News
Trump to escalate blame on trial judge Juan Merchan if sentenced to prison
Donald Trump is determined to avoid jail, but if he does get handed a prison sentence after his conviction on 34 felony counts in New York last week, the former president’s inner circle is certain he will lay the blame squarely at the judge’s feet, sources familiar with the matter said.
The precise way Trump might blame the judge, Juan Merchan, remains unclear because Trump has been avoidant of the issue and the matter was not resolved when he huddled with his top advisers at a Trump Tower meeting immediately after the verdict on Thursday, the sources said.
But Trump is likely to double down on his attacks against Merchan, directing his supporters at rallies and in Truth Social posts to take up their grievances with the judge, one of the sources added.
The consequences of Trump’s likely rhetoric are difficult to predict. Trump has been railing against Merchan for months as being unfair and in conspiracy cahoots with the Biden administration to prevent him from campaigning – and nothing concrete has happened.
Still, Trump’s supporters have a history of making threats against judges Trump has assailed, including death threats to Tanya Chutkan, the US district judge who is presiding in his federal 2020 election interference case, and to the chambers of the New York judge who oversaw his civil fraud trial.
Trump believes – correctly – that the ultimate decision with sentencing rests with Merchan, who has wide discretion to sentence him to fines or probation on the low end, to a carceral sentence on the high end, regardless of what prosecutors might request.
That reasoning would be the basis for Trump to hold the judge responsible for any fallout, in the event he hands down a jail term days before the Republican national convention – even if the sentence would almost certainly be stayed pending appeal.
Trump has already spent weeks railing against Merchan, taking advantage of the fact that the judge himself is not protected by the gag order. Both before and during the trial, Trump slammed the judge’s rulings as unfair and biased, and falsely suggested he was trying to stop him campaigning.
Just one day after the trial, Trump appeared to open a new front against Merchan in freewheeling remarks at a news conference at Trump Tower, where he suggested Merchan looked like an “angel” but was really the “devil”.
If a jail sentence does come, one of the sources said, they expected Trump to lash out in anger. But Trump has also been careful to not explicitly threaten or make foreboding warnings against Merchan to stave off prison.
On Fox News Sunday, Trump said the public would not stand for him being sent to prison. “I’m not sure the public would stand for it. I think it would be tough for the public to take. At some point, there’s a breaking point”, he said, though the campaign was quick to clarify he was talking about the election.
To some degree, Trump has managed to put Merchan exactly where he wants him.
after newsletter promotion
Trump was in effect found guilty of using an unlawful hush-money scheme to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, which means if Merchan sentences him to anything less than jail, it could spark backlash that it did not encapsulate the gravity of Trump’s criminal conduct.
But if Merchan does actually sentence Trump to jail, the judge would be thrust forward by Trump as responsible for any fallout and any unrest from his supporters who have a history of engaging in political violence merely on the former president airing grievances.
At sentencing, Merchan will have the additional decision of whether to punish Trump not just for the conviction but also his clear lack of remorse and his repeated violations of the gag order, which would be reflected in Trump’s pre-sentencing report.
In New York, defendants convicted of felonies or serious misdemeanors are required to meet with a probation officer, who conducts a lengthy investigation and compiles a pre-sentencing report that the judge uses to determine what sentence to issue.
The pre-sentencing report is typically one major opportunity that defendants have to make a good impression on the judge, including by expressing contrition. Trump has suggested none of that since his conviction, including by attacking the verdict the very next day.
News
Utah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state
UTAH COUNTY, Utah (ABC4) — Utah County has declared a state of emergency.
According to an announcement from the Utah County Commissioner Skyler Beltran, the county is in a dire position due to the extensive wildfires in the area and high fire risk.
The announcement states that declaring the State of Emergency will allow the county to access additional resources, and notes there is no imminent threat to Utah County residents.
“We have utilized a tremendous amount of our resources (very early in the traditional fire season schedule) responding to the Iron Fire and continue to face ongoing recovery concerns,” the statement read. “This was even before the Maple Peak and Cherry fires, which have now merged and are moving toward the Iron Fire.”
The Iron Fire, which started last week, has burned over 40,000 acres. Around 22,830 of those acres were in Utah County. Reportedly, the county has limited resources available to help those who are evacuating from Juab County, including the 600 residents in the Town of Eureka.
Due to the influx in evacuees, the Utah County Commission says that more resources are necessary to help the evacuation shelters in Elberta, Utah. Additionally, due to the Iron Fire and other wildfires, Utah County is facing immense repair needs to avoid future flooding, loss of homes, and disruption to local economies and ecosystems.
There is “imminent threat” to public safety due to the damage.
The commission also asks the public to be vigilant when handling heavy equipment, using campfires or barbecues, and discharging fireworks, to avoid preventing fires.
Their statement added, “Our firefighters are exhausted, our resources are stretched thin and we are in a very vulnerable position.”
News
A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).
Alex Wong/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wong/Getty Images
As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.
The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.
After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.
What caused the hissy fit? Did Sotomayor really fail to tell him she would have an oral dissent? That really would have been a breach of the court’s practices. A justice typically notifies the chief justice and the author of the majority opinion in writing if there is to be an oral dissent.
In response Friday to an inquiry from NPR came this terse statement from the court’s public information office.
“Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench. It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part.”
News
“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement
The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.
Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years.
Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”
They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010.
Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze.
The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.
Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.
Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”
Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003.
Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife.
Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.”
“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.
For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.
In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour agoAbout 20 detained after armed suspect call sparks LAPD response in Koreatown
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoWith Jack Flaherty returning, AJ Hinch ponders Tigers’ starting rotation
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoServing up a slice of Palestine at Old Jerusalem in the Mission District
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoAll-day restaurant and patio coming to Dallas’ Knox and more top stories
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoBugtopia takes center stage at Zoo Miami
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoWhat JJ Peterka Will Add to the Bruins’ Roster, ‘He’s Got an Elite Shot’ | Boston Bruins
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoThis Boulder farm dinner serves up midsummer Slavic vibes with James Beard-worthy fare
-
Videos2 hours agoDestruction in Venezuela after deadly earthquakes | BBC News