School bus attendant seen hitting autistic student in surveillance footage
Albuquerque Public Schools
(ALBUQUERGUE, N.M.) — A school bus attendant for Albuquerque, New Mexico, Public Schools has been arrested after she was seen in surveillance video repeatedly hitting an autistic student.
Debbie Chavira, 64, is accused of striking the child dozens of times over the course of 10 days, according to an incident report.
Police said Chavira struck the student in his face, torso and arms a total of 59 times between Aug. 26 and Sept. 4. On Sept. 4, school officials reported her after the child showed up “with fresh scratch marks on the back of his neck,” the incident report states.
While investigating the alleged abuse, officials viewed additional surveillance footage, where they say Chavira was seen repeatedly hitting the child over the span of 10 days.
Chavira struck the child “open-handed, closed fisted, and with a plastic (yellow) ‘child check’ sign,” and did so “intentionally and without justifiable cause,” according to the incident report.
Investigators were unable to interview the child due to him “being autistic and non-verbal” and unable to “communicate through writing either,” the report states.
Chavira resigned from her job Sept. 5, according to Albuquerque ABC affiliate KOAT, and was arrested on Oct. 4. She has been released from jail and is now under pretrial supervision.
She has been charged with five counts of abandonment or abuse of a child. A representative could not immediately be found for Chavira.
In a statement to ABC News, Martin Salazar, a spokesperson for Albuquerque Public Schools, said the school district does “not tolerate this kind of behavior.”
“Upon discovering what was happening, we immediately placed bus attendant Debbie Chavira on leave and notified the APS Police Department. APS Police launched an investigation and filed criminal charges. Ms. Chavira resigned shortly after being placed on leave,” Salazar said.
(LOS ANGELES) — Lyle and Erik Menendez are currently serving life behind bars for the murders of their parents in the family’s Beverly Hills home. But after more than three decades in prison, a renewed interest in the headline-grabbing trial has the brothers pursuing two tracks to potential freedom.
The Menendez case dates back to August 1989, when Lyle Menendez, then 21, and Erik Menendez, then 18, shot and killed their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez.
Prosecutors alleged Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their wealthy parents for financial gain, while the defense argued the brothers acted in self-defense after enduring years of sexual abuse by their father.
Their first trials — which captured the nation’s attention with cameras in the courtroom — ended in mistrials.
In 1996, at the end of a second trial — in which the judge barred much of the sex abuse evidence — Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to two consecutive life prison terms without the possibility of parole.
The sensational case gained new attention this fall with the release of the Netflix drama “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story” and the Netflix documentary “The Menendez Brothers.”
The brothers currently have two potential paths to their release before the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
Resentencing
One track involves a review of their sentence based on factors including rehabilitation, which Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón is evaluating.
Gascón said he plans to make his resentencing decision this month. If Gascón recommends resentencing, his recommendation will go to a judge to decide whether the brothers will be released, receive a lesser sentence or get a new trial.
Gascón told ABC News in October any recommendation for resentencing would take into account the decades the brothers already served and their behavior in prison.
Mark Geragos, the Menendez brothers’ lawyer, called Erik and Lyle model prisoners who worked tirelessly to reform themselves with no expectation they’d be released.
“Given the totality of the circumstances, I don’t think that they deserve to be in prison until they die,” Gascón told ABC News.
Gascón said since he’s been in office, they have resentenced over 300 people, of which four have reoffended.
The other track concerns the brothers’ petition filed last year for a review of new evidence not presented at the original trial. Through the habeas corpus petition, the court could reverse the conviction or reopen proceedings.
Gascón said his office is evaluating allegations from a member of the boy band Menudo who said he was molested by Jose Menendez, and a letter Erik Menendez wrote to a cousin eight months before the murders detailing his alleged abuse.
Erik Menendez’s cousin testified about the alleged abuse at trial, but Erik Menendez’s letter — which would have corroborated the cousin’s testimony — wasn’t unearthed until several years ago, according to Geragos.
“The combination of those two we believe provide more than ample basis to set aside the result of the second trial,” Geragos said at a press briefing earlier this month.
Geragos said the district attorney could either oppose the habeas and decide to litigate it, or “they could concede the habeas and say, give them a new trial.”
“I’m hoping that sometime before Thanksgiving, which is when the next response is due, that the DA will either concede the habeas or join us in asking for resentencing,” Geragos said.
The next court date in the case is scheduled for Nov. 26, Gascón said.
Family calls for release
Nearly two dozen relatives have urged the district attorney to recommend the brothers be resentenced and released.
Lyle and Erik Menendez “were failed by the very people who should have protected them — by their parents, by the system, by society at large,” Kitty Menendez’s sister, Joan Andersen VanderMolen, said at a news conference on Wednesday.
“Their actions, while tragic, were the desperate response of two boys trying to survive the unspeakable cruelty of their father,” she said of the murders. “As their aunt, I had no idea of the extent of the abuse they suffered.”
Behind bars, the siblings “persevered,” Anamaria Baralt, niece of Jose Menendez, said. “They have sought to better themselves and serve as a support and inspiration for survivors all over the world. Their continued incarceration serves no rehabilitative purpose.”
(ERWIN, Tenn.) — At least 54 people were trapped on the roof of a hospital in Tennessee on Friday after floodwaters due to Hurricane Helene quickly surrounded the medical center.
Everyone was rescued safely, Sen. Bill Hagerty said in a statement.
Unicoi County Hospital — located in the northeastern part of the state on the border with North Carolina — took on so much flooding that those inside could no longer be safely evacuated and had to relocate to the roof.
In addition to the people trapped on the roof, seven people were in rescue boats. The National Guard and the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency (TEMA) are currently engaged in “a dangerous rescue operation,” according to Ballad Health, a health care company that runs a chain of hospitals.
“I don’t think very many people have seen something like this before,” Ballad Health CEO Alan Levine said while speaking at Unicoi County High School. “The most important thing is the safety of our employees and patients. Thank God, thanks to the great work of Tennessee and Virginia partnering to help us get this rescue underway, they’re all safe.”
Rep. Diana Harshbarger posted on the social platform X on Friday afternoon that helicopters had arrived to help evacuate people off the roof.
Ballad Health said in a statement on X on Friday that it received notice a little after 9:30 a.m. ET from the Unicoi County Emergency Management Agency that the hospital needed to be evacuated to the water from a nearby river rising quickly.
Although ambulances were quick to help evacuate patients, the hospital became flooded so quickly that the ambulances could not safely approach the hospital.
TEMA coordinated with local emergency management agencies so boats could be deployed to assist with the evacuation. However, water began flooding the hospital building causing an “extremely dangerous and impassable” that prevented boats from reaching the hospital.
What’s more, high winds had previously prevented helicopters from evacuating the hospital.
“We ask everyone to please pray for the people at Unicoi County Hospital, the first responders on-scene, the military leaders who are actively working to help, and our state leaders,” Ballad Health said in a statement. “Ballad Health appreciates the support and effort of Mayors Garland Evely, Patty Woodby and Joe Grandy, each of whom has offered assistance and have maintained ongoing contact with Ballad Health leadership.”
ABC News’ Alexandra Faul and Mike Noble contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — Seven months after a trial judge fined Donald Trump $454 million for business frauds that the judge said “shock the conscience,” a New York appeals court appeared skeptical Thursday of some of the arguments underpinning the New York attorney general’s case against the former president.
A panel of five judges at New York’s Appellate Division, First Department heard Trump’s appeal and peppered both sides with concerns about the case — appearing to question some of the key elements of the state’s case, including the application of a consumer fraud statute, the justification for the financial penalty prosecutors sought, and the private nature of the transactions in question, mirroring well-worn defense arguments that failed during the case’s lengthy trial this year.
Trump himself did not attend Thursday’s hearing in New York.
“We have a situation where there were no victims, no complaints,” argued D. John Sauer, the same attorney who successfully argued Trump’s presidential immunity appeal to the Supreme Court earlier this year. “How is there a capacity or tendency to deceive when you have these clear disclaimers?”
While the judges expressed some skepticism about some of the defense’s claims — with one judge remarking that factual inaccuracies could have resulted in Trump’s statements being “completely fallacious” — some of the defense arguments were echoed in the judges’ questions.
“The defendants’ statements were not made for ordinary people,” noted Associate Justice David Friedman. “They were directed at some of the most sophisticated actors in business.”
Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale, arguing for New York Attorney General Letitia James, emphasized the magnitude of Trump’s alleged misstatements and their importance to the banks that loaned the former president hundreds of millions of dollars.
“Deutsche Bank would not have given these loans without the financial strength being inflated,” Vale said. “The financial statements were coming in each year, and they were important, critical to the loans each year.”
A series of questions also focused on the New York fraud statute — Executive Law 63 (12) — that the attorney general used to bring her case. Trump’s lawyers have insisted the law should not apply to profitable transactions between financial institutions and the Trump Organization.
“How do we draw a line or put up some guardrails to know when the attorney general is operating within her broad sphere or 63(12) or going into an area where she doesn’t have jurisdiction?” asked Associate Justice John R. Higgitt.
Vale responded by arguing that Trump’s frauds impacted consumers by inserting false and misleading information into the marketplace, and that Trump’s fine has a deterrent effect.
“A big point of these statutes is for the attorney general to go in quickly to stop the fraud and illegality before the counterparties are harmed,” Vale said.
When pressed about the size of the penalty and whether it was “tethered” to the limited harm incurred by the banks that did business with Trump, Vale argued that the profitability of the transactions should not give Trump a free pass to use false information.
“It is not an excuse to say our fraud was really successful so we should get some of the money,” said Vale.
In an 11-week trial that concluded in February, New York Judge Arthur Engoron found that Trump, his eldest sons, and two top Trump Organization executives exaggerated Trump’s wealth to secure better terms from lenders, for which he fined the former president $454 million.
Trump, following the ruling, secured a $175 million bond while he appeals the judgment.
