Paul Pelosi attack: David DePape sentenced to life in prison in state trial
David DePape in Berkeley, Calif., Dec. 13, 2013. Michael Short/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
(SAN FRANCISCO) — David DePape was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison without the possibility of parole in the state trial over the hammer attack against Paul Pelosi.
A jury found DePape guilty in June of false imprisonment of an elder by violence or menace, residential burglary, threatening a family member of a public official, dissuading a witness by force or threat and aggravated kidnapping.
Before the sentencing, DePape’s attorneys asked for a new trial. That motion was denied.
DePape was also sentenced to 30 years in prison in May in the federal case, in which he was convicted of seeking to hold former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hostage and attacking her husband with a hammer.
DePape had broken into the Pelosi home in San Francisco looking for Nancy Pelosi, who was not home at the time.
Following the guilty verdict in the state case, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said the conviction ensures that DePape “will face consequences for his heinous crimes against the Pelosi family and our democracy.”
DePape’s public defender, Adam Lipson, said at the time they were disappointed by the verdict.
“I don’t believe that this was a kidnapping for ransom, I think that it’s really unfortunate that he was charged this way,” Lipson told reporters, adding that his client had lived a “very isolated” life and had gotten “wrapped up in a lot of conspiracy theory-type situations.”
DePape did not testify during the three-week state trial. He had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Paul Pelosi testified that on the night of the attack, DePape woke him by asking, “Are you Paul Pelosi?” and had a hammer and zip ties, according to San Francisco ABC station KGO.
“He seemed very intent on what he was going to do,” Paul Pelosi said, according to KGO.
DePape apologized for the attack during his sentencing hearing in the federal case.
“I’m sorry for what I did, especially what I did to Paul Pelosi,” he said during the resentencing hearing, according to KGO. “I should have just left the house when I realized Nancy Pelosi wasn’t home.”
A federal jury found DePape guilty in November 2023 of attempted kidnapping of a federal officer or employee, and assault of an immediate family member of a federal official.
After a judge sentenced DePape to 30 years in federal prison in May, the sentencing was reopened when prosecutors noted that the defendant was never formally given the opportunity to address the court during his sentencing. He was again sentenced to 30 years in prison at a subsequent hearing.
DePape admitted during the federal trial that he was looking for Nancy Pelosi to question her about Russian influence on the 2016 election and planned to hold her hostage, but only Paul Pelosi was at their San Francisco home when he broke in on Oct. 28, 2022.
Paul Pelosi said on the stand during the federal trial that DePape repeatedly asked him, “Where is Nancy?”
DePape hit Paul Pelosi, then 82 years old, with a hammer, causing major injuries, including a skull fracture, but told the court that Paul Pelosi was “never my target.”
“I’m sorry that he got hurt,” DePape said during the federal trial. “I reacted because my plan was basically ruined.”
The incident was captured on police body camera video by officers who responded to the scene.
Paul Pelosi was hospitalized for six days following the attack and underwent surgery to repair the skull fracture and serious injuries to his right arm and hands.
(NEW YORK) — A day after former President Donald Trump asked a federal appeals court for a stay that would delay the sentencing in his New York hush money case, the Manhattan district attorney’s office on Thursday asked the court to reject Trump’s request.
Trump’s longshot attempt to delay his Sept. 18 sentencing came a day after District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied Trump’s bid to move his criminal case to federal court.
In a 28-page filing late Wednesday, Trump’s attorneys asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to stay Judge Hellerstein’s order — a move that would delay Trump’s criminal case, including his sentencing, from moving forward.
“Absent the requested stay, President Trump and the American people will suffer irreparable harm,” defense attorneys Emil Bove and Todd Blanche wrote.
In their filing on Thursday, prosecutors said there’s no reason for the appellate court to get involved.
“For one thing, state court is already considering defendant’s request to defer a ruling on his post-trial motion and to delay the sentencing hearing until after the election,” Steven Wu, chief of appeals in the Manhattan DA’s office, said in a letter filed to the court.
Trump’s lawyers claimed in the appeal that the former president’s case belongs in federal court because the allegations and evidence in the case relate to Trump’s official acts as president — an argument defense attorneys said was bolstered by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.
In their filing, Trump’s attorneys emphasized the “irreparable harm” of allowing the sentencing to proceed because it could result in Trump’s “unconstitutional incarceration while the 2024 Presidential election is imminent.”
“Unlawfully incarcerating President Trump in the final weeks of the Presidential election, while early voting is ongoing, would irreparably harm the First Amendment rights of President Trump and voters located far beyond New York County,” defense attorneys wrote.
Trump was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election. He has said he will appeal the decision.
On Friday, a panel of judges on the same federal appeals court is set to consider Trump’s appeal of a 2023 civil judgment that found him liable for the sexual abuse of magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.
(NEW YORK) — Universities across the country have transformed at the command of anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) legislation. At the University of Texas-Austin, the legislation led to resource cancellations, office closures, and staff firings — pushing some students to create alternatives to their school’s defunct diversity programs.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed SB 17 into law in 2023, barring public institutions of higher education from having diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, as well as programs, activities, and training conducted by those offices. The law also restricts training or hiring policies based on race, gender identity or sexual orientation.
His office told ABC News in a recent statement that the legislation was intended to ensure people “advance based on talent and merit at public colleges and universities in Texas.”
Abbott’s office criticized universities for using DEI offices to “advance political agendas and exclude conservative viewpoints on college campuses. These efforts adversely affect our students, limit exposure to diverse thought, and destroy our education system,” read the statement from Abbott’s press secretary Andrew Mahaleris.
ABC News spoke to UT Austin students and a terminated faculty member about the compounding impact the loss of diversity programs has had on campus.
The Monarch Program
The long list of potential college life logistics – like how to pay for school, open an independent bank account or get a job – is even longer for undocumented students and those with temporary status.
These students are not eligible for federal student aid, federal work-study, are limited in their access to grants and scholarships and, in some cases, cannot accept paying jobs while in school.
With limited guidance and limited options, Arely, a student at UT Austin who asked to be referenced by only her first name out of privacy concerns, said her status created many unknowns and uncertainties for her future when applying to colleges. As a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient, Martinez told ABC News she worked hard to be at the top of her high school class so she could get into a good school.
DACA is a U.S. government policy that allows some undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States temporarily and work. Recipients must have entered the United States illegally before their 16th birthday and be younger than 31 years old on June 15, 2012, according to the U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services website.
“It was always kind of told to me, like, your education is going to be the only way you’re going to be able to kind of push forward and build something out for yourself – it’s through your education,” said Arely.
At UT Austin, students like Arely had a place to turn to for answers. Monarch, an on-campus student program for undocumented and temporary status students, hosted workshops on those logistical concerns, mental health resources at little to no cost, career fairs specifically geared toward undocumented students, panel discussions with undocumented grads, and a donor-based scholarship.
“Those are the things that I would help students navigate,” said Alicia Moreno, the former Monarch Student Program Coordinator. “Like working with campus partners to create resources and help students understand what their options were because many students that I heard – before they ran into Monarch – they believed their options were really slim.”
Monarch was a way for the university to ensure students could succeed despite the barriers they face due to their status, Moreno said.
“A lot of my college experience would have definitely been way more different had Monarch not been there,” said Arely. “I can’t imagine in what situation I would have been had I not had that support system.”
Arely, who worked at the center, said the Monarch team also would get requests from faculty and staff asking to hold trainings regarding the challenges undocumented students face.
“A lot of these students had gone their whole college career having access to these resources, and now they were suddenly taken away and ripped out of their hands,” said Arely. “Especially for, like, incoming freshmen who had maybe specifically applied to UT Austin because of this program, and now they’re going to get to the UT campus and they’re going to realize that program that was supposed to support them and acknowledge them is no longer there.”
Moreno was one of about 60 people whose positions were terminated following the closure of DEI offices and related initiatives, according to a joint letter from the Texas NAACP & Texas Conference of American Association of University Professors.
The university initially stated that some programs would be shifted to other divisions or renamed to complement ongoing operations. Monarch, according to students and former staff, was also initially not targeted by SB 17 since it does not specifically refer to any race or ethnicity.
However, university officials later stated that the law changed the scope of some programs, making them broader and creating overlap between existing programs.
“We know these programs and the dedicated staff who run them will continue to have positive impacts on our campus and community,” read the university’s letter referring to the programs that remained.
The terminations came shortly after state Sen. Brandon Creighton, who introduced the legislation, warned universities against simply renaming their DEI programs, threatening to freeze funding.
“I was getting ready to prepare for the next year. My office was just painted. I had just gotten that Exemplary Service Award, and then – boom! – we were all terminated,” Moreno said.
Students say they have been left to pick up the pieces without the dedicated resources to support them. Victoria Uriostegui-Garcia, a member of a student-run group called Rooted, said her organization has become a substitute for the services once provided by Monarch. It is one of several student-run organizations to take on the responsibilities of the now-shuttered offices.
“It falls on students again to provide their own resources, which is a very heavy burden,” said Uriostegui-Garcia. “We’re going to try our best.”
Students lead the charge
Among the centers and programs shut down by UT Austin were Multicultural Engagement Center, the Gender and Sexuality Center, and the Fearless Leadership Institute – a professional development program for African American & Hispanic women.
However, UT Austin is not the only school facing these restrictions. Schools across the state — and in some states across the country — have seen similar mass closures and firings following the implementation of anti-DEI legislation.
At least nine states have implemented legislation restricting DEI in education: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, lowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
Supporters of anti-DEI legislation, like Creighton, have applauded the changes made by SB 17. Creighton argued that it returned the university to “a merit-based operational framework, ensuring that every student, faculty, and staff member is afforded equal opportunities and not silenced by DEI-oriented policies,” he said in a March 2024 statement.
UT Austin states that it remains vigilant in ongoing efforts to ensure the university’s compliance with the state law, defining DEI offices as any office that implements programs or training with reference to race, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation, “influences hiring or employment practices” with respect to those identities or promotes “differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals” on the basis of identity.
I recognize that strong feelings have surrounded SB 17 from the beginning and will shape many Longhorns’ perceptions of these measures,” said university president Jay Hartzell. “It is important that we respect the perspectives and experiences of our fellow Longhorns as the changes we are announcing today take effect. It is also important that this continues to be a welcoming, supportive community for all.”
UT Austin did not respond to ABC News’ requests for further comment.
Alex and Sophia, members of Texas Students for DEI who asked to be referenced by only their first names out of privacy concerns, say the services were targeted for specific groups who have historically faced discrimination or barriers to success, but were open to all students.
Alex noted, for example, that a closet of free clothes located in the gender center was open to all: “If it meant that you got kicked out of the home, or if it meant that you needed clothes for a job — hey, there’s clothes available, no questions asked.”
Alex and Sophia say many students they have spoken to did not know about SB 17 until it passed and they started seeing their centers close on campus.
Student organizations have stepped up to the plate, hoping to foster community in a time when resources backed by the university have shrunk. They say schools across the state have “over-complied” with the law — leading to a chilling effect of classroom curriculum and discussion concerning race, gender and sexual orientation.
“Even now, if you read some of the syllabi for some classes, they’ll have a disclaimer at the end saying no material in this class is pertaining to SB 17 or falls under the guidelines of SB 17,” said Sophia, despite the UT Austin website stating explicitly that academic instruction and research is not to be impacted by the law. “They’re expecting to be censored. They’re expecting the state to want to do things against them, and so they’re, they feel less comfortable talking about these topics openly, which ultimately affects our education.”
She continued, “We are a university, we’re a place of learning, and learning requires people to be open about information in a way that isn’t censored, and when a state tries to censor that, they ultimately harm themselves.”
With SB 17 passed, students are worried the state will continue to embrace other anti-DEI initiatives. They hope to safeguard from further efforts by educating the college community about what DEI is and what it means.
“It isn’t just one university. It’s all of us. And silence isn’t really the way out,” said Alex.
The Pentagon on Tuesday granted honorable discharges to more than 800 veterans who were separated from the U.S. military because of their sexual orientation during the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which was in effect from February 1994 to September 2011.
More than 13,000 service members were kicked out under the policy, close to 2,000 of whom received less than fully honorable discharges, according to Christa Specht, head of legal policy at the DOD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. After 2011, most of those who filed appeals were upgraded, but others might not have been aware this was an option.
Last year, the Defense Department began a proactive review of the remaining cases. The Pentagon announced Tuesday that its review has led to an upgrade for more than 800 veterans, without them having to appeal. This could affect the benefits they have access to.
“After a year of exceptional work, the Military Department Review Boards directed relief in 96.8% of the 851 cases that they proactively reviewed. What this means is that of the nearly 13,500 individuals who were administratively separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, and served long enough to receive a merit-based characterization of service, 96% now have an honorable discharge,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement.
The vast majority of those separated under the policy now have honorable discharges, according to Austin.
DADT was signed into law in 1993 under the administration of then-President Bill Clinton. In December 2010, then-President Barack Obama signed into law a repeal of the policy. It took effect in 2011.
