2 hurt in explosion from intentionally set IED at Santa Maria Courthouse in California
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images
(SANTA MARIA, Calif.) — Two people suffered non-life-threatening injuries from an explosion at the Santa Maria Courthouse in California, according to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office.
One person of interest — an adult male — was detained, Santa Barbara County Sheriff public information officer Raquel Zick wrote on social media.
Authorities believe the explosion was the result of an “intentionally set improvised explosive device,” Zick said.
People are urged to stay away from the area.
“Scene has not been deemed safe,” Zick wrote earlier on social media.
The courthouse is closed for the day and city buildings within one block of the courthouse are temporarily closed, said Mark Van de Camp, spokesperson for the city of Santa Maria.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — Testimony about the psychiatric history of a man who died in a chokehold aboard a New York City subway is only meant to “smear” the victim and should be precluded from upcoming trial of a former Marine charged with manslaughter, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said in a new court filing.
Daniel Penny is scheduled to stand trial next month after he put Jordan Neely in a fatal chokehold in May 2023 aboard an F train in what his attorneys say was an effort to “protect the lives of his fellow passengers.” Penny’s attorneys are seeking to call a forensic psychiatrist who they said would “opine regarding the extent of Neely’s K2 abuse” and why that may have caused him to allegedly become “insanely threatening” to subway passengers.
Prosecutors asked the judge to exclude the testimony of the psychiatrist, Dr. Alexander Bardey, and limit what the defense can show from Neely’s psychiatric records.
“The psychiatrist’s testimony and the unredacted psychiatric records are inadmissible and their suggested introduction is a transparent attempt by the defense to smear the victim’s character so that the jury will devalue his life,” assistant district attorney Dafna Yoran said in a motion to preclude Bardey’s testimony from trial.
“Numerous witnesses will testify regarding Mr. Neely’s aggressive behavior on the date of the incident,” Yoran said. “The jury does not need and cannot be permitted to hear Dr. Bardey’s opine as to why Mr. Neely was aggressive.”
The defense has said Neely’s psychiatric history includes non-compliance with medication and chronic K2 abuse and argued that is relevant for the jury to hear.
“Neely’s history of volatile behavior while in treatment, and the steps taken to subdue/restrain him, are documented in these records, and speak to why our client had to use the force necessary to restrain him on the date of incident,” said defense attorney Thomas Kennif, who has argued Penny was justified in seeking to subdue Neely.
Penny has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and negligent homicide charges. He is scheduled to begin trial Oct. 21, re-submitting the highly charged case into the public consciousness less than a month before the election.
(NEW YORK) — Seven months after a trial judge fined Donald Trump $454 million for business frauds that the judge said “shock the conscience,” a New York appeals court appeared skeptical Thursday of some of the arguments underpinning the New York attorney general’s case against the former president.
A panel of five judges at New York’s Appellate Division, First Department heard Trump’s appeal and peppered both sides with concerns about the case — appearing to question some of the key elements of the state’s case, including the application of a consumer fraud statute, the justification for the financial penalty prosecutors sought, and the private nature of the transactions in question, mirroring well-worn defense arguments that failed during the case’s lengthy trial this year.
Trump himself did not attend Thursday’s hearing in New York.
“We have a situation where there were no victims, no complaints,” argued D. John Sauer, the same attorney who successfully argued Trump’s presidential immunity appeal to the Supreme Court earlier this year. “How is there a capacity or tendency to deceive when you have these clear disclaimers?”
While the judges expressed some skepticism about some of the defense’s claims — with one judge remarking that factual inaccuracies could have resulted in Trump’s statements being “completely fallacious” — some of the defense arguments were echoed in the judges’ questions.
“The defendants’ statements were not made for ordinary people,” noted Associate Justice David Friedman. “They were directed at some of the most sophisticated actors in business.”
Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale, arguing for New York Attorney General Letitia James, emphasized the magnitude of Trump’s alleged misstatements and their importance to the banks that loaned the former president hundreds of millions of dollars.
“Deutsche Bank would not have given these loans without the financial strength being inflated,” Vale said. “The financial statements were coming in each year, and they were important, critical to the loans each year.”
A series of questions also focused on the New York fraud statute — Executive Law 63 (12) — that the attorney general used to bring her case. Trump’s lawyers have insisted the law should not apply to profitable transactions between financial institutions and the Trump Organization.
“How do we draw a line or put up some guardrails to know when the attorney general is operating within her broad sphere or 63(12) or going into an area where she doesn’t have jurisdiction?” asked Associate Justice John R. Higgitt.
Vale responded by arguing that Trump’s frauds impacted consumers by inserting false and misleading information into the marketplace, and that Trump’s fine has a deterrent effect.
“A big point of these statutes is for the attorney general to go in quickly to stop the fraud and illegality before the counterparties are harmed,” Vale said.
When pressed about the size of the penalty and whether it was “tethered” to the limited harm incurred by the banks that did business with Trump, Vale argued that the profitability of the transactions should not give Trump a free pass to use false information.
“It is not an excuse to say our fraud was really successful so we should get some of the money,” said Vale.
In an 11-week trial that concluded in February, New York Judge Arthur Engoron found that Trump, his eldest sons, and two top Trump Organization executives exaggerated Trump’s wealth to secure better terms from lenders, for which he fined the former president $454 million.
Trump, following the ruling, secured a $175 million bond while he appeals the judgment.
Eric Adams, mayor of New York, exits federal court after his arraignment in New York, US, on Friday, Sept. 27, 2024. — Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — The bribery charge against New York Mayor Eric Adams is “extraordinarily vague” and brought by “zealous prosecutors” who spent years “casting about” for something to support a criminal case against the mayor, a defense attorney said Monday in a new court filing.
Federal prosecutors accused Adams of accepting more than $100,000 in airline upgrades and luxury hotel stays from Turkey and, in 2021, when a Turkish official told Adams it was “his turn,” Adams allegedly pressured the New York City Fire Department to rush a safety inspection of the new Turkish consulate in Manhattan.
Adams was arraigned on the charges on Friday. He pleaded not guilty one day after the indictment was unsealed.
The mayor’s attorney, Alex Spiro, argued on Monday that the alleged scheme “does not meet the definition of bribery” because the indictment does not say Adams agreed to perform any official act in exchange for the travel perks.
“Rather, it alleges only that while serving as Brooklyn Borough President — not Mayor or even Mayor-elect — he agreed generally to assist with the ‘operation’ or ‘regulation’ of a Turkish Consulate building in Manhattan, where he had no authority whatsoever,” Spiro wrote in a motion to dismiss the bribery count.
The defense suggested what Adams is accused of doing is routine, not criminal.
“That extraordinarily vague allegation encompasses a wide array of normal and perfectly lawful acts that any City official would undertake for the consulate of important foreign nation,” the motion said. “The three innocuous messages Adams allegedly sent to the Fire Commissioner here fall far short of the kind official act necessary for bribery.”
Adams has pleaded not guilty to all five counts he faces. He is due back in court on Wednesday.
Spiro said the other four counts should also be dismissed.
