Arkansas Supreme Court orders gag order lifted in Lonoke County deadly shooting
The case came to the court on behalf of Aaron Spencer, who is facing charges of second-degree murder in the October 2024 shooting death of 67-year-old Michael Fosler.
Lonoke County deputies arrest man after altercation leads to deadly shooting
According to court records, Fosler had been charged in July 2024 with 'numerous sexual offenses against Spencer's teenage daughter, and he was released on bond.'
On the night of the shooting, Spencer realized his daughter had left the house and went looking for her. He found Fosler's truck with his daughter inside and forced it off the road.
'After an altercation, Spencer called 911 to report he had shot Fosler. Fosler died at the scene,' court records state.
National pharmacy company sues Arkansas over law eliminating PBM pharmacy ownership
The record continues that the state requested a gag order on the case on Dec. 4, 2024, due to what it called extensive media coverage, including a news release from Spencer's attorneys that described him as a 'heroic father.' The state argued that the coverage and public statements would lead the community to side with Spencer, thereby harming the integrity of the jury pool.
On Dec. 9, 2024, Spencer's attorney filed an opposition to the gag order. On Dec. 10, the court put the gag order in place 'without holding a hearing,' according to the filing.
Spencer then requested the Supreme Court issue a command, called a 'writ of certiorari,' to the lower court to lift the gag order. His request cited the First Amendment and the Lonoke circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court honored that request on Thursday, and the writ was issued. In its ruling, the court stated: '[W]e hold that the circuit court's action in entering the challenged gag order was on its face a plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion and in excess of its authority. Further, there is no other adequate remedy except for a writ of certiorari.'
Arkansas Supreme Court decides TikTok vs. Arkansas case will go forward, denies dismissal request
The ruling also cautioned the court against sealing the case's proceedings from the public, citing it as a constitutional violation.
Spencer's attorneys, Erin Cassinelli and Michael Kaiser, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision has far-reaching implications.
'The Court has given clear guidelines for gag orders that will help the public, litigants, and courts across the state appropriately assess case-related speech as balanced with the strong First Amendment protections that are a bedrock of our society,' they stated. 'No longer will state courts be permitted to allow a prosecutor to release alarming and potentially misleading information while a circuit court blanketly restricts a citizen's public explanation of his innocence.'
CVS Pharmacy files suit against Arkansas over new law preventing PBM ownership of pharmacies
They continued that they appreciated the Supreme Court's 'turning the lights back on in Lonoke County.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Lawyer says he's not been allowed to see 5 immigrants deported by the US to a prison in Eswatini
MANZINI, Eswatini (AP) — Five immigrants deported by the United States to Eswatini in a secret deal last month had served their criminal sentences before they were sent to be held in a prison in the African country, a lawyer working on their cases said Friday. The Eswatini lawyer also said the men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to southern Africa under President Donald Trump's third-country deportation program have been denied access to legal representation while being held in Eswatini's main maximum-security prison. The lawyer, Sibusiso Nhlabatsi, said he hasn't been allowed to see the men and that he filed court papers Thursday against the head of Eswatini's correctional services department and the country's attorney general, demanding access to them. He said he is representing them on behalf of lawyers in the U.S. and was prevented from seeing them by Eswatini prison officials on July 25. It's unlawful for the men, who have been in Eswatini for around two weeks, to be denied access to a lawyer, he added. The Eswatini government has said the men will be held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year. 'They have served their sentences,' Nhlabatsi told The Associated Press. 'If a person has committed a crime and they have served a sentence, why are you then keeping them in a prison?' Nhlabatsi said the men have not been able to communicate with their families or receive visitors since arriving in Eswatini, although prison officials said they were in the process of setting up devices to allow them to speak with their families. He alleged their ongoing detention could have legal implications for Eswatini, a small country bordering South Africa and one of the world's last absolute monarchies, ruled by a king accused of cracking down on dissent. The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for its choice of African countries to strike deportation deals with. It deported eight immigrants described as violent criminals to South Sudan in early July in an operation that was halted by a legal challenge in the U.S. The eight were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in nearby Djibouti while the case was decided. A Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan. Both South Sudan, which is in danger of tipping into civil war, and Eswatini have poor rights records and governments accused of being repressive. Critics say the deportees, who the administration says were in the U.S. illegally, will likely be denied due process in those countries. The five sent to Eswatini were also described by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as serious criminals. Their convictions included murder and child rape, the department said in social media posts, calling them 'uniquely barbaric." The department, which did not say if they had completed their sentences, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. An Eswatini government spokesman also declined to comment on Nhlabatsi's allegations, saying it was now a matter for the courts. Nhlabatsi said the deportees are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex near the administrative capital, Mbabane, the same prison said to hold pro-democracy activists on trumped up charges. The government has declined to say where the five men are being held, citing security concerns. Eswatini's statement about the five men ultimately being deported to their home countries appears to contradict claims by the U.S. that their home countries refused to take the men back. ___
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Federal appeals court weighs Trump birthright citizenship order as admin outlines enforcement details
A federal appeals court will hear oral arguments Friday afternoon in a challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the U.S., one of several lower court cases that took shape after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in June. The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed this summer to hear arguments in two consolidated cases centered on the matter, O. Doe. v. Trump, and the State of New Jersey v. Trump, joining several other appeals courts in reviewing the legality of Trump's executive order. The hearing comes roughly five weeks after the Supreme Court partially sided with the Trump administration in a case centered on the birthright citizenship order. Justices narrowed when lower courts can issue so-called "universal injunctions" blocking the president's orders from taking effect nationwide. Trump signed his birthright citizenship executive order on his first day in office. It seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Instead, the language put forth by the Trump administration, and subsequently blocked, would have clarified that individuals born to illegal immigrant parents, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits, instead giving the Trump administration 30 days to outline how it would enforce the order — effectively punting the issue back to the lower courts. So far, the administration hasn't found much success there. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking Trump's order from taking force, and certified as a class all infants born in the U.S. who would be denied citizenship under the order. Arguments before the First Circuit come just one week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order from taking force nationwide. Judges on the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to block the order, siding with the Democratic-led states in ruling it unconstitutional. They also ruled it "is impossible to avoid this harm" caused by the order "absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States," prompting them to issue the nationwide injunction. "The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief," U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, said in the ruling. "We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief." It's unclear how judges on the First Circuit will rule. But their oral arguments come days after the Trump administration detailed new specifics on how it plans to enforce its order in question. Guidance from roughly half a dozen U.S. agencies outlines these new requirements for parents. One document published by the Social Security Administration outlines new requirements parents will need to meet to prove their child is a U.S. citizen at birth. "With respect to citizenship, an SSN applicant may currently demonstrate U.S. citizenship by providing a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth," a document from SSA said. "Once the EO takes effect, a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth will not be sufficient documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship for persons born after the EO takes effect." The policy, which remains halted by the lower courts, is widely unpopular. More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented." And to date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it, including in wake of the Supreme Court ruling, from taking effect. This is a developing news story. Check back soon for updates.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Federal appeals court weighs Trump birthright citizenship order as admin outlines new details
A federal appeals court will hear oral arguments Friday afternoon in a challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the U.S., one of several lower court cases that took shape after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in June. The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed this summer to hear arguments in two consolidated cases centered on the matter, O. Doe. v. Trump, and the State of New Jersey v. Trump, joining several other appeals courts in reviewing the legality of Trump's executive order. The hearing comes roughly five weeks after the Supreme Court partially sided with the Trump administration in a case centered on the birthright citizenship order. Justices narrowed when lower courts can issue so-called "universal injunctions" blocking the president's orders from taking effect nationwide. Trump signed his birthright citizenship executive order on his first day in office. It seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Instead, the language put forth by the Trump administration, and subsequently blocked, would have clarified that individuals born to illegal immigrant parents, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits, instead giving the Trump administration 30 days to outline how it would enforce the order — effectively punting the issue back to the lower courts. So far, the administration hasn't found much success there. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking Trump's order from taking force, and certified as a class all infants born in the U.S. who would be denied citizenship under the order. Arguments before the First Circuit come just one week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order from taking force nationwide. Judges on the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to block the order, siding with the Democratic-led states in ruling it unconstitutional. They also ruled it "is impossible to avoid this harm" caused by the order "absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States," prompting them to issue the nationwide injunction. "The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief," U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, said in the ruling. "We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief." It's unclear how judges on the First Circuit will rule. But their oral arguments come days after the Trump administration detailed new specifics on how it plans to enforce its order in question. Guidance from roughly half a dozen U.S. agencies outlines these new requirements for parents. One document published by the Social Security Administration outlines new requirements parents will need to meet to prove their child is a U.S. citizen at birth. "With respect to citizenship, an SSN applicant may currently demonstrate U.S. citizenship by providing a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth," a document from SSA said. "Once the EO takes effect, a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth will not be sufficient documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship for persons born after the EO takes effect." The policy, which remains halted by the lower courts, is widely unpopular. More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented." And to date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it, including in wake of the Supreme Court ruling, from taking effect. This is a developing news story. Check back soon for updates.
