Latest news with #federaltrial
The Independent
7 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
‘Politically motivated' Alina Habba being pushed out by NJ judges who take rare step to appoint own candidate for top prosecutor
New Jersey's federal trial judges have voted to block Donald Trump's personal attorney Alina Habba from serving as the state's top prosecutor — and named their own nominee to replace her. Habba's 120-day interim appointment as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey is coming to an end following Trump's nomination in March. She has yet to have any confirmation hearings in the Senate, and the state's two Democratic senators have effectively denied her from having one. In a rare move, the state's district court judges named Habba's first assistant Desiree Leigh Grace as her successor, according to Tuesday's standing order, which was signed by the district's chief judge Renee Marie Bumb. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the judges of 'trying to force' her out of the job. 'Their rush reveals what this was always about: a left-wing agenda, not the rule of law,' said Blanche, another of Trump's former defense attorneys. 'When judges act like activists, they undermine confidence in our justice system. Alina is President Trump's choice to lead — and no partisan bench can override that.' Habba defended Trump last year during his blockbuster fraud trial and defamation lawsuits brought by E. Jean Carroll, all of which Trump lost. She then briefly served as 'counselor to the president' before Trump named her as U.S. attorney in her home state. She was sworn into office on March 28, which means there are just days left on her 120-day interim term. Blanche said her term expires at midnight Friday. The judges' order takes effect Tuesday, or after Habba leaves office, whichever is later. Trump nominated her for a full term on July 1, but the state's Democratic Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim derailed any chance of a confirmation hearing by issuing a withering statement kneecapping her credibility. Nominees typically need approval from home state senators, and Habba would also likely face hurdles securing votes from skeptical Republicans. In a joint statement following her nomination, the senators said she 'does not meet the standard to serve' and accused her of pursuing 'frivolous and politically motivated' prosecutions within her limited time in office. In her first two months in office, Habba brought controversial charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Rep. LaMonica McIver, both Democrats, following a scrum with federal agents at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in the state. The mayor was charged with trespassing, but Habba announced on May 19 that she was dropping the case 'for the sake of moving forward.' A judge later reprimanded Habba for her 'embarrassing retraction.' Baraka's 'hasty arrest', followed by Habba's dismissal of the charges two weeks later, 'suggests a worrying misstep by your office,' Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa said during a hearing that month. The mayor later sued Habba for malicious prosecution. McIver, meanwhile, has been accused of assaulting law enforcement, which she has strenuously denied. Criminal charges against a sitting member of Congress appeared to escalate threats from the Trump administration under an emboldened Department of Justice to target his political enemies. Trump, whose administration wields unprecedented influence over the Justice Department, could still act to preserve his pick. The president has the power to appoint Habba as a 'special attorney to the attorney general,' a move that could keep her on the job for another two years without any typical review or Senate vote on her qualifications. Federal judges had similarly tried to stop John Sarcone from continuing on as U.S. attorney in upstate New York when Trump named him as a 'special attorney to the attorney general' to keep him in place. The president also could fire Grace and install another pick, which would likely ignite yet another legal firestorm as Democratic officials and lawyers intensify their scrutiny into Trump's increasingly deferential Justice Department. Trump has already appointed several of his former defense attorneys in top roles at the agency serving under Attorney General Pam Bondi, another Trump loyalist. John Sauer, who successfully argued for Trump's 'immunity' from criminal prosecution at the Supreme Court, was appointed U.S. solicitor general, the nation's top attorney. Todd Blanche, who represented Trump in his hush-money trial and federal criminal indictments, is serving as deputy attorney general under Bondi. Trump's other criminal defense attorney Emil Bove, who worked alongside Blanche on the hush-money case, is currently a principal associate deputy attorney general. The president has nominated Bove to serve a life term as an appeals court judge for a district that spans New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Last week, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee referred his nomination to the full Senate for a vote. All Democrats on the committee walked out in protest.
Al Arabiya
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Man Accused of Attempting to Assassinate Trump Wants to Represent Himself in Florida Case
FORT PIERCE, Fla. – A man charged with attempting to assassinate Donald Trump last year at his Florida golf course told a federal judge Thursday he wants to fire his court-appointed lawyers and represent himself, saying he will be ready to defend himself before a trial jury this fall. Ryan Routh made his request during a hearing in Fort Pierce before US District Court Judge Aileen Cannon. When the judge asked Routh, 59, whether he wanted her to appoint new attorneys to defend him, Routh replied: 'No. I will represent myself.' Routh is scheduled to stand trial in September, a year after prosecutors say a Secret Service agent thwarted his attempt to shoot Trump as he played golf. Routh has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and several firearm violations. Cannon closed the courtroom to reporters and the public for about an hour Thursday to discuss matters potentially involving attorney-client privilege. The public portion of the hearing resumed with Cannon questioning Routh for about 30 minutes on whether he understands the gravity of defending himself in a case where he could face imprisonment if convicted. 'Do you understand that self-representation is almost always a bad idea?' the judge asked Routh. 'Yes, your honor,' replied Routh, who described the extent of his education as two years of college after earning his GED certificate. Cannon also asked Routh if he understood the court's rules of evidence and federal criminal procedure. He told her: 'I have a book.' Cannon did not rule during the hearing. She said she would issue a written order later. The US Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a right to represent themselves in court proceedings as long as they can show a judge they are competent to waive their right to be defended by an attorney. The judge told Routh she doesn't intend to delay the Sept. 8 start date of his trial even if she lets him represent himself. Routh told her that he understood and would be ready. Prosecutors have said Routh methodically plotted to kill Trump for weeks before aiming a rifle through the shrubbery as Trump played golf on Sept. 15 at his West Palm Beach country club. A Secret Service agent spotted Routh before Trump came into view. Routh allegedly aimed his rifle at the agent, who opened fire, causing Routh to drop his weapon and flee without firing a shot. Law enforcement obtained help from a witness who prosecutors said informed officers that he saw a person fleeing. The witness was then flown in a police helicopter to a nearby interstate where Routh was arrested and the witnesses confirmed it was the person he had seen, prosecutors have said. In addition to the federal charges, Routh also has pleaded not guilty to state charges of terrorism and attempted murder.
Daily Mail
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
'I'm always ready to freak off': The flirty texts that got Diddy off the hook
Sean ' Diddy ' Combs stunning acquittal on the most serious charges he faced in his bombshell federal trial has left legal experts shaking their heads - and struggling to understand how the government could have fumbled the case so badly. Now, Daily Mail has analyzed the key testimony that fatally undermined the federal prosecution, as well as the significant evidence that failed to move the jurors.
RNZ News
02-07-2025
- RNZ News
Takeaways from the verdict in Sean ‘Diddy' Combs' federal sex trafficking trial
By Dakin Andone, Lauren del Valle and Nicki Brown , CNN Sean "Diddy" Combs is no longer facing the prospect of a life sentence. (File pic) Photo: Angela Weiss / AFP The jury in the federal sex trafficking trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs returned its verdict on Wednesday (US time), clearing the hip-hop mogul of the most serious charges, though he was convicted on two lesser charges of transportation to engage in prostitution . The verdict is, to some extent, a win for Combs, who will avoid the worst case scenario: If he had been convicted of the more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy or sex trafficking, Combs could have faced up to life in prison. Instead, he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years - though it's unlikely he'll serve a sentence that long, and he could even be sentenced to the time he's served since his arrest in September 2024. "It's a bit of a paradox, because here we have Sean Combs, who has just been convicted of two federal felonies," said CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. "And for all practical purposes, he has won. He has defeated the Southern District of New York." Prosecutors accused Combs of leading a criminal enterprise made up of some of his closest employees, alleging they used threats, violence, forced labour, bribery and other crimes to force Casandra "Cassie" Ventura and another woman, "Jane," to engage in drug-fuelled sex acts with male escorts called "Freak Offs" or "hotel nights." Combs pleaded not guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking and two counts of transportation for prostitution. His lawyers argued the sex acts were consensual and merely preferences , while trying to undermine the hip-hop mogul's accusers by contending they were trying to gain a monetary benefit from Combs. Here are takeaways from the jury's verdict. Combs and his defence team surely hoped he would be acquitted on all counts. But the verdict on Wednesday is something of a boon for a star defendant who has seen his reputation diminish in the face of repeated accusations of wrongdoing. His acquittals on racketeering conspiracy and two counts of sex trafficking are striking when looked at within the context of the defendant's fall from grace: Two years ago, Ventura filed a lawsuit claiming Combs had raped and physically and emotionally abused her. Combs agreed to settle the lawsuit a day later; his attorney said it was "in no way an admission of wrongdoing." Ventura's lawsuit was only the beginning: More accusers came forward with allegations against Combs, and in March 2024, heavily armed federal agents searched the producer's homes in Los Angeles and Florida. Two months later, CNN published hotel surveillance video captured eight years earlier showing Combs physically assaulting Ventura in an elevator lobby at a Los Angeles hotel - footage included as part of the prosecution's case for sex trafficking as to Ventura. Now, while the verdict is mixed, Combs can claim some vindication on being cleared of the most serious charges. "Regardless of what anyone thinks of Sean Combs … the simple fact is, as of right now, in the eyes of the law, he has not been convicted of a crime of violence," said CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams. "He has not been convicted of the far more serious, life-eligible crimes that he was charged with." The verdict shows prosecutors failed to prove racketeering conspiracy and while the jury's reasoning is not known, experts told CNN prior to deliberations that prosecutors' greatest challenge would be securing a conviction on this charge. That jurors found Combs not guilty shows they were unconvinced, either of the existence of a so-called "enterprise" - a key piece of any racketeering case - or that he and others committed the underlying crimes that would support a conviction. The charge comes from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act, or RICO, which was passed by Congress in 1970 to prosecute organised crime. Racketeering is not a single, specific crime, but a framework for prosecuting many different crimes; in a RICO case, these are called "predicate acts". -CNN
New York Times
02-07-2025
- New York Times
Experts Say Judge Has Wide Latitude in Sentencing Sean Combs
Though Sean Combs was acquitted on Wednesday of the most serious charges in his federal trial, he still faces the possibility of prison time because the jury found him guilty of two counts of transporting people to engage in prostitution. Sentencing experts say it is difficult to predict how severe his punishment will be, as the judge in the case must go through complicated calculus to determine a just outcome. A sentencing date has not yet been set. Each of the two transportation for prostitution convictions carries up to 10 years in prison, creating a maximum of 20 years if those sentences are served consecutively. But there are several reasons to think Mr. Combs's sentence could be considerably shorter than that, experts said. 'Judges almost never come close to' the maximum sentences, said Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School and a former federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. The judge in the trial, Arun Subramanian, will likely start by considering federal sentencing guidelines, rubrics which are used to create a penalty range based on various factors, including the nature of the offense, specifics of the case and personal characteristics of the defendant, like criminal history. Nationally, judges stuck to the sentencing guidelines in 67 percent of cases in the fiscal year 2024. But judges in the Southern District of New York imposed sentences within the guidelines just 34.5 percent of the time, almost always imposing shorter sentences than the guidelines suggested. Mr. Richman said the judge has wide latitude to consider what a reasonable sentence would be. 'When making that decision he can consider the guidelines, especially since he just calculated them, but he can consider many other things and need not follow the guidelines,' he said. Douglas Berman, a sentencing expert at Ohio State University, said that even if judges do not stick to sentencing guidelines, they are often still used as a benchmark. Judges generally don't want to stray too far from established norms, he said. Mr. Berman said every aspect of the defendant's character and history — his charity work, his professional success, his threat to others, any bad behavior — can be taken into account. 'There really are no limits to what the judge can consider,' he said. That also extends to evidence presented at trial regarding the counts on which Mr. Combs was acquitted, if the judge deems it relevant to the sentencing. Judges must weigh, among other things, whether the defendant is likely to commit a crime again. In the courtroom on Wednesday, Mr. Combs appeared to treat the verdict as a victory, pumping his fist in celebration and thanking jurors. Mr. Berman said that 'how much of a win will really turn on how aggressive prosecutors are in their sentencing recommendations,' which he said can often influence judges.
