Woman charged in Vermont border agent's death seeks 6-month delay in death penalty decision
Teresa Youngblut, of Washington state, is part of a cultlike group known as Zizians that has been connected to six killings in three states. She's accused of firing at agent David Maland during a traffic stop on Jan. 20, the same day President Donald Trump was inaugurated and signed a sweeping executive order lifting the moratorium on federal executions.
Attorney General Pam Bondi later cited Maland's death in directing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in cases involving the murder of law enforcement officers unless they find significant mitigating circumstances. But Youngblut's lawyers argue the government has set a 'radically inadequate' and 'extraordinarily rushed' timeline for that determination.
In a motion filed late Monday, Assistant Federal Public Defenders Steven Barth and Julie Stelzig said the government has set a July 28 deadline for them to explain why the death penalty should not be sought, even though Youngblut has yet to be charged with a crime eligible for such punishment.
For now, she's charged only with using a deadly weapon against law enforcement and discharging a firearm during an assault with a deadly weapon. And even if a new indictment is imminent, she would only have a few weeks to submit evidence to the committee of lawyers that advises the attorney general on capital cases, her lawyers noted. In contrast, the average time between an indictment and a meeting of the committee is more than 14 months, they said.
'Faced with a July 28 deadline, the defense is bound to overlook not just a few isolated pieces of mitigating evidence, but whole areas of Ms. Youngblut's life that may ultimately prove fertile sources of mitigation,' wrote the attorneys. 'The government's schedule promises to turn Ms. Youngblut's submission into a near-pointless formality.'
Though Youngblut sought out a public defender experienced in death penalty cases early on, the first qualified lawyer withdrew and a new one did not join the team until recently, her lawyers said. They attributed the delay in part to a shortage of such lawyers due to the significant uptick in potential death penalty cases.
Youngblut's attorneys have asked the court to give her until at least Jan. 30, 2026, to submit her mitigation evidence to the committee and to prohibit prosecutors from making a decision about the death penalty until after the material has been reviewed. Prosecutors did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
At the time of the shooting, authorities had been watching Youngblut and her companion, Felix Bauckholt, for several days after a Vermont hotel employee reported seeing them carrying guns and wearing black tactical gear. She's accused of opening fire on border agents who pulled the car over on Interstate 91. An agent fired back, killing Bauckholt and wounding Youngblut.
The pair were among the followers of Jack LaSota, a transgender woman also known as Ziz whose online writing about veganism, gender identity and artificial intelligence attracted young, highly intelligent computer scientists who shared anarchist beliefs. Members of the group have been tied to the death of one of their own during an attack on a California landlord in 2022, the landlord's subsequent killing earlier this year, and the deaths of a Pennsylvania couple in between.
LaSota and two others face weapons and drug charges in Maryland, where they were arrested in February, while LaSota faces additional federal charges of being an armed fugitive. Maximilian Snyder, who is charged with killing the landlord in California, had applied for a marriage license with Youngblut. Michelle Zajko, whose parents were killed in Pennsylvania, was arrested with LaSota in Maryland, and has been charged with providing weapons to Youngblut in Vermont.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump could be running the most incompetent peace process in history
If the consequences were not so brutal, it might almost be possible to admire the brazen audacity of Vladimir Putin. Having just put down the phone on Donald Trump, he launched the biggest air assault on Kyiv since the war began, pounding Ukraine's capital with 550 killer drones and ballistic missiles. Putin committed this outrage because he has every confidence that Mr Trump will fail to exact any price. True, the American president might compose an angry social media post, but Putin is clearly convinced that nothing more will happen. Tragically, Mr Trump has given him every reason to believe as much. On Tuesday, America stopped supplying Ukraine with Patriot-3 interceptors, designed to shoot down incoming Russian missiles. Some of these vital defence systems had already been flown across the Atlantic to Poland for onward passage to Ukraine. It seems they will just be sent back again. With this extraordinary decision, Mr Trump effectively informed Putin that America is content to leave Kyiv defenceless against Russian air attack. Putin responded entirely logically and ordered his biggest assault yet. By withholding the Patriots, Mr Trump gave Putin the greenest light imaginable. The Kremlin will also have noticed that Mr Trump has not imposed any new US sanctions on Russia since his return to the White House. All sanctions regimes are vulnerable to circumvention: the only response is to update and extend the restrictions, blocking loopholes as they appear, just as Britain and the EU frequently do. By not passing any new sanctions, Mr Trump is allowing the existing ones to wither on the vine and sending another signal for Putin to do his worst. The great irony is that a Sanctions Bill that really would crush the Russian economy is ready to go in the Senate, with overwhelming bipartisan support. This measure, proposed by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, a Republican and Democrat respectively, would impose US tariffs of 500 per cent on any country foolish enough to buy Putin's oil or gas. It can pass whenever the president gives the word. But there is no sign that Mr Trump will give the word. He occasionally threatens and blusters. On May 28, the president claimed that he would know 'within two weeks' whether Putin was 'tapping us along'. Five weeks have passed and all that Mr Trump has done is deprive Ukraine of vital defences. Putin has obviously concluded that the Sanctions Bill will never pass no matter what he does. Now there are only two possibilities. Mr Trump could be running the most cack-handed and incompetent peace process in history, based on asking Putin to lay off or else America will stop helping his enemy. What kind of a negotiating position is that? Or else Mr Trump thinks that the only route to peace is for Russia to achieve the total defeat and conquest of Ukraine as rapidly as possible.
BreakingNews.ie
31 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Trump criticised for using antisemitic term to describe money lenders
President Donald Trump has claimed he did not know the term 'shylock' is considered antisemitic when he used it in a speech to describe unscrupulous money lenders. Mr Trump told reporters early on Friday after returning from an event in Iowa that he had 'never heard it that way' and 'never heard that' the term was considered an offensive stereotype about Jews. Advertisement Shylock refers to the villainous Jewish moneylender in Shakespeare's The Merchant Of Venice who demands a pound of flesh from a debtor. The Anti-Defamation League, which works to combat antisemitism, said in a statement that the term 'evokes a centuries-old antisemitic trope about Jews and greed that is extremely offensive and dangerous. President Trump's use of the term is very troubling and irresponsible'. Democrat Joe Biden, while vice president, said in 2014 that he had made a 'poor choice' of words a day after he used the term in remarks to a legal aid group. Mr Trump's administration has said cracking down on antisemitism is a priority. His administration said it is screening for antisemitic activity when granting immigration benefits and its fight with Harvard University has centred on allegations from the White House that the school has tolerated antisemitism. Advertisement But the Republican president has also had a history of playing on stereotypes about Jewish people. He told the Republican Jewish Coalition in 2015 that 'you want to control your politicians' and suggested the audience used money to exert control. Before he kicked off his 2024 presidential campaign, Mr Trump drew widespread criticism for dining at his Florida club with a Holocaust-denying white nationalist. Last year, he made repeated comments accusing Jewish Americans who identify as Democrats of disloyalty because of the Democratic leaders' criticisms of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Critics said it perpetuated an antisemitic trope about Jews having divided loyalties and there being only one right way to be Jewish. Advertisement On Thursday night in his speech in Iowa, Mr Trump used the term while talking about his signature legislation that was passed by Congress earlier in the day. 'No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing some from, in some cases, a fine banker and in some cases shylocks and bad people,' he said. When a reporter later asked about the word's antisemitic association and his intent, Mr Trump said; 'No, I've never heard it that way. To me, a shylock is somebody that's a money lender at high rates. I've never heard it that way. You view it differently than me. I've never heard that.' The Anti-Defamation League said Mr Trump's use of the word 'underscores how lies and conspiracies about Jews remain deeply entrenched in our country. Words from our leaders matter and we expect more from the President of the United States'. Advertisement
BreakingNews.ie
31 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Man (39) found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter of his aunt's partner
An alcoholic who said he was acting in self-defence when he stabbed his aunt's "violent" partner 15 times has been found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by a Central Criminal Court jury. The panel of three men and nine women unanimously rejected the prosecution case that Ryan Kearney was guilty of murder and that he had intentionally stabbed Jeffrey Jackson from "almost top to toe", intending to kill or cause serious injury. Advertisement Kearney (39), with an address at Loughnamona Drive, Leixlip, Co Kildare, had pleaded not guilty to murdering Mr Jackson (50) at The Lamps, School Street, Kilcock, Co Kildare on February 8th, 2024. In seeking an outright acquittal for their client, Michael Bowman SC, defending, told the jury in his closing address that his client had not been the aggressor and had done no more than he believed necessary in the circumstances to defend himself. Mr Bowman said his client was acting in self-defence when he fatally stabbed Mr Jackson, who counsel submitted was prone to "rage and violence" and who Kearney was "absolutely right" to call "a complete lunatic". He said his client was an alcoholic but whatever difficulties he had, he was not given to behaving in a manner involving violence and knives. Whereas, Brendan Grehan SC with Edward Doocey BL, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted in his closing speech that the defendant had "buried" the knife "to the hilt" in the fatal stabbing and that his account of giving "a few jabs to the stomach" in self-defence did not accord with the pathology evidence. Advertisement Mr Grehan said the deceased's remains were "the silent witness" in the case. The defence had asked for an outright acquittal or a verdict of manslaughter on the basis of self-defence or the partial defence of provocation, which can reduce an intentional killing from murder to manslaughter. The jury had the option of returning three verdicts in relation to the murder charge against Kearney, namely; guilty of murder, not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter or not guilty. There were three pathways to the verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter because of absence of intent, the partial defence of self-defence or the partial defence of provocation. Advertisement In his charge to the jury, Mr Justice Paul Burns said they were being asked to determine whether the killing was murder or manslaughter or a lawfully justified homicide on the grounds of self-defence. The judge said the jurors must consider the force used by Kearney if they accepted the defence of self-defence. He said if the jury was satisfied, or left with a reasonable doubt, that the force used was what Kearney believed was necessary in the circumstances as he honestly believed them to be, but that a reasonable person would not have used the same degree of force as the defendant did, then the verdict should be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Mr Justice Burns also told the jurors that, only if the prosecution had satisfied them beyond a reasonable doubt that the defence of self-defence was not open to Mr Kearney, should they then consider whether the partial defence of provocation was open to the accused. Advertisement Provocation is a partial defence to a charge of murder which, if successful, reduces the offence from murder to manslaughter. The 12 jurors took four hours and 47 minutes over two days to reject the prosecution case that evidence of the 16 separate knife injuries to Mr Jackson during what they argued was a "ferocious attack" in the Co Kildare apartment did not fit with Kearney's account of having stabbed the deceased in self-defence. Mr Jackson's partner, Breda Kearney, has given evidence that when she returned home after a brief trip to the shop she was met by her bloodied nephew Ryan Kearney, who told her he had stabbed her partner in the neck and thought he was dead. In his garda interviews, Kearney said that he took a knife off his aunt's enraged partner after a scuffle and gave him "a few jabs with it", telling detectives that he had no intention to kill and was in fear for his life. Advertisement The trial heard that Kearney had washed the knife and told gardaí he was leaving the apartment when he encountered his aunt. "It was either going to be me sitting here today or him sitting here today," the defendant told officers. The jurors also heard that Kearney told the first garda who arrived at the scene that it was "balaclava-clad men who had carried out the attack". The defendant later accepted this was a lie. State pathologist Dr Sally Anne Collis gave evidence that Mr Jackson was more than eight times over the legal drink driving limit and died after sustaining 16 separate knife injuries. The cause of death was two fatal wounds to the chest, one of which was 17cm in depth from a 12cm knife blade. Following today's unanimous verdict, Mr Justice Burns thanked the jury for their time and exempted them from further service for the next seven years. A sentence hearing for Kearney will take place on July 28th, and the judge remanded the defendant in custody until that date. On that date, the Jackson family will have an opportunity to make a statement to the court about the impact Jeffrey's death has had on their lives. The judge also directed a psychologist and a governor's report on the defendant. Mr Bowman told the court that his client had been diagnosed with PTSD and ADHD. Evidence was given that when Kearney was charged with the murder of Mr Jackson on February 10th, he replied: "I stabbed Jeffrey but did not murder him, he was my friend, that's it". Emma Farrell had told the trial that her husband Mr Jackson was an alcoholic who was physically abusive when drunk and that she had lived "in a constant state of fear" of being killed by him. Ms Farrell said her husband's violence could "erupt spontaneously without any provocation" on her part and the deceased was "the type of guy who had no fear". Gardaí told Kearney in his interviews that his account of stabbing Mr Jackson to death in self-defence did not make sense and put it to him that he had stabbed the deceased in the back, washed the knife and cleaned his hands.
