Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump loses third bid for judge to step aside in hush-money case

      by

      A New York judge declined for a third time to step aside from the case in which Donald Trump was convicted of charges involving hush money paid to an adult film star, dismissing the former US president’s claim of conflict of interest related to political consultancy work by the judge’s daughter.As he did last April and in August 2023, Juan Merchan in a decision released on Wednesday denied a request by Trump’s lawyers that the acting justice of the New York supreme court recuse himself from the first case involving criminal charges against a former US president. Merchan is scheduled to sentence Trump on 18 September.“Defendant has provided nothing new for this Court to consider. Counsel has merely repeated arguments that have already been denied by this and higher courts” and were “rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims”, Merchan wrote in the ruling dated 13 August.Trump was found guilty by a jury on 30 May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records for having covered up his former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels to avert a sex scandal before the 2016 US election.Two months later, his lawyers made their third request that Merchan step aside, arguing that his daughter’s work for a political consultancy that has counted Democratic campaigns among its clients – including the unsuccessful bid by Kamala Harris for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination – posed a conflict of interest.Harris, now vice-president, is the Democratic presidential candidate facing the Republican nominee Trump in the 5 November US election.Falsifying business records is a crime punishable by up to four years in prison, though sentences such as fines or probation have been more common for others convicted of that crime.Prosecutors with Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which brought the charges, had called Trump’s recusal request a “frivolous” attempt to relitigate an issue that was resolved twice before.“No amount of overheated, hyperbolic rhetoric can cure the fatal defects in defendant’s ongoing effort to impugn the fairness of these proceedings,” prosecutors wrote in an 1 August court filing.The payment to Daniels was made in exchange for her silence before the 2016 election about a sexual encounter she has said she had with Trump a decade earlier, which the former president denied. Trump went on to win the presidency by defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMerchan rejected a recusal request in April before jury selection in the trial and last year after an ethics panel found that his daughter’s work did not pose reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality.During the trial, Trump took to his social media platform to deride Merchan as a “highly conflicted” overseer of a “kangaroo court”. Ahead of the trial, Trump wrote on social media that Merchan’s daughter “makes money by working to ‘Get Trump,’” comments that in part contributed to Merchan’s decision to expand a gag order to bar the former president from commenting publicly about family members of court staff or prosecutors.Trump’s lawyers separately have asked the judge to throw out his conviction in light of the US supreme court’s July ruling giving former presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken in office. Merchan has said he will decide on Trump’s arguments by 16 September. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      US Capitol rioter sentenced to 20 years – one of the longest punishments yet

      by

      A California man with a history of political violence was sentenced on Friday to 20 years in prison for repeatedly attacking police with flagpoles and other makeshift weapons during the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021.David Nicholas Dempsey’s sentence is among the longest among hundreds of Capitol riot prosecutions. Prosecutors described him as one of the most violent members of the mob of Donald Trump supporters that attacked the Capitol as lawmakers met to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory.Dempsey, who is from Van Nuys, stomped on police officers’ heads. He swung poles at officers defending a tunnel, struck an officer in the head with a metal crutch and attacked police with pepper spray and broken pieces of furniture, prosecutors said.He climbed atop other rioters, using them like “human scaffolding” to reach officers guarding a tunnel entrance. He injured at least two police officers, prosecutors said.“Your conduct on January 6 was exceptionally egregious,” the US district judge Royce Lamberth told Dempsey. “You did not get carried away in the moment.”Dempsey pleaded guilty in January to two counts of assaulting police officers with a dangerous weapon.Only the former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio has received a longer sentence in the January 6 attack. Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years for orchestrating a plot to stop the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to Biden after the 2020 election.Dempsey called his conduct “reprehensible” and apologized to the police officers whom he assaulted.“You were performing your duties, and I responded with hostility and violence,” he said before learning his sentence.Justice department prosecutors recommended a prison sentence of 21 years and 10 months for Dempsey, a former construction worker and fast food restaurant employee. Dempsey’s violence was so extreme that he attacked a fellow rioter who was trying to disarm him, prosecutors wrote.“David Dempsey is political violence personified,” assistant US attorney Douglas Brasher told the judge.The defense attorney Amy Collins, who sought a sentence of six years and six months, described the government’s sentencing recommendation as “ridiculous”.“It makes him a statistic,” she said. “It doesn’t consider the person he is, how much he has grown.”Dempsey was wearing a tactical vest, a helmet and an American flag gaiter covering his face when he attacked police at a tunnel leading to the lower west terrace doors. He shot pepper spray at the Metropolitan police department detective Phuson Nguyen just as another rioter yanked at the officer’s gas mask.“The searing spray burned Detective Nguyen’s lungs, throat, eyes and face and left him gasping for breath, fearing he might lose consciousness and be overwhelmed by the mob,” prosecutors wrote.Dempsey then struck the Metropolitan police sergeant Jason Mastony in the head with a metal crutch, cracking the shield on his gas mask and cutting his head.“I collapsed and caught myself against the wall as my ears rang. I was able to stand again and hold the line for a few more minutes until another assault by rioters pushed the police line back away from the threshold of the tunnel,” Mastony said in a statement submitted to the court.Dempsey has been jailed since his arrest in August 2021.His criminal record in California includes convictions for burglary, theft and assault. The assault conviction stemmed from an October 2019 gathering near the Santa Monica pier, where Dempsey attacked people peacefully demonstrating against then president Trump, prosecutors said.“The peaceful protest turned violent as Dempsey took a canister of bear spray from his pants and dispersed it at close range against several protesters,” they wrote, noting that Dempsey was sentenced to 200 days of jail time.Dempsey engaged in at least three other acts of “vicious political violence” that didn’t lead to criminal charges “for various reasons”, according to prosecutors. They said Dempsey struck a counter-protester over the head with a skateboard at a June 2019 rally in Los Angeles; used the same skateboard to assault someone at an August 2020 protest in Tujunga, California; and attacked a protester with pepper spray and a metal bat during a August 2020 protest in Beverly Hills, California.More than 1,400 people have been charged with January 6-related federal crimes. More than 900 of them have been convicted and sentenced, with roughly two-thirds receiving terms of imprisonment ranging from a few days to the 22 years that Tarrio received. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme court immunity ruling to cause new delay in Trump 2020 election case

      by

      Donald Trump’s criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election is expected to be delayed by another month after special counsel prosecutors said they had not finished assessing how the US supreme court’s immunity decision would narrow their case.On Thursday, the prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team told Tanya Chutkan, the US district judge presiding over the case, that they needed her to delay until 30 August a deadline to submit a possible schedule for how to proceed with a complicated fact-finding mission ordered by the court.“The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v United States, including through consultation with other Department of Justice components,” prosecutors wrote in a two-page court filing.“The Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision. The Government therefore respectfully requests additional time to provide the Court with an informed proposal.”The supreme court ruled last month that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, marking a victory for Trump.Precisely what prosecutors are now stuck on remains unclear, although the ruling struck some of the charges against Trump and is expected to see Chutkan needing to pare back the indictment further.Trump is accused of overseeing a sprawling effort to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election, including two counts of conspiring to obstruct the certification of the election results, conspiring to defraud the government, and conspiring to disenfranchise voters.The alleged illegal conduct includes Trump pressing justice department officials to open sham investigations, Trump obstructing Congress from certifying the election, including by trying to co-opt his vice-president, Trump helping prompt the Capitol attack, and Trump’s plot to recruit fake electors.View image in fullscreenThe supreme court decided that criminal accountability for presidents has three categories: core presidential functions that carry absolute immunity, official acts of the presidency that carry presumptive immunity, and unofficial acts that carry no immunity.The ruling meant that the charges related to core executive functions will be thrown out, and for Chutkan to determine through a fact-finding exercise if any other charges that might come under official acts must be expunged.Whether Chutkan will do the fact-finding on legal arguments or legal briefs, or will consider evidence perhaps given by witnesses, was supposed to become clearer after Trump and the special counsel jointly submitted the now-delayed scheduling brief.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump’s lawyers are expected to ask for few or no witnesses, the Guardian has previously reported. And in a statement on Truth Social, Trump called anew for the case to be tossed: “It is clear that the supreme court’s historic decision on immunity demands and requires a complete and total dismissal.”The deadline for the scheduling brief was the first activity in the case since December, when it was frozen after Trump asked the US court of appeals for the DC circuit and then the supreme court to consider his argument that he had absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.The supreme court issued its immunity ruling on 1 July, but the case only returned to Chutkan’s jurisdiction last week because of the court’s 25-day waiting period for any rehearing requests, and an additional week for the judgment to be formally sent down to the trial judge.Trump has already been enormously successful in delaying his criminal cases, a strategy he adopted in the hope that winning the 2024 election would enable him to appoint a loyalist as attorney general who he could direct to drop the charges.It is all but impossible now for the special counsel to bring the case to trial before election day, given Trump can make interim appeals for any decisions that Chutkan makes about the impact of the immunity decision. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump 2020 election interference case resumes after immunity decision

      by

      Donald Trump’s criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election was set to resume on Friday with narrowed charges, after the US supreme court ruling that gave former presidents broad immunity took effect and the case returned to the control of the presiding trial judge.The formal transfer of jurisdiction back to the US district judge Tanya Chutkan means she can issue a scheduling order for how she intends to proceed – including whether she will hold public hearings to determine how to apply the immunity decision.The nation’s highest court issued its ruling on Trump’s immunity claim last month. But the case has only now returned to Chutkan’s control because of the 25-day waiting period for any rehearing requests and an additional week for the judgment to be formally sent down.How Chutkan proceeds could have far-reaching ramifications on the scope of the case, and the presidential election in November.Trump is accused of overseeing a sprawling effort to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election, including two counts of conspiring to obstruct the certification of the election results, conspiring to defraud the government and conspiring to disenfranchise voters.The alleged illegal conduct includes Trump pressing US justice department officials to open sham investigations, Trump obstructing Congress from certifying the election, including by trying to co-opt his vice president, Trump helping prompt the Capitol attack, and Trump’s plot to recruit fake electors.But the supreme court decided that criminal accountability for presidents has three categories: core presidential functions that carry absolute immunity, official acts of the presidency that carry presumptive immunity and unofficial acts that carry no immunity.View image in fullscreenTrump’s lawyers are expected to argue that Chutkan can decide whether the conduct is immune based on legal arguments alone, negating the need for witnesses or multiple evidentiary hearings, the Guardian first reported, citing people familiar with the matter.Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue the maximalist position that they considered all of the charged conduct was Trump acting in his official capacity as president and therefore presumptively immune – and incumbent on prosecutors to prove otherwise, the people said.And Trump’s lawyers are expected to suggest that even though the supreme court appeared to contemplate evidentiary hearings to sort through the conduct – it referenced “fact-finding” – any disputes can be resolved purely on legal arguments, the people said.In doing so, Trump will try to foreclose witness testimony that could be politically damaging, because it would cause evidence about his efforts to subvert the 2020 election that has polled poorly to be suppressed, and legally damaging because it could cause Chutkan to rule against Trump.Trump’s lawyers have privately suggested they expect at least some evidentiary hearings to take place, but they are also intent on challenging testimony from people such as Mike Pence, the former vice-president, and other high-profile White House officials.For instance, if prosecutors try to call Pence or his chief of staff, Marc Short, to testify about meetings where Trump discussed stopping the January 6 certification, Trump would try to block that testimony by asserting executive privilege and having Pence assert the speech or debate clause protection.Trump has already been enormously successful in delaying his criminal cases, principally by convincing the supreme court to take the immunity appeal in the 2020 election subversion case, which was frozen while the court considered the matter.The delay strategy thus far has been aimed at pushing the cases until after the November election, in the hope that Trump would be re-elected and then appoint as attorney general a loyalist who would drop the charges.But now, even if Trump loses, his lawyers have coalesced on a legal strategy that could take months to resolve depending on how prosecutors choose to approach evidentiary hearings, adding to additional months of anticipated appeals over what Chutkan determines are official acts. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      New York appeals court denies Trump bid to end gag order in hush-money case

      by

      A New York appeals court on Thursday denied Donald Trump’s bid to end a gag order in his hush-money criminal case, rejecting the former US president’s argument that his May conviction “constitutes a change in circumstances” that warrants lifting the restrictions.A five-judge panel in the state’s mid-level appellate court ruled that the trial judge, Juan Merchan, was correct in extending parts of the gag order until Trump is sentenced, writing that “the fair administration of justice necessarily includes sentencing”.Merchan imposed the gag order in March, a few weeks before the trial started, after prosecutors raised concerns about Trump’s habit of attacking people involved in his cases. During the trial, he held Trump in contempt of court and fined him $10,000 for violations, and threatened to jail him if he did it again.The judge lifted some restrictions in June, freeing Trump to comment about witnesses and jurors but keeping trial prosecutors, court staffers and their families – including his own daughter – off limits until he is sentenced.Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, was originally scheduled to be sentenced on 11 July, but Merchan postponed it until 18 September.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump has asked to set aside his 34 felony convictions after the US supreme court ruled presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken as executive. Trump’s legal team has not argued that his acts were official in the case, but that certain evidence should not have been admitted because it related to presidential acts. The court ruling also said that evidence couldn’t be used if it constituted an official act, even if the crimes alleged are not themselves official.Prosecutors have argued the ruling does not affect the convictions in this case. “All of the evidence that he complains of either concerned wholly unofficial conduct, or, at most, official conduct for which any presumption of immunity has been rebutted,” prosecutors wrote.In his legal case pertaining to illegally keeping classified documents, US district judge Aileen Cannon in Florida dismissed the charges because she found the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was unconstitutional, an idea raised in a concurring opinion by the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris urges Americans to vote after six-week abortion ban takes effect in Iowa

      by

      Kamala Harris, the likely Democratic nominee for president, urged Americans to vote after a six-week abortion ban took effect in Iowa on Monday.“This ban is going to take effect before many women even know they’re pregnant,” Harris said in a video posted to YouTube. “What this means is that one in three women of reproductive age in America lives in a state with a Trump abortion ban.”During the 33-second clip, Harris used the phrase “Trump abortion ban” three times – part of a wider effort by her campaign to blame her rival Donald Trump, who appointed three of the supreme court justices who overturned Roe v Wade and enabled states to outlaw abortion, for the spate of unpopular bans that now blanket the south and midwest.The Republican-dominated Iowa state legislature passed the ban last year, but a lengthy court battle initially stopped it from taking effect. Last month, the Iowa supreme court ruled that the ban could be enforced, leading a lower-court judge to rule it could take effect on Monday morning at 8am local time.“The upholding of this abortion ban in Iowa is an absolute devastation and violation of human rights, depriving Iowans of their bodily autonomy,” Leah Vanden Bosch, development and outreach director of the Iowa Abortion Access Fund, said in a statement. “We know a ban will not stop the need for abortions.”Up until Sunday, abortion had been legal in Iowa up to roughly 22 weeks of pregnancy. Now, abortion clinics in the state have indicated that they will continue offering the procedure to the legal limit. The closest options for Iowans who want abortions after six weeks of pregnancy will probably be Minnesota and Illinois, Democratic-run states that border Iowa and that have become abortion havens since Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022.The Iowa ban permits abortions past six weeks in cases of rape or incest, or in medical emergencies.Fourteen other states enacted near-total bans on abortion since the US supreme court overturned Roe. Three other states – Georgia, South Carolina and Florida – have banned abortion past about six weeks of pregnancy.Roe’s demise led to surge in support for abortion rights, even in red states. Sixty-one per cent of Iowans, including 70% of women, say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll found last year.The end of Roe has made abortion rights one of the top issues in the 2024 election. Harris, the face of the issue for Democrats, has said that she would sign a bill codifying Roe’s protections into law. On the other side of the aisle, Trump, the Republican nominee has tried to downplay the issue as it has become a liability for Republicans.Kim Reynolds, Iowa’s Republican governor, celebrated the ban, calling it a “victory for life”. In a statement, she added: “There is nothing more sacred and no cause more worthy than protecting innocent unborn lives.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump ally asks supreme court to move Georgia election case to federal court

      by

      Attorneys for the White House chief of staff during Donald Trump’s presidency, Mark Meadows, have asked the US supreme court to move the Georgia 2020 election interference case to federal court.The petition cites the recent supreme court ruling that granted Trump immunity for any acts deemed official – which came as part of a 2020 election subversion case in Washington DC’s federal courthouse. Meadows’s attorneys claimed that a federal forum was needed to address their client’s actions as the White House chief of staff.“It is hard to imagine a case in which the need for a federal forum is more pressing than one that requires resolving novel questions about the duties and powers of one of the most important federal offices in the nation,” the Meadows legal team’s petition argued.That filing is the most recent attempt by Meadows’s attorneys to move the Georgia election interference case from an Atlanta state court to US district court. In December 2023, a three-judge appeals court panel denied their effort to move the case to federal court, ruling that former federal officials are ineligible to move their charges.Meadows and his attorneys have undertaken that effort in hopes of asserting immunity from prosecution on charges related to unlawfully attempting to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in Georgia in the 2020 presidential race. If successful, they would affect Fulton county, Georgia, district attorney Fani Willis’s prosecution of Trump, Meadows and other co-defendants.The judges on the appeals panel ruled that – even if the transfer process known as removal extended to former federal officials – Meadows did not demonstrate he was acting in his official role as White House chief of staff. The ruling blocked a path for Meadows to assert immunity and other federal defenses.And it prevented the jury pool from being broadened to areas of Georgia with lower percentages of Democrats while also getting case overseen by a member of the federal judiciary, which is appointed by presidents.Meadows is one of 19 defendants, including Trump, who were charged last August in the Georgia election racketeering case.The case’s proceedings have been televised in Georgia state court, and the plan is to do the same for the trial.“Simply put, whatever the precise contours of Meadows’s official authority, that authority did not extend to an alleged conspiracy to overturn valid election results,” the judge, William Pryor, an appointee of president George W Bush, wrote in the appellate court ruling.Attorneys for Meadows also requested the supreme court wipe away the appellate ruling and send the case back to the lower courts if they opt not to fully review his petition.Meadows faces charges that he allegedly entered a months-long conspiracy with Trump and other allies to overturn Biden’s victory in Georgia during his winning presidential run in 2020.Meadows also faces a second charge alleging he sought to persuade the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to violate his oath of office. The charge references Meadows’s involvement in a phone call from Trump to Raffensperger – the top elections official in Georgia – asking him to find additional votes needed for the former president to win the state.The Georgia election interference case is halted for now as a state appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments in December over Trump’s efforts to remove Willis from the case.Meadows has also been charged in Arizona over his efforts to assist Trump to overturn election results, along with the former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and 16 others.Meadows has pleaded not guilty in both the Arizona and Georgia cases. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden calls for supreme court reforms including 18-year justice term limits

      by

      Joe Biden has called for a series of reforms to the US supreme court, including the introduction of term limits for justices and a constitutional amendment to remove immunity for crimes committed by a president while in office.In an op-ed published on Monday morning, the president said justices should be limited to a maximum of 18 years’ service on the court rather than the current lifetime appointment, and also said ethics rules should be strengthened to regulate justices’ behavior.The call for reform comes after the supreme court ruled in early July that former presidents have some degree of immunity from prosecution, a decision that served as a major victory for Donald Trump amid his legal travails.“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden wrote.“I served as a US senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today.“I have great respect for our institutions and separation of powers. What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.”Biden called for a “no one is above the law” amendment to the constitution, which would make clear that no president is entitled to immunity from prosecution by virtue of having served in the White House. Biden also said justices’ terms should be limited to 18 years, under a system where a new justice would be appointed to the supreme court by the serving president every two years.The president also called for stricter, enforceable rules on conduct which would require justices to disclose gifts, refrain from political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial interest.Last week Justice Elena Kagan called for the court to strengthen the ethics code it introduced in 2023 by adding a way to enforce it. That code was introduced after a spate of scandals involving rightwing justices on the court: Clarence Thomas was found to have accepted vacations and travel from a Republican mega-donor, while Samuel Alito flew on a private jet owned by an influential billionaire on the way to a fishing trip.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLegislation would be required to impose term limits and an ethics code on the Supreme Court, but it is unlikely to pass the current divided Congress.The constitutional amendment on presidential immunity would be even more difficult to enact, requiring two-thirds support from both chambers of Congress or a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and then ratification by 38 of the 50 state legislatures.Reuters contributed to this report More