20-year-old mother, infant killed in drive-by shooting in Connecticut
Hartford Police Department
(HARTFORD, Conn.) — Police are searching for a man accused of fatally shooting a 20-year-old mother and her 4-month-old son while they were sitting in their car in Hartford, Connecticut, on Tuesday, in what appears to be a drive-by shooting, according to police.
A warrant has been issued for 23-year-old Lance “Macho” Morales, according to Hartford police.
While not in custody, Morales has been charged with two counts of murder, murder with special circumstances, criminal possession of a firearm, assault in the first degree and criminal attempt to commit assault in the first degree. Morales’ bond is set at $3 million.
“There are ongoing attempts to apprehend Morales with the assistance of multiple law enforcement agencies,” Hartford police said in a statement Wednesday.
Police were dispatched to Hartford Hospital on Tuesday afternoon after it was reported that a vehicle arrived carrying multiple people who had been shot, police said.
Jessiah Mercado and her son Messiah Diaz were pronounced dead at the hospital. Another victim in his 20s suffered a non-life-threatening gunshot wound, police said. The driver of the car was not injured.
Investigators determined the shooting had occurred moments before when the suspect vehicle pulled alongside the victims’ car and opened fire, according to police.
The investigation into the shooting remains ongoing and police are asking anyone with information regarding the case to contact Hartford police.
(CALIFORNIA) — The man who pleaded guilty to kidnapping and sexually assaulting a Northern California woman in a case that became known nationwide as the “Gone Girl” kidnapping has now been charged with other break-ins and assaults from years earlier, prosecutors announced on Monday.
Matthew Muller — who pleaded guilty in the 2015 kidnapping and sexual assault of Denise Huskins — has now been charged in connection with two other home invasions from 2009, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office said.
In the first attack, on Sept. 29, 2009, Muller allegedly broke into a woman’s home in Mountain View, tied her up, forced her drink a mix of medications and told her he was going to rape her, prosecutors said. The woman “persuaded him against it,” and Muller then allegedly suggested she get a dog and fled the scene, prosecutors said.
Weeks later, on Oct. 18, 2009, Muller allegedly broke into a home in Palo Alto, bound and gagged a woman and forced her to drink NyQuil, prosecutors said. “He then began to assault her, before being persuaded to stop,” prosecutors said. “Muller gave the victim crime prevention advice, then fled.”
Muller faces two felony counts of committing a sexual assault during a home invasion, prosecutors said.
Muller, who is currently in a federal prison in Arizona, is expected to be arraigned Monday.
On March 23, 2015, Muller broke into a home in Vallejo, where he drugged and tied up Huskins and her boyfriend, Aaron Quinn, prosecutors said.
He kidnapped Huskins and took her to a cabin in South Lake Tahoe, where he sexually assaulted her, prosecutors said.
Quinn went to the police, who started to consider him a suspect.
After two days held captive, Muller drove Huskins to Southern California and released her.
Once Huskins was freed, the couple was then accused of a hoax, and the case set off a media firestorm fueled by suggestions that the case mirrored the book and movie “Gone Girl.”
Muller was arrested for Huskins’ kidnapping in June 2015 when he was identified as a suspect in a home invasion in Dublin, California.
Muller pleaded guilty in 2016 to Huskins’ kidnapping and in 2022 to her sexual assaults, prosecutors said.
The case became the subject of the Netflix documentary “American Nightmare” released earlier this year.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — Prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office said Tuesday they would oppose President-elect Trump’s attempt to dismiss his criminal hush money conviction in New York — but they told the judge they do not object to pausing the case.
The DA’s office faced a Tuesday deadline to propose the next steps in the case after the “unprecedented circumstances” of the former president’s election following his conviction on 34 felony counts earlier this year.
Trump’s sentencing in the criminal case is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 26, though defense attorneys have asked New York Judge Juan Merchan to dismiss the case ahead of Trump’s impending inauguration.
Trump’s lawyers laid out their new argument to dismiss the case in a filing made public Tuesday, writing that the case must be dismissed because a sitting president is immune from prosecution.
“To require President Trump to address further criminal proceedings at this point would not only violate the federal Constitution, but also disrupt the Presidential transition process,” wrote defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, both of whom Trump nominated last week to top DOJ posts.
Prosecutors pushed back on that claim, arguing that presidential immunity would not apply to a defendant who had already been convicted for conduct that is entirely private.
The district attorney’s office instead suggested deferring all remaining proceedings in the case, including the Nov. 26 sentencing, until after Trump leaves the White House in 2029.
“The People deeply respect the Office of the President, are mindful of the demands and obligations of the presidency, and acknowledge that Defendant’s inauguration will raise unprecedented legal questions. We also deeply respect the fundamental role of the jury in our constitutional system,” prosecutors wrote.
Defense lawyers argued that, while Trump is not yet president, presidential immunity equally applies during the transition process and added that their appeal of the case would “take a year or more” and possibly reach the Supreme Court, dragging the case well past Inauguration Day.
“There is no material difference between President Trump’s current status after his overwhelming victory in the national election and that of a sitting President following inauguration,” their filing said.
Judge Merchan will have the final say regarding the next steps in the case.
Since July, Trump’s attorneys have been pushing to have the conviction vacated and the case dismissed by arguing that prosecutors filled “glaring holes in their case” with evidence of official acts that the Supreme Court recently ruled off limits in its landmark presidential immunity decision.
Trump’s lawyers have also argued for a dismissal by citing the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which urges government officers to take “lawful steps to avoid or minimize disruptions” to the presidential transition.
Prosecutors have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office has no bearing on Trump’s conviction.
“The People agree that these are unprecedented circumstances,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told the court last week.
Trump was convicted in May of all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to silence allegations about a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
His conviction carries a maximum penalty of up to four years in prison, but first-time offenders would normally receive a lesser sentence.
(NEW YORK) — The New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, has denied President-elect Donald Trump’s request to halt his sentencing Friday in his criminal hush money case.
Trump on Wednesday launched an eleventh-hour request to New York’s highest court to pause the hush money case, on the same day that he also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt his sentencing.
Prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office argued in a Thursday morning filing, before the court made its ruling, that Trump’s argument to delay his sentencing rests on an “utterly baseless” concept of president-elect immunity.
Responding to Trump’s argument, lawyers for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg urged the New York Court of Appeals to reject Trump’s request for a delay because a president-elect does not benefit from the immunity reserved for the sitting president.
“The President-elect is, by definition, not yet the President,” the filing said. “The President-elect therefore does not perform any Article II functions under the Constitution, and there are no Article II functions that would be burdened by ordinary criminal process involving the President-elect.”
Trump is scheduled to be sentenced Friday after he was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
Bragg also urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to reject Trump’s request to block his sentencing, on the grounds that “there is no basis” for the country’s highest court to intervene.
“Defendant now asks this Court to take the extraordinary step of intervening in a pending state criminal trial to prevent the scheduled sentencing from taking place — before final judgment has been entered by the trial court, and before any direct appellate review of defendant’s conviction. There is no basis for such intervention,” Bragg wrote to the court.
Prosecutors argued that presidential immunity does not extend to Trump, who does not take office until Jan. 20.
“It is axiomatic that there is only one President at a time,” Bragg said. “No judicial decision or guidance from the Department of Justice has ever recognized that the unique temporary immunity of the sitting President extends to the President-elect.”
The district attorney’s office warned that delaying Trump’s sentencing would only make things worse, arguing “any stay here risks delaying the sentencing until after January 20, when defendant is inaugurated and his status as the sitting President will pose much more severe and potentially insuperable obstacles to sentencing and finality.”
Prosecutors told the New York Court of Appeals that the jury in Trump’s trial saw “overwhelming” evidence of Trump’s guilt. The filing also criticized the president-elect’s conduct in court.
“And notwithstanding defendant’s past and upcoming service as President, his history, character, and condition — and especially his open disregard for the justice system — do not support dismissal,” the filing said.
Prosecutors criticized Trump for repeatedly delaying the sentencing — leading to the Jan. 10 sentencing date — and exaggerating the harm he would face if the sentencing continued as planned.
Trump faces up to four years in prison, but New York Judge Juan Merchan has signaled that he plans to sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge — effectively a blemish on Trump’s record, without prison, fines or probation — in order to respect Trump’s transition efforts and the principle of presidential immunity.
Prosecutors highlighted in their New York Court of Appeals filing that Merchan intends to sentence Trump to the lowest allowable sentence.
“Indeed, if defendant is ever to be sentenced in this proceeding, the least burdensome time to do so is now, before his inauguration on January 20, 2025,” the filing said.
