Man arrested for murder after 65-year-old roommate’s remains found inside suitcase in East River
WABC
(NEW YORK) — The human remains found in a suitcase floating in the East River last week have been identified as Edwin Echevarria, a 65-year-old Manhattan man, who was allegedly murdered by 23-year-old Christian Miller, who lived at the same address on Columbia Street, police said.
The grisly discovery was made on Feb. 5 at approximately 5:30 p.m. when the NYPD Harbor Unit discovered the remains near Governor’s Island, police said.
The suitcase contained a man’s torso, which was taken to the medical examiner’s office for investigation, police said.
The torso was zipped into a sleeping bag that was stuffed into the suitcase, according to police sources.
The suitcase also contained what appears to be a reusable grocery store-style bag, the sources said.
Police did not immediately say how long the remains were there or how they ended up in the suitcase but have now confirmed that Miller has been arrested and charged with murder.
The two were roommates, according to police, and no other body parts have been recovered, sources said.
No further details regarding the case have been provided and the investigation into the death is currently ongoing.
(WASHINGTON) — Three weeks into Donald Trump’s breakneck effort to remake the federal government, the rapid pace of lawsuits pushing back against his orders — and a number of legal setbacks for the Trump administration — have challenged the Department of Justice, seemingly overwhelming the government lawyers tasked with defending the president in court.
In a court filing Monday night, Justice Department lawyers acknowledged making two significant errors last week during a court hearing about the dismantling of the foreign aid agency USAID. While DOJ attorneys last week claimed that 500 employees at USAID had been put on leave and that only future contracts had been put on pause, more than 2,100 employees had actually been placed on leave while both future and existing contracts were frozen, according to the filing.
“Defendants sincerely regret these inadvertent misstatements based on information provided to counsel immediately prior to the hearing and have made every effort to provide reliable information in the declaration supporting their opposition to a preliminary injunction,” DOJ lawyers wrote to the judge overseeing the case.
During the USAID hearing last week, Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, expressed frustration that the government had not provided him sufficient information.
“I need to know what the government’s official position is right now. What is happening?” Nichols said. “Is the government paying people or not?”
The Trump administration has faced a torrent of lawsuits over the last two weeks, with judges over the last two days blocking them from enforcing a federal buyout program, cutting funding for health research, and removing public health data from government websites.
After a New York judge blocked Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury Department records on Saturday, both DOGE head Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance began to publicly float the idea of defying the court orders.
Justice Department representatives did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
During a hearing in the Treasury Department case, the DOJ claimed that Marko Elez — a SpaceX employee-turned-DOGE cost-cutter who briefly resigned last week after the Wall Street Journal reported on racist social media posts — was a “special government employee” within the Department of the Treasury.
In a filing Monday, the DOJ corrected themselves to note that Elez was actually a full-fledged Treasury Department employee — a “Special Advisor for Information Technology and Modernization” according to the filing — who is subject to additional ethics requirements.
During a hearing last week on whether the DOJ should be blocked from disseminating a list of federal agents and employees who worked on cases involving the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, a DOJ attorney was unable to say with confidence whether the government might eventually release the list, frustrating the judge overseeing the case.
“You represent the government,” U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb said sternly. “The White House wants this information. Does the government have present intent to publicly release names of FBI agents that worked on Jan. 6 cases?”
“People who have the list don’t have present intent,” replied the attorney, Jeremy Simon, who then had to ask for a series of short recesses as he was pressed to provide answers on the government’s stance.
At one point Simon needed to excuse himself into the hallway to speak by phone with his superiors.
The legal challenges began immediately after Trump ignited his barrage of Day-1 executive orders. During a hearing on the administration’s short-lived federal funding freeze, a DOJ attorney appeared unable to provide a clear answer about the extent of the White House’s new policy.
“It seems like the federal government currently doesn’t actually know the full scope of the programs that are going to be subject to the pause. Is that correct?” U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan asked the attorney.
“I can only speak for myself, which is just based on the limited time frame here, that I do not have a comprehensive list,” replied DOJ lawyer Daniel Schwei. “It just depends.”
And during the first court hearing about Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, the position of defending Trump’s order put Brett Shumate, the acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s civil division, in a federal judge’s firing line.
“In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour asked Shumate during the hearing.
“Yes, we think it is,” Shumate said, drawing the judge’s rebuke.
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” Coughenour said. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
A constitutional law expert told ABC News that DOJ attorneys have been rebuked by judges of all stripes.
“They are doing this regardless of geography and regardless of who appointed them,” said Loyola Marymount University law professor Justin Levitt. “So you’ve seen pushback from Reagan appointees, you’ve seen pushback from Bush appointees, you’ve seen pushback from Obama appointees and Trump appointees and Biden appointees, and that’s going to continue.”
Levitt said the results have generally not been in the Trump administration’s favor.
“As far as I can tell, they’re winless in the courts,” he said.
(NEW YORK) — A federal judge in Manhattan on Friday will consider whether to continue blocking Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing sensitive Treasury Department payment systems as part of the Trump’s administration’s efforts to cut federal spending.
The attorneys general of 19 states have argued that allowing Musk’s associates to access the payment system would be a “huge cybersecurity risk” and potentially allow the Trump administration to unlawfully “block federal funds from reaching beneficiaries who do not align with the President’s political agenda.”
“All of the States’ residents whose [personal identifiable information] and sensitive financial information is stored in the payment files that reside within the payment systems are at risk of having that information compromised and used against them,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit comes as Musk’s cost-cutting troops have gained access to at least 16 federal agencies, with Trump recently signing an executive order giving DOGE additional authority to help carry out massive layoffs across the government as part of his campaign pledge to trim the federal bureaucracy.
The lawsuit — filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James and 18 other state attorneys general — raised particular concern about unvetted DOGE employees accessing sensitive government records including social security numbers, bank information, and federal tax returns. According to the lawsuit, Musk being able to access the Bureau of Fiscal Services — which serves as the country’s checkbook by dispersing trillions in funding — could allow Musk to cut off government spending from the source.
In a court order last weekend, a federal judge in New York temporarily blocked the Trump administration from allowing individuals associated with DOGE to access the Treasury department records and payment systems.
“The Court’s firm assessment is that, for the reasons stated by the States, they will face irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. That is both because of the risk that the new policy presents of the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking,” U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote, prompting a Mush to blast the judge and Vice President JD Vance to question the legality of the order.
While the Trump administration challenged the temporary order, U.S. District Judge Jeanette Vargas — a Biden-nominated judge who will hear the case going forward — reiterated that there was “sound factual basis” for the temporary restraining order when it was imposed late last week.
Judge Vargas will consider granting a preliminary injunction to block DOGE’s access to the systems at Friday’s hearing.
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin have signed onto the lawsuit.
(LOS ANGELES) — Lyle and Erik Menendez will appear at independent parole board hearings on June 13 as a part of the brothers’ bid for clemency, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced.
“On June 13, we will have the parole hearing board recommendation,” the governor explained Tuesday on his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom.” “That independent analysis will help guide the decision-making that my office is independently reviewing as it relates to the clemency application.”
The June hearings will follow the 90-day independent risk assessment that Newsom announced two weeks ago. He is ordering the parole board to conduct the assessment to determine whether the brothers pose “an unreasonable risk to the public” if released.
The governor wants an assessment of “the applicant’s current risk level, the impact of a commutation on victims and survivors, the applicant’s self-development and conduct since the offense, and if the applicant has made use of available rehabilitative programs, addressed treatment needs, and mitigated risk factors for reoffending,” his office said in a statement.
Newsom stressed on his podcast Tuesday that his clemency decision will only be “influenced by the facts.”
Celebrity does have “an impact, but in what direction does it weigh?” Newsom said. “Sometimes it’s used actually against people, because they’re so high profile, they’re actually held to a higher level of scrutiny and standards. At the same time, you don’t want that celebrity also to influence on the other side.”
“That’s why I move forward with the Board of Parole hearings to independently review with a group of experts — forensic psychologists and others — the facts of this case,” he said.
Newsom said he has not watched Ryan Murphy’s fictional series, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” which premiered on Netflix in September 2024 and brought new attention to the infamous case.
“I’ve seen a few clips here and there on social media,” he said. “I don’t intend to watch these series because I don’t want to be influenced by them. I just want to be influenced by the facts.”
“I’m obviously familiar with the Menendez brothers, just through the news over the course of many decades,” Newsom added. “But not to the degree that many others are because of all of these documentaries and all of the attention they’ve received. So that won’t bias my independent and objective review.”
Lyle and Erik Menendez are serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murders of their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez. Over 20 of their relatives are pushing for their release after 35 years behind bars.
Besides clemency, the brothers are pursuing two other paths to freedom: resentencing and a petition to review new evidence.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced Monday that he’s opposed to resentencing, arguing the brothers hadn’t taken responsibility for their actions and calling 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 at a news conference.
Hochman’s decision is an about-face from his predecessor, George Gascón, who announced in October that he supported resentencing for the brothers. Gascón praised the work Lyle and Erik Menendez did behind bars to rehabilitate themselves and help other inmates.
Newsom said on his podcast that Hochman’s decision won’t impact the clemency process.
The final decision on resentencing is made by the judge; a hearing is set for March 20 and 21.
Hochman is also opposed to 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.
Hochman announced last month that he’s asked the court to deny the habeas corpus petition, arguing the new evidence isn’t credible or admissible.
ABC News’ Jenna Harrison contributed to this report.
