Over 2 dozen 3D printed ghost guns seized from teen’s bedroom: DA
A San Jose teen is facing criminal charges for allegedly manufacturing ghost guns in his bedroom. (Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office)
(SAN JOSE, Calif.) — An 18-year-old is facing charges for allegedly using a 3D printer to manufacture ghost guns in his bedroom, according to the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office.
Jacob Reyes allegedly had two working 3D weapon printers and 27 finished or almost finished guns in his room in San Jose, California. Some of the guns were modified to act as machine guns, and ammunition was found in the home, according to the DA’s office.
All of the weapons seized from Reyes’ bedroom, except one, were manufactured using the printers, the DA’s office said.
Reyes was arraigned on Thursday on charges related to unlicensed manufacturing of firearms using a 3D printer and felony charges of possession of a machine gun, the DA’s office said.
If convicted, he faces prison time, according to the DA’s office.
“There is a black market of weapons thriving right under our noses,” District Attorney Jeff Rosen said in a statement. “Once again, the DA’s investigators and their law enforcement partners have taken off the streets an arsenal of untraceable, illegal, and deadly weapons.”
Printed documents available at Epstein Library on the U.S. Department of Justice website are seen in this illustration photo taken in Krakow, Poland on February 6, 2026. (Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The Department of Justice on Thursday released three previously withheld FBI interview reports from 2019 related to a woman who made uncorroborated allegations that she was abused by Donald Trump in the 1980s, when she was a minor.
In a statement on social media, the Department of Justice said the interview summaries — known as FBI 302 reports — were initially withheld from the January release of millions of pages of DOJ documents related to Jeffrey Epstein because they were believed to be duplicative of other documents.
“What we found through extensive review is that a published 302 — additionally disclosed in a published spreadsheet — had subsequent 302s that were coded as ‘duplicative.’ After this was brought to our attention, we reviewed the entire batch with the similar coding and discovered 15 documents were incorrectly coded as duplicative,” the DOJ account said.
The statement did not appear to explain why, beyond possible human error, the records were marked as duplicative. As of Thursday evening, the DOJ database still does not include the handwritten notes from the interviews themselves.
According to the reports, the FBI interviewed the woman four times between July and October 2019. During each of the interviews with the woman, whose identity is redacted, she made allegations of abuse against Epstein.
In her second interview with federal investigators, she claimed that Epstein once took her to either New York or New Jersey where he introduced to Trump when she was between the ages of 13 and 15 years old. According to the report, she claimed Trump abused her during that trip.
In the fourth interview in October 2019, the woman declined to provide additional details about the alleged interaction with Trump when asked by agents, according to the summary of that interview.
Her statements to the federal agents allege that the incident with Trump took place in the early-to-mid 1980s — a period when Epstein and Trump did not appear to be in contact.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing related to his relationship with Epstein or any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activity.
In her initial interview with the FBI, the woman claims she was sexually abused by Epstein after being hired for what she thought was a babysitting job, but she said there were no children present. Similar abuse occurred, she said, on several more occasions, according to the summary of the first report, which was released by the DOJ in January.
The witness said multiple alleged incidents with Epstein took place in South Carolina, a location not known to have been frequented by Epstein. The timing of the allegations would place them two decades before law enforcement in Florida began investigating Epstein for sexual exploitation of minors.
Before the additional records were released Thursday, Congressional Democrats had accused the Justice Department of illegally withholding the documents to protect the president.
“It is unconscionable, it is illegal, and [Attorney General] Pam Bondi and the president need to answer where those files are,” California Democrat Robert Garcia, D-Calif. said last week.
In a statement in January, the Department of Justice said that some investigative files in the massive tranche released would include unsubstantiated claims about Trump.
“Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false, and if they have a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already,” the statement said.
In this Sept. 20, 2013, file photo, Ghislaine Maxwell attends an event in New York. Laura Cavanaugh/Getty Images, FILE
(WASHINGTON) — Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted co-conspirator of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, on Wednesday asked a federal court to vacate or correct her conviction and 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking of minors and other offenses — a move that could complicate the release of the Epstein files as mandated by a new law.
Maxwell has exhausted all of her direct appeals, but filed a petition which contends “substantial new evidence has emerged” demonstrating she did not receive a fair trial, according to Maxwell’s filing in federal court in New York.
“This newly available evidence — derived from litigation against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, various financial institutions, and the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as from sworn depositions, released records, and other verified sources–shows that exculpatory information was withheld, false testimony presented, and material facts misrepresented to the jury and the Court,” Maxwell wrote in a habeas petition, which she filed “pro se” — without an attorney.
The petition alleges nine separate grounds — including juror misconduct and government suppression of evidence — for Maxwell’s contention that constitutional violations undermined the integrity of her 2021 trial.
“In the light of the full evidentiary record, no reasonable juror would have convicted her. Accordingly, she seeks vacatur of her conviction, an evidentiary hearing, and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate and justice requires,” Maxwell wrote in the 50-page filing, which was submitted to the court in seven separately scanned sections.
There are two gaps in the page numbers, which could be the result of an editing or filing error. After the documents first posted on the electronic case docket Wednesday afternoon, they were briefly taken down before appearing again. Maxwell’s handwritten signature appears at the end of the petition.
Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York declined to comment on Maxwell’s court filing.
Maxwell, 63, was convicted in 2021 — after a three-week trial in Manhattan federal court — of five felonies, including conspiracy, transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity and sex trafficking of a minor. A higher court rejected her post-trial appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to take up her case.
Many of the issues raised in Maxwell’s petition were addressed either at her trial or by the appellate court. She contends, however, that information and evidence previously unavailable to her and her attorneys has since emerged that should render her conviction “invalid, unsafe, and infirm.”
To prevail in a habeas petition, Maxwell would need to show that serious constitutional violations occurred during her trial or sentencing, or that significant new evidence has emerged demonstrating her innocence. A successful habeas petition could result in a new trial or a reduction of her sentence.
Maxwell’s last-ditch effort for relief from the courts comes as the Justice Department faces a Friday deadline to publicly disclose its investigative files on Epstein and Maxwell in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump last month.
Maxwell’s newly filed petition presents a possible wrinkle in the long-running controversy. The Epstein Files Transparency Act contains exemptions permitting Attorney General Pam Bondi to withhold certain records if their publication could jeopardize active criminal investigations or prosecutions.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer granted a DOJ motion to lift restrictions on grand jury transcripts and other nonpublic records from the case, citing the requirement of the newly passed legislation. An attorney for Maxwell had argued that public disclosure of those materials would impact her ability to get a fair retrial if she were to succeed in her bid for a new trial.
“Releasing the grand jury materials from her case, which contain untested and unproven allegations, would create undue prejudice so severe that it would foreclose the possibility of a fair retrial should Ms. Maxwell’s habeas petition succeed,” the lawyers wrote.
Epstein, the wealthy financier and convicted sex offender, died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019.
Maxwell’s habeas submission cites to than 140 exhibits, including post-trial news articles and excerpts from podcasts, books and documentaries about the case in support of her claims of juror misconduct, suppression of evidence and allegedly improper coordination between prosecutors and attorneys for alleged victims. As of Wednesday afternoon, the exhibits had not yet been posted on the electronic docket of the case.
Maxwell devotes a substantial portion of her petition to a claim that the government failed to disclose to her defense team the prior state grand jury testimony of a former Palm Beach police officer who participated in a search of Epstein’s Florida home in 2005.
Retired officer Gregory Parkinson was on the stand for one of the Maxwell trial’s more dramatic moments, when prosecutors carried into the courtroom a green massage table that Parkinson testified was the same one he removed from a bathroom in Epstein’s seaside home following the execution of a search warrant.
Prosecutors said a manufacturer’s label indicating the table was made in California constituted proof of an interstate nexus to the sex-trafficking of a minor — the witness identified at trial as “Carolyn” — which was a critical element of the two most serious charges against Maxwell.
“So when Carolyn … was abused on a massage table that was manufactured in California, that proves that there was at least a minimal effect on interstate commerce, which is all that’s required for this count,” prosecutor Allison Moe said during closing arguments.
But Maxwell contends in her habeas petition that her lack of access to the state grand jury transcripts during her trial deprived her attorneys of the ability to cross-examine the retired officer about his previous sworn testimony. What Parkinson said in 2006, Maxwell argues, “conflicted with his trial testimony” about where the massage table was found and “undermined” the government’s assertions about a critical piece of evidence.
Parkinson’s testimony before the state grand jury in 2006 was made public in 2024 as a result of a lawsuit by the Palm Beach Post and a new state law specifically crafted to allow for the disclosure of the transcripts.
Earlier this year, Maxwell was transferred from a low-security prison in Florida to a minimum-security prison camp for women in Texas. That switch occurred less than two weeks after an unusual meeting in July between Maxwell and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as personal counsel to President Trump.
U.S. President Donald Trump gaggles with reporters while aboard Air Force One on February 6, 2026 en route to Palm Beach, Florida. Samuel Corum/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — The fight over the Trump administration’s appointment of U.S. attorneys has taken another turn with the Justice Department’s firing of a newly appointed U.S. attorney in Northern New York.
After the DOJ’s appointment of acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone III ran out, a court on Wednesday appointed Donald Kinsella to lead the U.S. attorney’s office in that district, according to a notice from the court.
But just hours after Kinsella’s appointment, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche fired him.
The ongoing battle centers on who has the right to select the prosecutors who lead the nation’s U.S. attorneys offices, with the Justice Department appointing a series of acting attorneys general despite laws that don’t allow those positions to be filled by consecutive interim nominees without either Senate confirmation or appointment by the federal judiciary.
“Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys. @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella,” Blanche tweeted Wednesday, hours after Kinsella’s appointment by the court.
The head of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, Dan Scavino, tweeted that Kinsella should “check your email.”
Last fall a court found that Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide who was appointed by President Donald Trump as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, had been unlawfully appointed because the law doesn’t allow the position to be filled by two interim nominees in a row, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
After a federal judge threw out the indictments Halligan obtained against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, Attorney General Pam Bondi filed an appeal this week arguing that she has the authority to address U.S. attorney vacancies.
Trump’s former personal attorney, Alina Habba, was disqualified in December from serving as interim U.S. attorney in New Jersey after the Trump administration sought to extend her appointment, and courts in Nevada and California have made similar rulings involving the appointments of acting U.S. attorneys in those districts.
