trial

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.  — President Trump said Friday that he will be pardoning former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who in 2024 was convicted for cocaine trafficking and weapons charges and sentenced to 45 years in U.S. prison.

Trump, explaining his decision on social media, wrote that “according to many people that I greatly respect,” Hernandez was “treated very harshly and unfairly.”

The pardoning of a convicted drug trafficker comes as the Trump administration is carrying out deadly military strikes in the Caribbean that it describes as an anti-narcotics effort.

A jury in U.S. federal court in New York last year found that Hernandez had conspired with drug traffickers and used his military and national police force to enable tons of cocaine to make it unhindered into the United States. In handing down the 45-year sentence, the judge in the case had called Hernandez a “two-faced politician hungry for power” who protected a select group of traffickers.

Trial witnesses included traffickers who admitted responsibility for dozens of murders and said Hernandez was an enthusiastic protector of some of the world’s most powerful cocaine dealers, including notorious Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who is serving a life prison term in the U.S.

Hernandez, who had served two terms as the leader of the Central American nation of about 10 million people, had been appealing his conviction and serving time at the U.S. Penitentiary, Hazelton, in West Virginia.

Shortly after Trump’s pardon announcement, Hernández’s wife and children gathered on the steps of their home in Tegucigalpa and kneeled in prayer, grateful that Hernández would return to their family after almost four years apart.

It was the same home that Honduran authorities hauled him out of in 2022 just months after leaving office. He was extradited to the United States to stand trial.

García said they had just been able to speak with Hernández and tell him the news.

“He still didn’t know of this news, and believe me, when we shared it his voice broke with emotion,” she said.

García thanked Trump, saying that the president had corrected an injustice, maintaining that Hernández’s prosecution was a coordinated plot by drug traffickers and the “radical left” to seek revenge against the former president.

She said they had not been told exactly when Hernández would return, but said that “we hope … in the coming days.”

A lawyer for Hernandez, Renato C. Stabile, expressed gratitude for Trump’s actions. “A great injustice has been righted, and we are so hopeful for the future partnership of the United States and Honduras,” Stabile said.

U.S. prosecutors had said that Hernandez worked with drug traffickers dating back to 2004, taking millions of dollars in bribes as he rose from rural congressman to president of the National Congress and then to the country’s highest office.

Hernandez acknowledged in trial testimony that drug money was paid to virtually all political parties in Honduras, but he denied accepting bribes himself. Hernandez had insisted during his trial that he was being persecuted by politicians and drug traffickers.

Trump’s post Friday was part of a broader message backing Nasry “Tito” Asfura for Honduras’ presidency, with Trump saying the U.S. would be supportive of the country only if he wins. If Asfura loses the election Sunday, Trump threatened in his post, “the United States will not be throwing good money after bad, because a wrong Leader can only bring catastrophic results to a country, no matter which country it is.”

Asfura, 67, is making his second run for president for the conservative National Party. He was mayor of Tegucigalpa and has pledged to solve Honduras’ infrastructure needs. He has previously been accused of embezzling public funds, allegations that he denies.

In addition to Asfura, there are two other likely contenders for Honduras’ presidency: Rixi Moncada, who served as the finance secretary and later defense secretary before running for president for the incumbent democratic socialist Libre party; and Salvador Nasralla, a former television personality who is making his fourth bid for the presidency, this time as the candidate for the Liberal Party.

Trump has framed Honduras’ election as a trial for democracy, suggesting in a separate Truth Social post that if Asfura loses, the country could go the way of Venezuela and fall under the influence of that country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro.

Trump has sought to apply pressure on Maduro, ordering a series of strikes against boats the U.S. suspects of carrying drugs, building up the U.S. military presence in the Caribbean with warships including the Navy’s most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford.

The U.S. president has not ruled out taking military action or covert action by the CIA against Venezuela, though he has also floated that he was open to speaking with Maduro.

Outgoing Honduran President Xiomara Castro has governed as a leftist, but she has maintained a pragmatic and even cooperative position in dealing with the Republican U.S. administration. She has received visits from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Army Gen. Laura Richardson, when she was head of U.S. Southern Command. Trump has even backed off his threats to end Honduras’ extradition treaty and military cooperation with the U.S.

Under Castro, Honduras has also received its citizens deported from the U.S. and acted as a bridge for deported Venezuelans who were then picked up by Venezuela in Honduras.

Argentine President Javier Milei, a staunch ally of Trump, also gave his support to Asfura in this weekend’s election.

“I fully support Tito Asfura, who is the candidate who best represents the opposition to the leftist tyrants who have destroyed Honduras,” Milei said Friday on his X account.

Boak and Sherman write for the Associated Press and reported from West Palm Beach and Tegucigalpa, respectively. AP writer Mike Sisak in Lancaster, Pa., contributed to this report.

Photographer Yasin Akgul says he will continue on his path ‘with even more reporting’ following his acquittal.

A Turkish court has acquitted four journalists accused of taking part in an allegedly unlawful demonstration they were covering in Istanbul earlier this year.

The ruling was issued on Thursday morning after the court found no evidence that the media workers – a photographer with the AFP news agency and three local journalists – had committed any offence, according to AFP and local media reports.

Those cleared are AFP’s Yasin Akgul, Ali Onur Tosun of Turkish broadcaster NOW Haber and freelancers Bulent Kilic and Zeynep Kuray.

Turkiye’s Hurriyet Daily News reported three other journalists had also been acquitted.

The reporters were arrested in March amid a mass protest movement triggered by the arrest of Istanbul’s Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, who is a critic of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Turkish government has rejected accusations of political interference, insisting the judiciary acts independently.

They, along with thousands of protesters, had been accused of violating Turkiye’s Law 2911 on meetings and demonstrations – a measure rights groups say is used to curb peaceful assembly.

Supporters of Law 2911 say that it is necessary for public order to regulate all protests and assemblies. They cite its legal basis for dispersing gatherings that impede public movement or violate security instructions.

‘Journalists must be allowed to work unhindered’

AFP, which had repeatedly called for Akgul’s acquittal, hailed the court decision.

“AFP welcomes the acquittal of Yasin Akgul and his colleagues. This case against photographers doing their job on the streets of Istanbul should never have been brought,” Phil Chetwynd, AFP’s global news director, said.

“Journalists must be allowed to cover demonstrations and protests unhindered,” he added.

Media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also welcomed the decision in a case it has described as “unlawful”.

AFP’s Akgul said the decision was expected even though it came late. “Now that the psychological strain of the trial process and my difficulty in focusing are gone, I will continue on my path with even more reporting,” he told AFP after the verdict. “The right decision has been made. I hope that other journalists who are still inside will also be freed as soon as possible.”

Fans of Angels pitcher Tyler Skaggs might want to hold their ears when the wrongful death trial brought by his widow and parents against the Angels resumes Monday.

The Angels are about to present their defense and, according to people with knowledge of the Angels’ strategy, their attorneys plan to portray Skaggs as a selfish, secretive opioid addict who for years manipulated teammates and team communications director Eric Kay into obtaining illicit pills for him to chop up and snort.

Skaggs, a first-round draft pick of the Angels in 2009 out of Santa Monica High, was one year away from free agency when he died of an overdose July 1, 2019. He died after snorting a counterfeit opioid pill laced with fentanyl in his hotel room during an Angels trip to play the Texas Rangers in Arlington.

The left-handed starter was 27 and in the midst of his best season of seven in the big leagues when he died. His performance has been pointed to by Skaggs family lawyers as evidence he wasn’t a drug addict, but instead an athlete who took pain pills to stay on the field.

So far, testimony in a small, spare courtroom on the ninth floor of the Orange County Superior Court has favored the plaintiffs — Skaggs’ widow, Carli, and parents, Debbie Hetman and Darrell Skaggs.

Their lawyers called 21 witnesses over 24 days in court, attempting to establish that the pitcher’s fatal overdose was the result of the Angels’ negligent supervision of Kay, an admitted longtime opioid addict who is serving 22 years in prison for providing Skaggs with the pill.

The plaintiffs are asking for about $120 million in future earnings as well as additional millions for pain and suffering and punitive damages. Neither side is optimistic that a settlement can be reached ahead of a verdict.

Transcripts of trial testimony and interviews with people on both sides not authorized to speak publicly about the case provided a glimpse of the Angels’ defense strategy and what the plaintiffs have accomplished so far.

The Angels pared down their witness list at the request of Judge H. Shaina Colover, who has insisted the case go to the jury by Dec. 15. The Angels complained that two weeks might not be long enough to present their case, giving the plaintiffs an unfair advantage, even suggesting the issue could lead to a mistrial.

Skaggs’ lawyers, however, pointed out that the defense has taken longer to cross-examine witnesses than it took them to conduct the direct examinations. And Colover said a reason for the difference in the number of witnesses is that 12 people called by Skaggs’ lawyers were on the witness lists of both sides.

Like an MLB manager constructing a lineup, Skaggs lawyers led by Rusty Hardin were purposeful in the order they presented witnesses. They began their case by calling a string of Angels executives to poke holes in the team’s contention that they knew nothing about Kay’s addiction. Key witnesses refuting those denials included Kay’s wife, Camela, and Hetman.

Skaggs’ lawyers also presented text messages that indicated Kay’s supervisor, Tim Mead, and Angels traveling secretary Tom Taylor not only were aware of Kay’s addiction, but did not act decisively to isolate him, get him into inpatient rehab or terminate his employment.

The plaintiffs called witnesses to establish that not only were the Angels negligent on how they dealt with Kay’s addiction, they put his interest ahead of other employees and the organization by allowing him to continue working despite his bizarre behavior on the job.

The last witness before the court went into recess until Dec. 1 was human resources expert Ramona Powell, who testified that the Angels did not follow their own policies in evaluating and responding to Kay’s behavior. She said that had the team done so, Kay could have been terminated well before 2019.

Expect Angels lead attorney Todd Theodora to counter that Skaggs violated his contract and was guilty of fraud by concealing his drug problem for years. Furthermore, Skaggs allegedly continued to pressure Kay to procure opioids for him even after Kay completed drug rehab shortly before the fateful trip to Texas.

During opening arguments, Theodora stated that the Angels “know right from wrong,” but he is expected to assert that the case is more about what the team didn’t know. Kay and Skaggs have been described as masters at concealing their drug use. The Angels contend that had the team known of their addiction, officials could have provided them with treatment and perhaps Skaggs would be alive.

Testimony has already established that the Angels immediately informed MLB that Kay told co-worker Adam Chodzko that he was in Skaggs’ hotel room the night the pitcher died. Expect the Angels attorneys to take it a step further and assert that Kay might not have been prosecuted if the Angels hadn’t acted so swiftly.

Witnesses expected to be called by the defense include Angels president John Carpino and former MLB general manager Dan Duquette. The jury will view video of depositions given by former Angels players C.J. Cron, Matt Harvey, Cam Bedrosian and Blake Parker if they cannot testify in person.

The testimony of players can cut both ways, as evidenced by statements made by two players who testified for the plaintiffs — current Angels outfielder and three-time most valuable player Mike Trout and former relief pitcher Mike Morin.

Trout testified that Skaggs was “like a brother” to him, that he cried when told he’d died and that he had no clue about drug use. But Trout also hedged when asked whether he had offered to pay for Kay’s rehab, saying he just told him he’d help any way he could.

Morin, who pitched for the Angels from 2014 to 2017, said Kay sold him opioids “five to eight times” after an arm injury made him desperate to overcome pain and return to the mound. Yet under cross examination, Morin conceded that Skaggs was responsible for his own actions.

Carpino is responsible for the Angels’ day-to-day operations and his office is adjacent to those of Mead, Taylor and formerly Kay. Duquette, former general manager of the Montreal Expos, Boston Red Sox and Baltimore Orioles, is expected to testify that Skaggs’ future career earnings would have been no more than $30 million because of his drug use and history of injuries.

Skaggs’ lawyers called earnings expert Jeff Fannell, a former labor lawyer for the MLB Players Assn., who testified that Skaggs would have earned between $109 million and $120 million and could still be pitching.

WASHINGTON — Grammy-winning rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel of the Fugees was sentenced Thursday to 14 years in prison for a case in which he was convicted of illegally funneling millions of dollars in foreign contributions to then-President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

Michel, 52, declined to address the court before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sentenced him.

In April 2023, a federal jury convicted Michel of 10 counts, including conspiracy and acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. The trial in Washington, D.C., included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions.

Justice Department prosecutors said federal sentencing guidelines recommended a life sentence for Michel, whom they said “betrayed his country for money” and “lied unapologetically and unrelentingly to carry out his schemes.”

“His sentence should reflect the breadth and depth of his crimes, his indifference to the risks to his country, and the magnitude of his greed,” they wrote.

Defense attorney Peter Zeidenberg said his client’s 14-year sentence is “completely disproportionate to the offense.” Michel will appeal his conviction and sentence, according to his lawyer.

Zeidenberg had recommended a three-year sentence. A life sentence would be an “absurdly high” punishment for Michel given that it is typically reserved for deadly terrorists and drug cartel leaders, Michel’s attorneys said in a court filing.

“The Government’s position is one that would cause Inspector Javert to recoil and, if anything, simply illustrates just how easily the Guidelines can be manipulated to produce absurd results, and how poorly equipped they are, at least on this occasion, to determine a fair and just sentence,” they wrote.

Michel, a Brooklyn native whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from Haiti, was a founding member of the Fugees along with childhood friends Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean. Their hip-hop band won two Grammy Awards and sold tens of millions of albums.

Michel obtained more than $120 million from Malaysian billionaire Low Taek Jho — also known as Jho Low — and steered some of that money through straw donors to Obama’s campaign.

Michel also tried to end a Justice Department investigation of Low, tampered with two witnesses and perjured himself at trial, prosecutors said.

Low, who has lived in China, was one of the primary financiers of “The Wolf of Wall Street,” a movie starring DiCaprio. Low is a fugitive but has maintained his innocence.

“Low’s motivation for giving Mr. Michel money to donate was not so that he could achieve some policy objective. Instead, Low simply wanted to obtain a photograph with himself and then-President Obama,” Michel’s attorneys wrote.

In August 2024, the judge rejected Michel’s request for a new trial based in part on his defense attorney’s use of a generative AI program during his closing of the trial’s arguments. The judge said that and other trial errors didn’t amount to a serious miscarriage of justice.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 18 (UPI) — Facebook owner Meta can keep the WhatsApp mobile messaging app and the Instagram social media site in a federal trial first brought by the Federal Trade Commission in 2020.

Washington D.C.-based Judge James Boasberg ruled Tuesday that the FTC did not prove its claim that Meta has maintained a monopoly on social media platforms, CNBC reported.

“Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now,” Boasberg wrote.

“The court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so,” he added.

Meta officials said in a statement to NPR that Boasberg’s ruling affirms that social media remains competitive.

Boasberg in 2021 dismissed the case citing a lack of evidence that Facebook held “market power” over social media.

The FTC amended and refiled its complaint in August 2021, providing more detail on user data and comparisons to competitors, including Snapchat, the discontinued Google+ social network and Myspace.

The FTC also argued Meta engaged in a “buy or bury” strategy to monopolize social media when it paid more than market value to buy Instagram in 2012 and when it bought WhatsApp in 2014, according to NPR.

The only way to resolve the alleged monopoly was to require Meta to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp as independent companies, the FTC argued.

The social media marketplace has changed greatly over the past five years since the federal agency first accused Meta of monopolizing social media, Boasberg wrote.

“While it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down,” Boasberg wrote.

He cited the rise of TikTok and called it “Meta’s fiercest rival,” which he called evidence of a competitive social media marketplace.

During the trial that concluded in May, Meta’s legal team argued it faced plenty of competition and only bought WhatsApp and Instagram because they are quality products that were easier to buy instead of replicating.

During the trial, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified that buying Instagram was easier than creating a new product that would compete with it.

The attacks in March killed thousands, many from the Alawite religious minority.

Syria has launched the trial of the first of hundreds of suspects for their role in deadly clashes earlier this year that killed hundreds in the country’s coastal provinces.

Syrian state media reported on Tuesday that 14 people were brought before Aleppo’s Palace of Justice following a months-long, government-led investigation.

Hundreds of people from the Alawite religious minority, to which ousted President Bashar al-Assad belonged, were killed in the massacres in March.

The violence erupted after attacks on the new government’s security forces by armed groups aligned with the deposed autocrat. Counterattacks soon spiralled out of control to target civilians in the coastal regions that host the Alawite population.

Seven of the defendants in the court on Tuesday were al-Assad loyalists, while the other seven were members of the new government’s security forces.

Charges against the suspects could include sedition, inciting civil war, attacking security forces, murder, looting and leading armed gangs, according to state media.

The seven accused from government forces are being prosecuted for “premeditated murder”.

The public and the international community have put pressure on the country’s new rulers to commit to judicial reform.

“The court is sovereign and independent,” said Judge Zakaria Bakkar as the trial opened.

The proceedings are important for President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the leader of forces that formerly had links to al-Qaeda, who since coming to power in December has scrambled to step out from diplomatic isolation. He is working to convince the United States to drop more of its crippling sanctions against Syria and to boost trade to rebuild the war-torn country.

However, despite initial reports by the state media that charges could quickly be brought against the defendants, the judge adjourned the session and rescheduled the next hearing for December.

The National Commission of Inquiry said in July that it had verified serious violations leading to the deaths of at least 1,426 people, most of them civilians, and identified 298 suspects.

It claimed 238 members of the security forces and army had been killed in attacks attributed to al-Assad’s supporters. The authorities then sent reinforcements to the region, with the commission estimating their number at 200,000 fighters.

The commission said there was no evidence that Syria’s new military leaders had ordered attacks on the Alawite community.

A United Nations probe, however, found that violence targeting civilians by government-aligned factions had been “widespread and systematic.”

A UN commission said that during the violence, homes in Alawite-majority areas were raided and civilians were asked “whether they were Sunni or Alawite.”

It said: ”Alawite men and boys were then taken away to be executed.”

Aitch is the next celeb to face a Bushtucker trial, called Jungle Doomsday, and a twist in the game leaves even seasoned hosts Ant and Dec shocked, as the rapper fumes ‘you dirty bean’

As rapper Aitch undertook the next Bushtucker Trial, a twist in the I’m A Celeb challenge left everyone shocked, including hosts Ant and Dec.

It was revealed in last night’s (17 November) show that the rapper would be taking on the next challenge. The new trial is called Jungle Doomsday, and the first look shows that Aitch has to hunt through a bunker for stars for the camp. In typical I’m A Celeb fashion, many of these stars a tucked away in jars filled with scorpions and other creatures.

But as Aitch hunted around for the stars, a voice came over the tannoy and said: “Warning cryo chamber malfunction. Awakening snake unit.”

READ MORE: Aitch and Angry Ginge’s I’m A Celeb pay modest compared to huge stars as they steal showREAD MORE: ‘Ninja’s Crispi airfryer transformed my everyday meals and now it’s £40 off for Black Friday’

This left Aitch fuming, as he yelled “Oh, you dirty bean!” But it also shocked Ant McPartlin and Dec Donnelly, despite their many years on the show.

The pair had been watching Aitch try to complete the task via a monitor, but when they heard about the snakes, they looked up in horror. “What?” they both yelled, unable to contain their disbelief.

Nevertheless, Aitch got stuck into the task and quickly located the star in a scorpion jar. Before long, he was trying to find the one inside the snake unit and approached the creatures with his now familiar humour.

“Hello, boys, how are we?” he asked as he moved towards the snakes. He soon found the star but discovered it was attached to a string and he would have to untie it. Trying to calm his nerves, the rapper by paying homage to the hosting duo.

He started to sing Let’s Get Ready to Rhumble, a song put out by PJ & Duncan AKA, the performing name used by Ant & Dec when they used to make music. It was released in 1994, which is five years before Aitch, real name Harrison James Armstrong, was born.

Aitch has become a firm fan favourite for his light-hearted attitude on the show, alongside content creator Angry Ginge. “Angry Ginge and Aitch are killing me. Too funny those two,” one fan wrote on social media. Another added that the pair should win the show. “Aitch & Ginge = best duo! For the win!”

The rapper is thought to be the highest paid celeb on this year’s show, with a rumoured paycheck of £250k. The 25-year-old is thought to have been brought on the show to being in younger viewers and his 2.2 million followers on Instagram will surely help with that.

I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here! airs every night at 9pm on ITV1, STV, ITVX and STV Player.

I’m A Celebrity…Unpacked airs live on ITV2 every night directly after the ITV1 show. You can also stream it anytime on ITVX.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Protesters demand justice over the nightclub fire that killed 63 people in the town of Kocani in March.

Thousands of protesters have marched in North Macedonia’s capital, Skopje, demanding justice for the 63 people who were killed in a fire at a nightclub in March.

The rally on Saturday comes ahead of the trial of the 34 people and three companies charged over the incident, which marked the deadliest blaze in North Macedonia’s history.

The fire broke out at the crowded Pulse club in the eastern town of Kocani during a hip-hop concert on March 16, triggering a stampede and killing 63 people. Some 200 others were injured.

Most of the victims were aged between 16 and 26.

Families of the victims and their supporters marched to the North Macedonian parliament on Saturday, dressed in black and carrying a huge banner with pictures of the victims, saying, “63 shadows will be following you”.

The protesters also chanted “justice for Kocani”.

The families blame corruption and greed for the deaths of their children at the unlicensed venue in Kocani. Authorities said the fire was sparked by a pyrotechnic flame that engulfed the roof of the club and that the venue had numerous and serious safety violations.

Natalija Gjorgjieska was among the families demanding justice on Saturday.

Her husband, musician Andrej Gjorgjieski, was killed in the fire. “We demand the truth. Where did the mistakes occur, who didn’t respond, which institutions were late, who had the responsibility to prevent [them] and did not?” she said.

The prosecution filed indictments for 34 people, among them the club owner, security guards and former mayors of Kocani, as well as representatives of three legal entities, including the security firm and the club owner’s companies.

They are accused of “serious crimes against public security”.

Other defendants include inspectors, civil servants and former economy ministers. If found guilty, they face up to 10 years in prison.

Corruption has long plagued North Macedonia. The Berlin-based monitor Transparency International ranked North Macedonia in 88th place globally on its Corruption Perception Index last year, one of the worst rankings in Europe.

Bribes to authorities to skip licensing requirements and skirt safety regulations are commonplace.

The European Union has repeatedly expressed concerns over pervasive corruption in the country, identifying it as a major obstacle to the nation’s accession to the bloc. North Macedonia is a veteran candidate country, waiting for entry into the EU since 2005.

The longest U.S. government shutdown in history is over, but the fallout will continue to hit two groups particularly hard for months to come: federally funded defense lawyers and the people they represent.

Thousands of court-appointed lawyers, known as Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys, along with paralegals, investigators, expert witnesses and interpreters, haven’t been paid since June after federal funding for the Defender Services program fell $130 million short of what the judiciary requested and ran out July 3. They had been told they would receive deferred payment once Congress passed a new budget, but as the government shutdown dragged on, many couldn’t move forward with trials or take on new clients.

Nationally, CJA lawyers handle about 40% of cases in which the defendant cannot afford an attorney. As many cases have ground to a halt, defendants’ lives have been put on hold as they wait for their day in court. Meanwhile, the federal government has continued to arrest and charge people.

“The system’s about to break,” Michael Chernis, a CJA panel attorney in Southern California, said during the shutdown. He hasn’t taken new cases since August and had to take out a loan to make payroll for his law firm.

Unpaid defense team members in several states said they had to dip into their retirement savings or turn to gig work, such as driving for Uber, to support their families.

Panel attorneys should begin receiving payment as early as next week. Judge Robert Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said in a Thursday memo that the resolution Congress passed to fund the government through Jan. 30 provided an extra $114 million for the Defender Services program “to address the backlog of panel attorney payments.”

But the crisis isn’t over. Conrad said a spending bill pending for the 2026 fiscal year is still $196 million short and funding is likely to run out to pay CJA panel attorneys next June.

The problem is particularly severe in the Central District of California, the largest and one of the most complex federal trial courts in the United States. Out of the approximately 100 such lawyers for the district, about 80 have stopped taking on new cases.

Chernis has a client who lives in Sacramento, but neither Chernis nor a court-appointed investigator have been able to cover the cost of travel to meet with him to discuss the case. The expert they need for the trial will also not agree to travel to Los Angeles to work on the case without payment, Chernis said.

In New Mexico, one judge halted a death penalty case, which is costly and labor-intensive to prepare, and at least 40 lawyers have resolved not to take on new cases even after the shutdown ended if the overall funding shortfall is not resolved.

California’s Central District Chief Judge Dolly Gee wrote in an Oct. 30 letter to Sen. Adam Schiff that the situation had become “dire.”

“These attorneys have sought delays in cases when they cannot find investigators and experts who are willing to work without pay, which has added to the court’s backlog of cases, and left defendants languishing in already overcrowded local prison,” Gee said. “Without additional funding, we will soon be unable to appoint counsel for all defendants who are constitutionally entitled to representation.”

She said judges may have to face the prospect of having to dismiss cases for defendants who can’t retain a lawyer.

Just hours before the government shutdown ended, Judge John A. Mendez in the Eastern District of California did, tossing out a criminal case against a man indicted on a charge of distribution of methamphetamine.

“The right to effective assistance of counsel is a bedrock principle of this country and is indisputably necessary for the operation of a fair criminal justice system,” Mendez wrote.

Everyone in the United States has the right to due process — including the right to legal counsel and a fair and speedy trial, guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments.

Critics of the Trump administration have argued that it is chipping away at that right. Immigrant advocacy groups have made the allegation in multiple lawsuits. Most notably, they cite the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran-born man who was living with his family in Maryland when he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador and imprisoned at a notorious prison. He has since returned to the U.S., but he continues to face the threat of deportation as his case moves through the courts.

President Trump has been circumspect about his duties to uphold due process rights laid out in the Constitution, saying in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” in May that he does not know whether U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike deserve that guarantee.

The funding upheaval has delayed Christian Cerna-Camacho’s trial by at least three months. His lawyer said in court filings that one investigator, who has spent hours poring over body-camera recordings, news reports and social media content, was unable to do more work until he is paid.

Cerna-Camacho was arrested in June and is accused of punching a federal officer during a June 7 protest in Paramount against Trump’s immigration raids. He is out on bond but cannot find a construction job while he wears an ankle monitor because it poses a safety risk at the site, his attorney Scott Tenley wrote in a recent court filing.

David Kaloynides, a CJA panel attorney in Los Angeles, couldn’t even communicate with some of his clients during the shutdown because they speak only Spanish, and interpreters were not being paid. His caseload is full to the point where he’s scheduling trials in 2027, while many clients wait in jail, he said.

“We don’t do this appointed work because of the money; we do it because we’re dedicated,” Kaloynides said. “But we also can’t do it for free.”

Ding writes for the Associated Press.

The experiment of using Kookaburra cricket balls in some rounds of the County Championship has been scrapped.

Kookaburras have been used in some rounds for each of the past three seasons, but the move was largely unpopular due to the trend of bat dominating ball.

Directors of cricket from the 18 first-class counties expressed their desire to end the experiment in October.

And the decision was confirmed by a meeting of the England and Wales Cricket Board’s professional game committee (PGC) earlier this week.

It means all 14 rounds of the 2026 County Championship season will be played with balls manufactured by Dukes.

Dukes are the traditional supplier of cricket balls for first-class cricket played in England. Dukes balls are hand-stitched and, in general, offer more assistance to bowlers.

Kookaburra balls are machine made and are mainly used in countries like Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

The Kookaburra ball was introduced into the County Championship with the idea of preparing English players for overseas conditions. The theory was that it would encourage bowlers of higher pace and lead to spin having an enhanced role.

It was used for two rounds of matches in 2023, and expanded to four rounds for 2024 and 2025.

Two rounds of Kookaburra matches earlier this summer, played in June, resulted in a lot of dull cricket. The average first-innings total across the Championship was 430, 59 individual scores of 100 or more were made and Surrey racked up 820-9 declared against Durham at The Oval.

The ECB’s high performance arm – those involved in the England teams rather than the county game – still stands by the decision to use the Kookaburra, however, which points to the conflicts within the game.

Speaking last month before the decision was confirmed, ECB men’s performance director Ed Barney said: “We valued the Kookaburra ball. Has it achieved what we intended to? Yes, 100%.

“To be most effective with the Kookaburra ball you have to bowl at a higher speed. Has it drawn more spin bowling into the domestic game? Yes it has.”

Statistics from the past three County Championship seasons shows the optimal bowling speeds with the Kookaburra were around 85mph, but 75-79mph with the Dukes.

Forty per cent of deliveries were bowled by spinners during Kookaburra rounds but only 25% when using the Dukes.

“Ultimately the domestic game has a decision to make of whether it wants its core purpose to be about producing and developing players for international cricket or whether its core purpose is about a product that is competitive and appealing to the domestic context,” added Barney.

“That is the choice the domestic game and ECB has to make, and it is quite difficult for it to co-exist together.”

The move to return to the Dukes for the entire Championship season comes after counties rejected proposals to restructure the competition.

A new set-up of 12 teams in the top flight and six in the bottom tier, with each side playing 13 matches, was turned down in favour of the current system.

The Championship will remain with 10 teams in Division One, eight in Division Two, all playing 14 matches.

Movies that depict the history of war criminals on trial will almost always be worth making and watching. These films are edifying (and cathartic) in a way that could almost be considered a public servic and that’s what works best in James Vanderbilt’s “Nuremberg,” about the international tribunal that tried the Nazi high command in the immediate wake of World War II. It’s a drama that is well-intentioned and elucidating despite some missteps.

For his second directorial effort, Vanderbilt, a journeyman writer best known for his “Zodiac” screenplay for David Fincher, adapts “The Nazi and the Psychiatrist” by Jack El-Hai, about the curious clinical relationship between Dr. Douglas Kelley, an Army psychiatrist, and former German Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring during the lead-up to the Nuremberg trials.

The film is a two-hander shared by Oscar winners: a formidable Russell Crowe as Göring and a squirrely Rami Malek as Kelley. At the end of the war, Kelley is summoned to an ad-hoc Nazi prison in Luxembourg to evaluate the Nazi commandants. Immediately, he’s intrigued at the thought of sampling so many flavors of narcissism.

It becomes clear that the doctor has his own interests in mind with this unique task as well. At one point while recording notes, in a moment of particularly on-the-nose screenwriting, Kelley verbalizes “Someone could write a book” and off he dashes to the library with his German interpreter, a baby-faced U.S. Army officer named Howie (Leo Woodall), in tow. That book would eventually be published in 1947 as “22 Cells in Nuremberg,” a warning about the possibilities of Nazism in our own country, but no one wants to believe our neighbors can be Nazis until our neighbors are Nazis.

One of the lessons of the Nuremberg trials — and of “Nuremberg” the film — is that Nazis are people too, with the lesson being that human beings are indeed capable of such horrors (the film grinds to an appropriate halt in a crucial moment to simply let the characters and the audience take in devastating concentration camp footage). Human beings, not monsters, were the architects of the Final Solution.

But human beings can also fight against this if they choose to, and the rule of law can prevail if people make the choice to uphold it. The Nuremberg trials start because Justice Robert Jackson (Michael Shannon) doesn’t let anything so inconvenient as a logistical international legal nightmare stop him from doing what’s right.

Kelley’s motivations are less altruistic. He is fascinated by these men and their pathologies, particularly the disarming Göring, and in the name of science the doctor dives headlong into a deeper relationship with his patient than he should, eventually ferrying letters back and forth between Göring and his wife and daughter, still in hiding. He finds that Göring is just a man — a megalomaniacal, arrogant and manipulative man, but just a man. That makes the genocide that he helped to plan and execute that much harder to swallow.

Crowe has a planet-sized gravitational force on screen that he lends to the outsize Göring and Shannon possesses the same weight. A climactic scene between these two actors in which Jackson cross-examines Göring is a riveting piece of courtroom drama. Malek’s energy is unsettled, his character always unpredictable. He and Crowe are interesting but unbalanced together.

Vanderbilt strives to imbue “Nuremberg” with a retro appeal that sometimes feels misplaced. John Slattery, as the colonel in charge of the prison, throws some sauce on his snappy patter that harks back to old movies from the 1940s, but the film has been color-corrected into a dull, desaturated gray. It’s a stylistic choice to give the film the essence of a faded vintage photograph, but it’s also ugly as sin.

Vanderbilt struggles to find a tone and clutters the film with extra story lines to diminishing results. Howie’s personal history (based on a true story) is deeply affecting and Woodall sells it beautifully. But then there are the underwritten female characters: a saucy journalist (Lydia Peckham) who gets Kelley drunk to draw out his secrets for a scoop, and Justice Jackson’s legal clerk (Wrenn Schmidt) who clucks and tsks her way through the trial, serving only as the person to whom Jackson can articulate his thoughts. Their names are scarcely uttered during the film and their barely-there inclusion feels almost offensive.

So while the subject matter makes “Nuremberg” worth the watch, the film itself is a mixed bag, with some towering performances (Crowe and Shannon) and some poor ones. It manages to eke out its message in the eleventh hour, but it feels too little too late in our cultural moment, despite its evergreen importance. If the film is intended to be a canary in a coal mine, that bird has long since expired.

Walsh is a Tribune News Service film critic.

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.

WASHINGTON — Throwing a sandwich at a federal agent turned Sean Charles Dunn into a symbol of resistance against President Trump’s law-enforcement surge in the nation’s capital. This week, federal prosecutors are trying to persuade a jury of fellow Washington, D.C., residents that Dunn simply broke the law.

That could be a tough sell for the government in a city that has chafed against Trump’s federal takeover, which is entering its third month. A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault count before U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office opted to charge him instead with a misdemeanor.

Securing a trial conviction could prove to be equally challenging for Justice Department prosecutors in Washington, where murals glorifying Dunn’s sandwich toss popped up virtually overnight.

Before jury selection started Monday, the judge presiding over Dunn’s trial seemed to acknowledge how unusual it is for a case like this to be heard in federal court. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, said he expects the trial to last no more than two days “because it’s the simplest case in the world.”

A video that went viral on social media captured Dunn hurling his subway-style sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the night of Aug. 10. That same weekend, Trump announced his deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops and federal agents to assist with police patrols in Washington.

When Dunn approached a group of CBP agents who were in front of the club, which was hosting a “Latin Night,” he called them “fascists” and “racists” and chanted “shame” toward them. An observer’s video captured Dunn throwing a sandwich at an agent’s chest.

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

Dunn ran away but was apprehended. He 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. They noted that Dunn had offered to surrender to police before the raid.

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

Before trial, Dunn’s lawyers urged the judge to dismiss the case for what they allege is a vindictive and selective prosecution. They argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House prove Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech.

Julia Gatto, one of Dunn’s lawyers, questioned why Trump’s Justice Department is prosecuting Dunn after the Republican president issued pardons and ordered the dismissal of assault cases stemming from a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“It’s an obvious answer,” Gatto said during a hearing last Thursday. “The answer is they have different politics. And that’s selective prosecution.”

Prosecutors countered that Dunn’s political expressions don’t make him immune from prosecution for assaulting the agent.

“The defendant is being prosecuted for the obvious reason that he was recorded throwing a sandwich at a federal officer at point-blank range,” they wrote.

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.