2 juveniles arrested for murder after allegedly shooting man, striking him with car in Texas
Austin Police Department.
(AUSTIN, TEXAS) — Two juveniles were arrested and charged with capital murder after allegedly shooting a man and striking him with a vehicle during a carjacking, according to the Austin Police Department.
The suspects, a 12-year-old male and a 13-year-old male, were arrested and charged with capital murder by terroristic threat, after allegedly killing 20-year-old Anthony Salas earlier this month, police confirmed to ABC News.
At approximately 2:58 a.m. on May 3, the Travis County Sheriff’s Office received a 911 call from a family “reporting their vehicle had been stolen from their driveway” in Del Valle, Texas, police said in a press release.
Then at approximately 3:21 a.m. the same morning, the Austin Police Department received a call that reported a “person was hit by a vehicle” near the Del Valle Elementary School, police said.
Officials responded to multiple scenes and interviewed multiple witnesses, determining that the victim, Salas, was “shot, hit with a vehicle and killed as he attempted to recover his family’s stolen vehicle near the intersection,” police said.
The juvenile suspects appeared to “burglarize multiple vehicles throughout south and east Austin” late on May 2 into the morning of May 3, police said.
Previously, police issued a reward of up to $1,000 for any information that led to an arrest of the individuals.
(WASHINGTON) — Attorneys for wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia said in a court filing Thursday that after conducting three depositions, they are “still in the dark about the Government’s efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody and return to the United States.”
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, seeking to determine how the government has failed to return Abrego Garcia after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, last month ordered expedited discovery in the case which included the depositions of the four government officials who submitted status updates on Abrego Garcia to the court.
In their filing on Thursday, attorneys for Abrego Garcia asked Judge Xinis to authorize three additional depositions of officials from the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and the Department of Justice.
“As the Court stated in that Order, “discovery is necessary in light of Defendants’ uniform refusal to disclose ‘what it can’ regarding their facilitation of Abrego Garcia’s release and return to the status quo ante,” the lawyers wrote.
The motion comes a day after Judge Xinis, in a court order, said that the Trump administration had invoked the rarely used state secrets privilege to shield information about the case, and scheduled a May 16 hearing on the matter.
Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who has been living with his wife and children in Maryland, was deported in March to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison — despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation to that country due to fear of persecution — after the Trump administration claimed he was a member of the criminal gang MS-13. His wife and attorneys deny that he is an MS-13 member.
The Trump administration, while acknowledging that Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador in error, has said that his alleged MS-13 affiliation makes him ineligible to return to the United States.
“Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador and should never have been in this country and will not be coming back to this country,” Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said Thursday in an appearance at a budget hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee.
“There is no scenario where Garcia will be in the United States again. If he were to come back, we would immediately deport him again,” Noem said.
(WASHINGTON) — Harvard University is suing President Donald Trump’s administration for threatening to withhold federal funding if the school did not comply with its list of demands.
The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts federal court, asks a judge to block the funding freeze from going into effect, arguing the move is “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”
In it, lawyers for the university argue that the administration is unlawfully using billions of dollars in federal funding as “leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard.”
They also allege that the funding freeze violates the First Amendment, flouts federal law and threatens life-saving medical research.
“All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote.
Earlier this month, following the school’s refusal to budge on the government’s demands, the administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism – alleging the school has failed to confront antisemitism on campus – froze $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts, and it reportedly plans to pull an additional $1 billion in funding for medical research.
The decision followed Harvard University President Alan Garber’s letter on April 14, which said that the school “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights” by agreeing to a series of terms proposed by the Trump administration.
The lawsuit is the school’s latest effort to push back against the administration’s threats.
“The Government has not—and cannot—identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” the lawsuit said. “Nor has the Government acknowledged the significant consequences that the indefinite freeze of billions of dollars in federal research funding will have on Harvard’s research programs, the beneficiaries of that research, and the national interest in furthering American innovation and progress.”
In addition to arguing the funding freeze violates the First Amendment, Harvard’s lawyers alleged the Trump administration failed to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sets out a series of procedures needed before funding can be frozen.
“The Government made no effort to follow those procedures—nor the procedures provided for in Defendants’ own agency regulations—before freezing Harvard’s federal funding,” the lawsuit said.
The school asked a federal judge to declare the funding freeze unlawful, block it from taking effect and enjoin the government unilaterally freezing furniture funding without following the steps laid out by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Garber announced the lawsuit in a letter published to the school’s website on Monday, saying the administration’s demands sought to impose “unprecedented and improper control” over the university.
“Doubling down on the letter’s sweeping and intrusive demands—which would impose unprecedented and improper control over the University—the government has, in addition to the initial freeze of $2.2 billion in funding, considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1 billion in grants, initiated numerous investigations of Harvard’s operations, threatened the education of international students, and announced that it is considering a revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status,” Garber’s statement said.
“These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world,” it continued.
The Trump administration has also cut funding at Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern — with Harvard being the most high-profile and first university to explicitly refuse the government’s demands.
“Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world. We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion,” Garber said in his statement announcing the lawsuit on Monday.
The White House did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(LOS ANGELES) — Eight relatives of the Menendez brothers sat down with ABC News in an exclusive interview the night before the case returns to court to show they are unanimous in supporting Erik and Lyle Menendez’s release from prison.
This marks the first time the brothers’ aunt, Jose Menendez’s sister, Terry Baralt, has spoken out in decades.
“They are like the boys that I didn’t have,” she told ABC News.
“It’s time — 35 years is a long time,” she said. “It’s a whole branch of my family erased. The ones that are gone and the ones that are still paying for it, which were kids.”
Baralt, who is battling colon cancer, said she’s concerned she might not live to see her nephews be released from prison.
“I have tried to go see them as much as I can, but it’s hard because I live in New Jersey and I’m 85. I don’t have that much time,” she said.
“When kids are little and they come to you, you fix the problem. I can’t help them. … There is nothing I can do — just go visit them and cry when I leave,” she said, overcome with emotion. “This is why I don’t give interviews. It’s hard.”
Lyle and Erik Menendez — who are serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murders of their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez — are fighting to be released after 35 years behind bars.
A hearing will be held on Friday’s on Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s motion to withdraw the brothers’ resentencing petition. Depending on what the judge decides, another resentencing hearing may be set for April 17 and 18.
Last month, Hochman asked the court to withdraw the motion from the previous district attorney, which was in support of resentencing. Hochman argued the brothers hadn’t taken responsibility for their actions and called their claims of self-defense part of a litany of “lies.”
Because the “brothers persist in telling these lies for the last over 30 years about their self-defense defense and persist in insisting that they did not suborn any perjury or attempt to suborn perjury, then they do not meet the standards for resentencing,” Hochman said.
Hochman told ABC News last month that he would reconsider resentencing only if the brothers admitted to “the full range of their criminal activity and all the lies that they have told about it.”
In October, Hochman’s predecessor, George Gascón, announced he supported resentencing the brothers.
Gascón recommended their sentences of life without the possibility of parole be removed, and said they should instead be sentenced for murder, which would be a sentence of 50 years to life. Because both brothers were under 26 at the time of the crimes, they would be eligible for parole immediately with the new sentence.
Gascón’s office said its resentencing recommendations take into account many factors, including rehabilitation in prison and abuse or trauma that contributed to the crime. Gascón praised the work Lyle and Erik Menendez did behind bars to rehabilitate themselves and help other inmates.
Over 20 Menendez relatives are pushing for the brothers’ release, arguing they endured horrific abuse, have admitted guilt and apologized, and have used their decades behind bars to help others.
Ahead of Thursday night’s interview, Erik Menendez asked his cousin, Diane VanderMolen, to pass along a message to ABC News.
“They are truly, deeply sorry for what they did. And they are profoundly remorseful,” she said. “They are filled with remorse over what they did. And through that, they have become pretty remarkable people.”
Resentencing is one of three possible paths to freedom for the brothers.
Another path is the brothers’ request for clemency, which has been submitted to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Newsom announced in February that he was ordering the parole board to conduct a 90-day “comprehensive risk assessment” investigation into whether Lyle and Erik Menendez pose “an unreasonable risk to the public” if they’re granted clemency and released.
After the risk assessment, the brothers will appear at independent parole board hearings on June 13, Newsom said.
The third path is the brothers’ habeas corpus petition, which they filed in 2023 for a review of two new pieces of evidence not presented at trial: a letter Erik Menendez wrote to his cousin eight months before the murders detailing his alleged abuse from his father, and allegations from a former boy band member who revealed in 2023 that he was raped by Jose Menendez.
In February, Hochman announced that he was asking the court to deny the habeas corpus petition, arguing the brothers’ new evidence wasn’t credible or admissible.
ABC News’ Matt Gutman and Ashley Riegle contributed to this report.
