prosecutor

NEW YORK — Portland Trail Blazers coach Chauncey Billups, a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, pleaded not guilty Monday to charges he profited from rigged poker games involving several Mafia figures and at least one other ex-NBA player.

Billups, a five-time All Star and onetime Clippers player and assistant coach who won a championship with the Detroit Pistons, was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn on money laundering conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy charges involving a scheme to rig mob-backed illegal poker games in Manhattan, Las Vegas, Miami and the Hamptons.

Both charges carry a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison. Others implicated face charges of running an illegal gambling business, robbery conspiracy and extortion conspiracy.

Prosecutors said Monday that plea negotiations have begun with some defendants, though they didn’t name them.

U.S. District Court Judge Ramon Reyes said he hoped to bring the sprawling case to trial by next September, urging lawyers in the courtroom to “do what you have to do.”

Billups, who wore a dark gray suit during Monday’s brief arraignment, spoke only to answer the judge’s yes or no questions. His lawyer, Marc Mukasey, entered his not guilty plea.

They declined to comment to reporters afterward, but one of Billups’ lawyers has called him a “man of integrity” and said he denies the charges.

“To believe that Chauncey Billups did what the federal government is accusing him of is to believe that he would risk his Hall of Fame legacy, his reputation and his freedom. He would not jeopardize those things for anything, let alone a card game,” Chris Heywood said after Billups appeared in federal court in Portland, Ore., when prosecutors first announced the indictment on Oct. 23.

Billups, 49, was released on a $5-million bond secured by his family’s Colorado home. He must refrain from gambling and can have no contact with other defendants or alleged victims. He has surrendered his passport and can only travel to seven states, including Oregon and New York, and Washington, D.C.

Inducted last year into the Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame, Billups was arguably the most prominent among more than 30 people charged in last month’s sprawling federal takedown of illegal gambling operations linked to professional sports.

In addition to his arraignment, Billups and his co-defendants, including ex-NBA player and assistant coach Damon Jones, appeared for a status conference on Monday and are due back in court on March 4.

Prosecutors say the poker-rigging scheme utilized sophisticated technology such as altered card-shuffling machines, hidden cameras in chip trays, special sunglasses and X-ray equipment built into the table to read cards.

Jones, Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier and others are also charged with allegedly scheming to allow gamblers to exploit insider information about players to win NBA bets.

Prosecutors say the poker scheme Billups was involved in defrauded victims of an estimated $7 million starting in at least 2019.

They say he served as a celebrity “face card” that could draw wealthy, unsuspecting players to the games. Prosecutors said during one game, the scheme’s organizers exchanged messages saying one of the victims “acted like he wanted Chauncey to have his money” because he was “star struck.”

Prosecutors say Billups, who earned about $106 million from his playing days, received a portion of the ill-gotten gains. After one rigged game in October 2020, for example, they say he was directly wired $50,000.

The scheme organizers also had to share a portion of their proceeds with the Gambino, Genovese and Bonanno mob families for operating within the illegal poker games run by the New York criminal enterprises, prosecutors said.

Mafia members, in turn, helped commit violent acts, including assault, extortion and robbery, to ensure repayment of debts and the continued success of the operation, they said.

Billups was selected as the third overall pick in the 1997 draft by the Boston Celtics after starring in college for the Colorado Buffaloes. He played 17 years in the NBA, with stints with the Toronto Raptors, Denver Nuggets, Minnesota Timberwolves, New York Knicks and Clippers.

But he is perhaps most beloved in the Motor City, where he earned the nickname “Mr. Big Shot” for his knack of making clutch shots.

Billups was named the NBA Finals MVP during the Pistons’ title run in 2004 and had his No. 1 jersey retired by the team.

After retiring in 2014, Billups embarked on a career as a TV analyst before pivoting to coaching.

He was hired as Portland’s coach in 2021 and signed a multiyear extension with the Trail Blazers earlier this year after the team missed out on the playoffs for the fourth straight season in 2024. Billups previously served as an assistant coach for the Clippers.

After his arrest, he was placed on unpaid leave and the Trail Blazers named assistant coach and former NBA player Tiago Splitter as interim coach.

Marcelo writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press reporter Michael R. Sisask contributed to this story.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department engaged in a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” in the process of securing an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, a federal judge ruled Monday in directing prosecutors to provide defense lawyers with all grand jury materials from the case.

Those problems, wrote Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, include “fundamental misstatements of the law” by a prosecutor to the grand jury that indicted Comey in September, the use of potentially privileged communications during the investigation and unexplained irregularities in the transcript of the grand jury proceedings.

“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Fitzpatrick wrote “However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”

The 24-page opinion is the most blistering assessment yet by a judge of the Justice Department’s actions leading up to the Comey indictment. It underscores how procedural missteps and prosecutorial inexperience have combined to imperil the prosecution pushed by President Trump for reasons separate and apart from the substance of the disputed allegations against Comey.

The Comey case and a separate prosecution of New York Atty, Gen. Letitia James have heightened concerns that the Justice Department is being weaponized in pursuit of Trump’s political opponents. Both defendants have filed multiple motions to dismiss the cases against them before trial, arguing that the prosecutions are improperly vindictive and that the prosecutor who filed the charges, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed.

A different judge is set to decide by Thanksgiving on the challenges by Comey and James to Halligan’s appointment.

Though grand jury proceedings are presumptively secret, Comey’s lawyers had sought records from the process out of concern that irregularities may have tainted the case. The sole prosecutor who defense lawyers say presented the case to the grand jury was Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience who was appointed just days before the indictment to the job of interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

In his order Monday, Fitzpatrick said that after reviewing the grand jury transcript himself, he had come away deeply concerned about the integrity of the case.

“Here, the procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct resulting in prejudice to Mr. Comey,” Fitzpatrick said.

The Justice Department responded to the ruling by asking that it be put on hold to give prosecutors time to file objections. The government said it believed Fitzpatrick “may have misinterpreted” some facts in issuing his ruling.

Fitzpatrick listed, among nearly a dozen irregularities in his ruling, two comments that a prosecutor — presumably, Halligan — made to the grand jury that he said represented “fundamental misstatements of the law.”

The actual statements are blacked out, but Fitzpatrick said the prosecutor seems to have ignored the fact that a grand jury may not draw a negative inference about a person who exercises his right not to testify in front of it. He said she also appeared to suggest to grand jurors that they did not need to rely only on what was presented to them and could instead be assured that there was additional evidence that would be presented at trial.

The judge also drew attention to the jumbled manner in which the indictment was obtained and indicated that a transcript and recording of the proceedings do not provide a full account of what occurred. Halligan initially sought a three-count indictment of Comey, but after the grand jury rejected one of the three proposed counts and found probable cause to indict on the other two counts, a second two-count indictment was prepared and signed.

But Fitzpatrick said it was not clear to him in reviewing the record that the indictment that Halligan presented in court at the conclusion of the process had been presented to the grand jury for its deliberation.

“Either way, this unusual series of events, still not fully explained by the prosecutor’s declaration, calls into question the presumption of regularity generally associated with grand jury proceedings, and provides another genuine issue the defense may raise to challenge the manner in which the government obtained the indictment,” he wrote.

The two-count indictment charges Comey with lying to Congress in September 2020 when he suggested under questioning that he had not authorized FBI leaks of information to the news media. His lawyers say the question he was responding to was vague and confusing but the answer he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee was true.

The line of questioning from Sen. Ted Cruz appeared to focus on whether Comey had authorized his former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, to speak with the news media. But since the indictment, prosecutors have made clear that their indictment centers on allegations that Comey permitted a separate person — a close friend and Columbia University law professor, Dan Richman — to serve as an anonymous source in interactions with reporters.

The FBI executed search warrants in 2019 and 2020 to access messages between Richman and Comey as part of a media leaks investigation that did not result in charges. But Fitzpatrick said he was concerned that communications between the men that might have been protected by attorney-client privilege — Richman was at one point functioning as a lawyer for Comey — were exposed to the grand jury without Comey having had an opportunity to object.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

NEWARK, N.J. — A man has been arrested after federal officials alleged that he destroyed property while trying to confront President Trump ally and New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, Alina Habba.

The FBI arrested Keith Michael Lisa, 51, agency spokesperson Emily Molinari confirmed Saturday.

Molinari did not say when or where Lisa was arrested, what charges he might face, whether he was in jail or when he might go before a judge. It’s unclear whether Lisa is represented by a lawyer. The federal public defender in Newark, N.J., didn’t immediately respond to an electronic message Saturday asking whether it was representing Lisa.

The FBI on Friday had offered a reward of up to $25,000 for information about Lisa, saying he was wanted on charges of destroying government property and possession of a dangerous weapon inside a U.S. court facility. That bulletin said he tried to enter a federal office building in downtown Newark on Wednesday with a bat and was turned away. Lisa returned without the bat, the bulletin said, and was admitted. He then went to the U.S. Attorney’s office, where Habba works, and destroyed property, the bulletin said.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi wrote in a post on X on Saturday that the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service and Homeland Security Investigations had worked together to arrest Lisa.

“No one will get away with threatening or intimidating our great U.S. attorneys or the destruction of their offices,” Bondi wrote.

Habba was previously Trump’s personal lawyer, representing him in various cases and acting as his spokesperson on legal matters. She served as a White House advisor briefly before the president named her interim U.S. attorney in March.

“We got him,” Habba wrote on X on Saturday. “This Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi and our federal partners will not tolerate any acts of intimidation or violence toward law enforcement. So grateful to the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Homeland Security Investigations for their tireless work to capture him. Now justice will handle him.”

Bondi had vowed that federal officials would find and prosecute the perpetrator, writing earlier that “any violence or threats of violence against any federal officer will not be tolerated. Period.”

Trump formally nominated Habba as New Jersey’s permanent U.S. attorney on July 1, but the state’s two Democratic U.S. senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, opposed it, stalling the confirmation process.

A few weeks later, as Habba’s 120-day interim appointment was expiring, New Jersey federal judges moved to replace her with her second in command. Bondi then fired that prosecutor and renamed Habba as acting U.S. attorney.

Last month, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a case challenging Habba’s appointment. It hasn’t ruled.

Nov. 14 (UPI) — The Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys Council announced a replacement for Fani Willis as the prosecutor in the election interference case against President Donald Trump and 14 others charged.

PAC Executive Director Peter J. Skandalakis announced on Friday, that he would prosecute the case because the group couldn’t find anyone to take it up.

“Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment,” he said in the announcement. “Out of respect for their privacy and professional discretion, I will not identify those prosecutors or disclose their reasons for declining.”

In September, the Georgia Supreme Court denied Willis’ attempt to continue in the case. It refused to hear her appeal of a lower court’s decision to disqualify her because of “impropriety.” She had a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor in the case.

Another reason he chose to prosecute the case is that he has some familiarity with the case file. The documents he received to review included 101 banker boxes of documents and an 8-terabyte hard drive, which he hasn’t had the time to fully read.

Some of the others charged include former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

On Nov. 7, Trump pardoned 77 people, including those involved in the Georgia case.

Skandalakis said the pardons don’t apply to state charges, only federal ones. “Therefore, the task before my office remains unchanged,” he said.

Trump’s attorney Steve Sadow said the “politically charged prosecution has come to an end.”

“We remain confident that a fair and impartial review will lead to a dismissal of the case against President Trump,” Sadow said.

Skandalakis noted the importance of the case.

“I am keenly aware that this matter has been of significant public interest since January 2021, when District Attorney Fani Willis announced the initiation of the investigation,” he said in a statement. “My only objective is to ensure that this case is handled properly, fairly, and with full transparency discharging my duties without fear, favor, or affection.”

ATLANTA — The leader of a nonpartisan organization announced he will take over the Georgia election interference case against President Trump and others after Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis was removed from the case.

The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia was tasked with finding someone to lead the case after Willis was disqualified over an “appearance of impropriety” created by a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she’d chosen to lead it. The organization’s executive director, Pete Skandalakis, said Friday that he would take the case on himself.

“The filing of this appointment reflects my inability to secure another conflict prosecutor to assume responsibility for this case,” Skandalakis said in an emailed statement. “Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment.”

While it is unlikely that any action against Trump could proceed while he is the sitting president, there are 14 other people still facing charges in the case, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Trump earlier this week announced pardons for people accused of backing his efforts to overturn the results of that election — including those charged in Georgia — but that doesn’t affect state charges.

After the Georgia Supreme Court in September declined to hear Willis’ appeal of her disqualification, it fell to the nonpartisan Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council to find a new prosecutor. Skandalakis can continue to follow Willis’ vision for the prosecution, decide to pursue only some charges or dismiss the case altogether.

“While it would have been simple to allow Judge McAfee’s deadline to lapse or to inform the Court that no conflict prosecutor could be secured — thereby allowing the case to be dismissed for want of prosecution — I did not believe that to be the right course of action,” Skandalakis wrote. “The public has a legitimate interest in the outcome of this case. Accordingly, it is important that someone make an informed and transparent determination about how best to proceed.”

The Associated Press sent text messages seeking comment to a spokesperson for Willis and a lawyer for Trump.

Willis announced the sprawling indictment against Trump and 18 others in August 2023. She used the state’s anti-racketeering law to allege a wide-ranging conspiracy to try to illegally overturn Trump’s narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

Defense attorneys sought Willis’ removal after one of them revealed in January 2024 that Willis had engaged in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. The defense attorneys said the relationship created a conflict of interest, alleging that Willis personally profited from the case when Wade used his earnings to pay for vacations the pair took.

During an extraordinary hearing the following month, Willis and Wade both testified about the intimate details of their personal relationship. They maintained that their romance didn’t begin until after Wade was hired and said that they split the costs for vacations and other outings.

The trial judge, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, rebuked Willis, saying in an order in March 2024 that her actions showed a “tremendous lapse in judgment.” But he said he did not find a conflict of interest that would disqualify Willis. He ultimately ruled that Willis could remain on the case if Wade resigned, which the special prosecutor did hours later.

Defense attorneys appealed that ruling, and the Georgia Court of Appeals removed Willis from the case in December, citing an “appearance of impropriety.” The high court in September declined to hear Willis’ appeal.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Lawyers for two of President Trump’s foes who have been charged by the Justice Department asked a judge on Thursday to dismiss the cases against them, saying the prosecutor who secured the indictments was illegally installed in the role.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie didn’t immediately rule from the bench but said she expects to decide by Thanksgiving on challenges to Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The requests are part of multiprong efforts by former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James to get their cases dismissed before trial.

At issue during Thursday’s arguments are the complex constitutional and statutory rules governing the appointment of the nation’s U.S. attorneys, who function as top federal prosecutors in Justice Department offices across the country.

The role is typically filled by lawyers who have been nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate. Attorneys general do have the authority to get around that process by naming an interim U.S. attorney who can serve for 120 days, but lawyers for Comey and James note that once that period expires, the law gives federal judges of that district exclusive say over who can fill the vacancy.

But that’s not what happened in this instance.

After then-interim U.S. attorney Erik Siebert resigned in September while facing Trump administration pressure to bring charges against Comey and James, Attorney General Pam Bondi, at Trump’s public urging, installed Halligan to the role.

Siebert had been appointed by Bondi in January to serve as interim U.S. attorney. Trump in May announced his intention to nominate him and judges in the Eastern District unanimously agreed after his 120-day period expired that he should be retained in the role. But after the Trump administration effectively pushed him out in September, the Justice Department again opted to make an interim appointment in place of the courts, something defense lawyers say it was not empowered under the law to do.

Prosecutors in the cases say that the law does not explicitly prevent successive appointments of interim U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department and that, even if Halligan’s appointment is deemed invalid, the proper fix is not the dismissal of the indictment.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress, and James has pleaded not guilty to mortgage fraud allegations. Their lawyers have separately argued that the prosecutions are improperly vindictive and motivated by the president’s personal animus toward their clients, and should therefore be dismissed.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

MINNEAPOLIS — Attorneys in the case of a man charged with killing a top Minnesota Democratic lawmaker and her husband said Wednesday that prosecutors have turned over a massive amount of evidence to the defense, and that his lawyers need more time to review it.

Federal prosecutor Harry Jacobs told the court that investigators have provided substantially all of the evidence they have collected against Vance Boelter. He has pleaded not guilty to murder in the killing of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, and to attempted murder in the shootings of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife. Some evidence, such as lab reports, continues to come in.

Federal defender Manny Atwal said at the status conference that the evidence includes more than130,000 pages of PDF documents, more than 800 hours of audio and video recordings, and more than 2,000 photographs from what authorities have called the largest hunt for a suspect in Minnesota history.

Atwal said her team has spent close to 110 hours just downloading the material — not reviewing it — and that they’re still evaluating the evidence, a process she said has gone slowly due to the federal government shutdown.

“That’s not unusual for a complex case but it is lot of information for us to review,” Atwal told Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster.

Jacobs said he didn’t have a timeline for when the Department of Justice would decide whether to seek the death penalty against Boelter. The decision will be up to U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

Foster scheduled the next status conference for Feb. 12 and asked prosecutors to keep the defense and court updated in the meantime about their death penalty decision. She did not set a trial date.

Hortman and her husband, Mark, and Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were shot by a man who came to their suburban homes in the early hours of June 14, disguised as a police officer and driving a fake squad car.

Boelter, 58, was captured near his home in rural Green Isle late the next day. He faces federal and state charges including murder and attempted murder in what prosecutors have called a political assassination.

Boelter, who was wearing orange and yellow jail clothing, said nothing during the nine-minute hearing.

Minnesota abolished capital punishment in 1911 and has never had a federal death penalty case. But the Trump administration is pushing for greater use of capital punishment.

Boelter’s attorney has not commented on the substance of the allegations. His motivations remain murky and statements he has made to some media haven’t been fully clear. Friends have described him as a politically conservative evangelical Christian, and occasional preacher and missionary.

Boelter claimed to the conservative outlet Blaze News in August that he never intended to shoot anyone that night but that his plans went horribly wrong.

He told Blaze in a series of hundreds of texts via his jail’s messaging system that he went to the Hoffmans’ home to make citizen’s arrests over what he called his two-year undercover investigation into 400 deaths from the COVID-19 vaccine that he believed were being covered up by the state.

But he told Blaze he opened fire when the Hoffmans and their adult daughter tried to push him out the door and spoiled his plan. He did not explain why he went on to allegedly shoot the Hortmans and their golden retriever, Gilbert, who had to be euthanized.

Hennepin County Atty. Mary Moriarty said when she announced Boelter’s indictment on state charges in August that she gave no credence to the claims Boelter had made from jail.

In other recent developments, a Sibley County judge last month granted Boelter’s wife a divorce.

Karnowski writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Former NBA player and assistant coach Damon Jones pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges he profited from rigged poker games and provided sports bettors with non-public information about injuries to stars LeBron James and Anthony Davis.

Jones, a onetime teammate of James, said little during back-to-back arraignments in federal court in Brooklyn, letting his court-appointed lawyer enter not guilty pleas in a pair of cases stemming from last month’s federal takedown of sprawling gambling operations.

Jones, 49, acknowledged he read both indictments and that he understood the charges and his bail conditions, which include his mother and stepfather putting up their Texas home as collateral for a $200,000 bond that will allow him to remain free pending trial.

Jones’ lawyer, Kenneth Montgomery, told a judge that they “may be engaging in plea negotiations.” He is due back in court for a preliminary conference with other defendants on Nov. 24.

Jones was among more than 30 people arrested in the gambling sweep. The others included reputed mobsters and prominent basketball figures, including Portland Trail Blazers head coach and Basketball Hall of Famer Chauncey Billups and Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier.

Sports bettor Marves Fairley also pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges alleging he cashed in on information about injuries to NBA players, including some that prosecutors say Jones provided to him.

Jones, an NBA journeyman, earned more than $20 million playing for 10 teams in 11 seasons from 1999 to 2009. He and James played together in Cleveland from 2005 to 2008 and he served as an unofficial assistant coach for James’ Lakers during the 2022-2023 season.

According to prosecutors, Jones sold or attempted to sell non-public information to bettors that James was injured and wouldn’t be playing in a Feb. 9, 2023, game against the Milwaukee Bucks, texting an unnamed co-conspirator: “Get a big bet on Milwaukee tonight before the information is out.”

James wasn’t listed on the Lakers’ injury report at the time of the text message, but the NBA’s all-time scoring leader was later ruled out of the game because of a lower body jury, according to prosecutors, and the Lakers lost the game 115-106.

On Jan. 15, 2024, prosecutors said, Fairley paid Jones approximately $2,500 for a tip that Davis, the Lakers’ forward and center at the time, would see limited playing time against the Oklahoma City Thunder because of an injury.

Fairley then placed a $100,000 bet on the Thunder to win, prosecutors said, but the tip was wrong. Davis played his usual minutes, scored 27 points and collected 15 rebounds in a 112-105 Lakers win, prompting Fairley to demand a refund of his $2,500 fee, prosecutors said.

Jones, a native of Galveston, Texas, who played college basketball at the University of Houston, is charged in both cases with wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy. As part of his bail agreement, his travel is restricted to parts of Texas and New York City. He was allowed to keep his passport to use as identification for flying until he obtains a REAL ID, which his lawyer said should happen soon.

A hot hand from outside the three-point arc, Jones once proclaimed himself in an interview with Insidehoops.com as “the best shooter in the world.” He played in every regular season game for three consecutive seasons from 2003 to 2006.

After his playing days, he worked as a “shooting consultant” for the Cavaliers and was an assistant coach when the team, led by James, won the NBA championship in 2016.

In the poker scheme, according to prosecutors, Jones was among former NBA players used to lure unwitting players into poker games that were rigged using altered shuffling machines, hidden cameras, special sunglasses and even X-ray equipment built into the table.

According to the indictment, Jones was paid $2,500 for a game in the Hamptons where he was instructed to cheat by paying close attention to others involved in the scheme. His instructor likened those people to James and NBA All-Star Stephen Curry, prosecutors said. When in doubt, Jones was told to fold his hand, prosecutors said.

In response, according to prosecutors, Jones texted: “y’all know I know what I’m doing!!”

The poker scheme often made use of illegal poker games run by New York crime families that required them to share a portion of their proceeds with the Gambino, Genovese and Bonnano crime families, according to prosecutors.

Members of those families, in turn, also helped commit violent acts, including assault, extortion and robbery, to ensure repayment of debts and the continued success of the operation, officials said in court documents.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Hurling a sandwich at a federal agent was an act of protest for Washington, D.C., resident Sean Charles Dunn. A jury must decide if it was also a federal crime.

“No matter who you are, you can’t just go around throwing stuff at people because you’re mad,” Assistant U.S. Atty. John Parron told jurors Tuesday at the start of Dunn’s trial on a misdemeanor assault charge.

Dunn doesn’t dispute that he threw his submarine-style sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the night of Aug. 10. It was an “exclamation point” for Dunn as he expressed his opposition to President Trump’s law enforcement surge in the nation’s capital, defense attorney Julia Gatto said during the trial’s opening statements.

“It was a harmless gesture at the end of him exercising his right to speak out,” Gatto said. “He is overwhelmingly not guilty.”

A bystander’s cellphone video of the confrontation went viral on social media, turning Dunn into a symbol of resistance against Trump’s months-long federal takeover. Murals depicting him mid-throw popped up in the city virtually overnight.

“He did it. He threw the sandwich,” Gatto told jurors. “And now the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has turned that moment — a thrown sandwich — into a criminal case, a federal criminal case charging a federal offense.”

A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault count, part of a pattern of pushback against the Justice Department’s prosecution of surge-related criminal cases. After the rare rebuke from the grand jury, U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office charged Dunn instead with a misdemeanor.

Customs and Border Protection Agent Gregory Lairmore, the government’s first witness, said the sandwich “exploded” when it struck his chest hard enough that he could feel it through his ballistic vest.

“You could smell the onions and the mustard,” he recalled.

Lairmore and other agents were standing in front of a club hosting a “Latin Night” when Dunn approached and shouted profanities at them, calling them “fascists” and “racists” and chanting “shame.”

“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.

Lairmore testified that he and the other agents tried to de-escalate the situation.

“He was red-faced. Enraged. Calling me and my colleagues all kinds of names,” he said. “I didn’t respond. That’s his constitutional right to express his opinion.”

After throwing the sandwich, Dunn ran away but was apprehended about a block away.

Later, Lairmore’s colleagues jokingly gave him gifts making light of the incident, including a subway sandwich-shaped plush toy and a patch that said “felony footlong.” Defense attorney Sabrina Schroff pointed to those as proof that the agents recognize this case is “overblown” and “worthy of a joke.”

Parron told jurors that everybody is entitled to their views about Trump’s federal surge. But “respectfully, that’s not what this case is about,” the prosecutor said. “You just can’t do what the defendant did here. He crossed a line.”

Dunn was a Justice Department employee who worked as an international affairs specialist in its criminal division. After Dunn’s arrest, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced his firing in a social media post that referred to him as “an example of the Deep State.”

Dunn was released from custody but rearrested when a team of armed federal agents in riot gear raided his home. The White House posted a highly produced “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account, Dunn’s lawyers said.

Dunn’s lawyers have argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House show Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech. They urged U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to dismiss the case, calling it a vindictive and selective prosecution. Nichols, who was nominated by Trump, didn’t rule on that request before the trial started Monday.

Dunn is charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer. Dozens of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were convicted of felonies for assaulting or interfering with police during the Jan. 6 attack. Trump pardoned or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of them.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Zohran Mamdani, the progressive standard-bearer who could become New York City’s next mayor after Tuesday’s election, faces a public-safety trap that has entangled progressives nationwide: Voters want less cruelty, not less accountability. Confuse the two, and even progressives will vote you out.

Even before he has taken office, Mamdani is already fending off attacks from opponents, including former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other political adversaries. They seek to brand him as a radical by tying him to the national Democratic Socialists of America’s most controversial criminal justice planks, such as declining to prosecute misdemeanor offenses.

Yet, in distancing himself from those specific policies, Mamdani is cleverly navigating a political minefield that has doomed other reformers. His strategy demonstrates a crucial lesson for the broader progressive movement: voters want a less inhumane justice system, not one that is unenforced. If progressives are perceived as abandoning accountability for offenses like shoplifting and public drug usage, they invite a political backlash that will not only cost them elections (or reelections) but also set back the cause of reform nationwide.

Americans across the political spectrum support reducing extremely harsh punishments. They want shorter sentences, alternatives to incarceration and rehabilitation over punishment. The moral case against excessive punishment resonates with voters who see our system as unnecessarily cruel. The evidence is overwhelming: 81% of Americans believe the U.S. criminal justice system needs reform, and 85% agree the main goal of our criminal justice system should be rehabilitation.

But when it comes to deciding which behaviors deserve prosecution, the politics shift dramatically. Mamdani has previously aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that calls for ending the enforcement of some misdemeanor offenses.

This is precisely the kind of stance that can trigger backlash. The 2022 recall of San Francisco’s progressive district attorney shows why. About 1 in 3 “progressive” voters cast a ballot to remove the progressive DA from office. It wasn’t because they disagreed with his policies; in fact, these same voters supported his specific reforms when his name wasn’t attached to them. Their opposition was rooted in a fear that declining to prosecute low-level crimes would create a deterrence vacuum and incentivize lawlessness.

In Los Angeles, George Gascón’s trajectory offers a cautionary tale. As Los Angeles County district attorney, he survived two recall attempts before losing his 2024 reelection bid by 23 points. L.A. voters hadn’t abandoned reform — they’d supported it just four years earlier. But Gascón’s categorical bans on seeking certain harsher sentences or charging juveniles as adults triggered a revolt from his own rank-and-file prosecutors, creating the perception that entire categories of misconduct would go unaddressed. When prosecutors publicly sued him, arguing his directives violated state law, the deterrence vacuum became tangible. By the time Gascón walked back some policies, voters’ trust had evaporated.

This pattern repeats across the country. In Boston, DA Kevin Hayden has distanced himself so forcefully from predecessor Rachael Rollins’ “do not prosecute” list that he bristles at reporters even mentioning it. Yet Hayden’s office is still diverting first-time shoplifters to treatment programs — the same approach Rollins advocated. The difference? Hayden emphasizes prosecution of repeat offenders while offering alternatives to first-timers. The policy is nearly identical; the politics couldn’t be more different.

Critics are right to argue that the old model of misdemeanor prosecution was a failure. It criminalized poverty and addiction, clogged our courts and did little to stop the revolving door. But the answer to a broken system is not to create a vacuum of enforcement; it is to build a new system that pairs accountability with effective intervention.

Mamdani has already shown political wisdom by declaring, “I am not defunding the police.” But the issue isn’t just about police funding — it’s about what behaviors the criminal justice system will address. As mayor, Mamdani would not control whether the prosecutors abandon prosecution of misdemeanors, but what matters are his stances and voters’ perception. He should be vocal about how we thinks prosecutors should respond to low-level offenses:

• First-time shoplifters: Restitution or community service.
• Drug possession: Treatment enrollment, not incarceration.
• Quality-of-life violations: Social service interventions for housing and health.
• DUI offenders: Intensive supervision and treatment.

To be clear, this isn’t about ignoring these offenses; it’s about transforming the response. For this to work, the justice system must use its inherent leverage. Instead of compelling jail time, a pending criminal case becomes the tool to ensure a person completes a treatment program, pays restitution to the store they stole from, or connects with housing services. This is the essence of diversion: Accountability is met, the underlying problem is addressed, and upon successful completion, the case is often dismissed, allowing the person to move forward without the lifelong burden of a criminal record.

Mamdani’s proposed Department of Community Safety is a step in the right direction. But it must work alongside, not instead of, prosecution for lower-level offenses, and Mamdani must frame it as a partner to prosecution. If voters perceive it as a substitute for accountability, his opponents will use it as a political weapon the moment crime rates fluctuate.

New York deserves bold criminal justice reform. But boldness without pragmatism leads to backlash that sets the entire movement back. The future of the criminal justice progressive movement in America will not be determined by its ideals, but by its ability to deliver pragmatic safety. For the aspiring mayor, and for prosecutors in California and beyond, this means understanding that residents want both order and compassionate justice.

Dvir Yogev is a postdoctoral researcher at the Criminal Law & Justice Center at UC Berkeley, where he studies the politics of criminal justice reform and prosecutor elections.