case proceed and to keep the state from enforcing the ban in the meantime. More

    • 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