trial

Paramount Skydance must wait until March to defend its proposed $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery — a blockbuster deal that would reshape Hollywood by uniting two storied studios.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín scheduled a March 2 trial to decide the merits of an antitrust challenge brought by 12 state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. The states are teaming up to try to derail Paramount’s merger, and have snared preliminary victories — prompting a concession from Paramount to put the merger on hold until after the trial.

Paramount had asked for a Nov. 4 trial date.

Tech scion David Ellison wants to add HBO, CNN, HGTV, Food Network and the Warner Bros. studio to his smaller stable of Paramount properties. The trial will span 12 days and conclude March 19, the judge wrote in her order.

“We will continue to vigorously defend the transaction and remain committed to closing as soon as possible so its benefits for the creative community and consumers can be realized,” Paramount said in a statement.

The Writers Guild of America has separately sued to block the merger.

Friday marks the one-year anniversary of Ellison’s purchase of Paramount.

“Looking back on the past twelve months, I’m incredibly proud of how our team has turned those priorities into measurable progress, reflecting their talent, hard work, and dedication,” Ellison wrote in a Tuesday letter to shareholders as the company released its second-quarter earnings.

Results were mixed.

Revenue inched up 1% to $6.91 billion compared to the year-ago period, when Paramount was controlled by media heiress Shari Redstone.

The company’s studios and streaming divisions turned in stronger performances but costs, including $153 million in merger-related expenses, weighed on the corporate entity.

Profit declined 28% to $41 million, or 4 cents a share, compared to $57 million in the year-earlier period.

Paramount said it now has 81.6 million streaming customers, an increase of 2 million from the first quarter.

Streaming operations produced $2.5 billion in revenue, a 9% boost from the same quarter a year ago. Paramount+, which boasts the Taylor Sheridan-produced “Landman” and “Dutton Ranch,” also televised President Trump’s birthday extravaganza, the UFC Freedom 250 fights in June from the White House lawn.

Coverage of the FIFA World Cup in some Latin American countries assisted the streaming results. (Fox and Telemundo broadcast the highly rated soccer matches in the U.S.)

Studios revenue increased 16% to $1.3 billion, boosted by Paramount’s television studios and its licensing deals as well as the ability to consolidate revenue from Skydance properties. During the quarter, the Melrose Avenue film studio released “Scary Movie,” which brought in $231 million in global ticket sales, surpassing expectations.

Television media, which includes the CBS network, TV stations and the company’s struggling cable channels, declined 9% to $3.1 billion. Advertising revenue fell 14% and the company felt the loss of South American television operations, Telefe and Chilevision, which it divested after the Ellison takeover.

The company revenue during the current quarter should come in around $7 billion. It also released its full-year guidance, saying it expects $30 billion in revenue, up 4% over 2025.

Paramount released the earnings after markets closed Tuesday. During regular trading, shares gained nearly 2% to close at $8.38.

Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta are clashing again — this time over when the antitrust trial to determine whether Paramount can complete its nearly $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery should begin.

In court documents Friday, Bonta and his coalition of 11 other Democrat attorneys general proposed a two- to three- week trial beginning April 5, 2027.

Ellison’s Paramount pushed back, saying the media company would like to start the courtroom action on Nov. 4.

“Our request for a November trial date is more than sufficient to give both sides the time they need to conduct discovery, gather evidence, and prepare for trial,” Paramount said in a statement that called the state attorneys general request for a springtime trial “nothing more than a stonewalling tactic.”

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, who is overseeing the high-profile case, now must pick the date.

For Paramount, the issue is hugely important.

Ellison wants to wrap up the massive Hollywood deal — bringing CNN, HBO and the Warner Bros. film and television studios under Paramount — as soon as possible. Doing so is crucial to holding together Paramount’s coalition of financiers and controlling its rising expenses, primarily legal fees and escalating obligations to Warner shareholders.

Early this year, Paramount agreed to pay Warner investors a so-called ticking fee of $.25 per share per quarter, beginning Oct. 1. The overture was aimed at winning over investors during a bidding war with Netflix. Paramount agreed to pay Warner shareholders at least $31 a share.

Those ticking fees would increase the cost by $650 million every quarter or $7 million a day. For Paramount, finalizing the transaction by year’s end would eliminate such payments in 2027.

Warner shares gained 3.3% Friday to $26.30 — well below the deal price. Paramount stock is down nearly 40% since early January; it ended the trading week at $7.96.

For the states — which have been joined in the antitrust litigation by the Writers Guild of America — setting the trial for next spring would bring advantages.

They would have more time to prepare their case while also gaining leverage over Paramount, should the two sides seek to resolve the issue out of court.

With the clock ticking, Paramount might be more willing to compromise to reach a settlement, including selling some of its hoped-for assets.

“Plaintiff States propose a fast-paced but realistic schedule that moves this case rapidly to trial while ensuring sufficient time for discovery and pretrial preparation,” the states said in the latest court documents. “A shorter timeline would be artificially compressed and risks depriving this Court of a full record on which to decide this $110 billion case.”

Paramount also faces a potential $7-billion payment to Warner Bros. should the merger collapse by next summer. Paramount is the smallest of the major media companies and acquiring Warner Bros. is key to Ellison’s ambitions to build a new Hollywood colossus.

The state attorneys general, including from Colorado, Oregon, New York, New Jersey and Nevada, have argued that the blockbuster merger — the largest in Hollywood in decades — would violate the Clayton Antitrust Act, which has been on the books for more than a century.

If the deal goes forward, just four companies — a post-merger Paramount-Warner, Disney, NBCUniversal and Sony Pictures — would control 86% of movies that are widely released (in more than 3,000 movie theaters), according to the attorneys general lawsuit.

Paramount-Warner Bros. would also own more than 50 cable channels, including CNN, TBS, HGTV, Animal Planet and Comedy Central, in addition to HBO.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Gov. Gavin Newsom was not eager for a trial to take place.

Newsom has not publicly favored either side. Sources have previously told The Times that both sides have been lobbying the governor to win his support.

A Newsom spokesperson declined to discuss the Journal article, saying: “Our office doesn’t comment on anonymous sources or unverified reporting.”

Bonta — not Newsom — is leading the case.

Both hold statewide office; Bonta is running for reelection this year and Newsom is widely expected to run for president in 2028.

Paramount last week agreed to delay its acquisition amid concerns that it was poised to lose an important motion for a preliminary injunction — which would have rattled investors — and scuttled the deal until a trial could be held.

On Friday, Paramount said further delays “harm the many individuals outside this courtroom who will be denied the expanded content offerings and industry stability that a combined Paramount-WBD promises to bring.”

For his part, Bonta has said he was “eager” to move forward to a trial.

“Our challenge to the unlawful Warner Bros./Paramount merger is a clean-cut antitrust challenge through and through: it’s about protecting the vibrancy of an industry, the pockets of consumers, and the quality of films and television programs that take center stage in many of our lives,” Bonta said in a statement. “This challenge deserves careful and thorough review.”

A man was convicted Wednesday of federal terrorism charges in the 2022 stabbing of Salman Rushdie, the author who has faced a decades-old death threat over his novel “The Satanic Verses.”

A jury found Hadi Matar guilty of all the charges against him, including engaging in an act of transnational terrorism.

A message seeking comment was sent to Matar’s attorneys.

Matar, 28, is already serving a 25-year New York state prison sentence on an attempted murder conviction in the August 2022 attack on an amphitheater stage. The federal conviction carries a potential life sentence.

Rushdie, who was about to speak on writers’ safety when he was attacked, was slashed 15 times in front of a stunned audience. He was gravely wounded and lost the sight in his right eye.

Matar’s defense: No evidence of his state of mind

Prosecutors asserted that Matar was motivated by the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ’s 1989 call for Rushdie’s death because of “The Satanic Verses.” Defense lawyer Nathaniel Barone countered that the government had no proof of what was in Matar’s head.

Matar himself declined to testify. Rushdie did, telling jurors: “I can’t say what his ambitions or his aim was, but the wounds were dispersed across my body.”

Rushdie won Britain’s prestigious Booker Prize for his 1981 novel “Midnight’s Children,” about his native India. “The Satanic Verses,” a novel of magical realism about the lives and dreams of two actors who survive a plane explosion, followed in 1988.

It drew critical acclaim in the United Kingdom but engendered protests around the Muslim world over what some believers saw as blasphemous suggestions about Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, particularly in a dream sequence. In the ensuing years, at least 45 people have been killed in riots over the book, a Japanese translator was stabbed to death, an Italian translator was attacked and survived, and the book’s Norwegian publisher survived a shooting.

Rushdie, who was born into a Muslim family, has said the dream sequence was just that. But he went into hiding for years, gradually emerging after Iran’s government distanced itself in 1998 from Khomeini’s fatwa, or religious edict.

“For two decades or more, I led a public life without a hint of trouble,” Rushdie testified at the trial in Buffalo, N.Y.

Yet the fatwa was never rescinded; indeed, Khomenei’s successor, the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, indicated in 2017 that it remained in effect. An Iranian foundation has offered a bounty of more than $3 million for killing Rushdie.

Prosecutors: Matar’s messages showed him zeroing in on Rushdie

Matar repeatedly broached the fatwa with contacts in messaging apps in 2021 and 2022, according to exhibits shown in court. The messages showed Matar fuming that he felt Rushdie had attacked Islam and, by surviving, emboldened others to insult the faith. Matar alluded to a 2006 comment along those lines by the late Hezbollah militant group leader Hassan Nasrallah, the messages showed.

Born in the U.S., Matar also holds citizenship in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is based. Prosecutors said that photos in Matar’s New Jersey bedroom and on his computer indicated his support for Hezbollah, which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization.

Matar aimed to fulfill the fatwa and “wanted everyone to know he was doing this for Hezbollah,” Asst. U.S. Atty. Timothy Lynch said in an opening statement July 22.

The messages showed Matar initially talked about wanting to “expose” Rushdie, then about killing him. In a private note to himself, he wrote: “We need to kill him ASAP,” according to Lynch. The prosecutor said Matar framed the planned killing as part of what he considered a jihad, or holy war.

By spring 2022, the electronic chats showed, Matar wrote that he had discerned where Rushdie lived and was tracking his public appearances, eventually pointing out his scheduled August 2022 talk at the Chautauqua Institution, a western New York arts and intellectual center.

As Rushdie was being introduced, his attacker climbed on stage behind him, then stabbed him 15 times as the audience gasped. Spectators and another speaker, Henry Reese, scrambled to aid Rushdie. Law enforcement officers, assigned to the event, arrested the attacker — soon identified as Matar — after civilians restrained him.

Rushdie published a 2024 memoir about the attack, then returned to fiction with last year’s “The Eleventh Hour.” The author, who was knighted by Britain’s late Queen Elizabeth II, received a Dayton Literary Peace Prize lifetime achievement award in November.

Peltz writes for the Associated Press.

Tech scion David Ellison for months projected confidence that his blockbuster Hollywood merger was on a glide path to completion.

His media company Paramount Skydance’s pitch early this year was that its proposed $111-billion acquisition of rival Warner Bros. Discovery could easily clear regulatory hurdles — unlike Netflix’s competing bid.

Ellison has heavyweights in his corner: his billionaire father Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling the deal, and President Trump is eager for the Ellison family to own CNN and other Warner assets, including HBO and the Burbank film and TV studios behind “Batman,” Harry Potter, Wile E. Coyote, and “The Pitt.”

“We could technically close [the deal] tomorrow,” Ellison told business new channel CNBC during a March interview. “There is nothing in this transaction that trips anything that would create cause for concern.”

But Paramount made a dramatic retreat Friday after two weeks of legal setbacks. The firm had been aiming to close the deal by September but agreed to table its takeover — perhaps until next spring — to allow a fiercer than expected challenge from California Atty. General Rob Bonta and 11 other Democrat state attorneys general to advance to trial before an Oakland-based federal judge.

The state prosecutors allege Paramount’s proposed merger with Warner Bros. violates a century-old antitrust law by giving the combined company too much heft in theatrical movie distribution and cable television.

The delay could saddle Paramount, the smallest of the major media companies, with substantial legal fees and hundreds of millions of dollars in added deal costs. In February, Paramount offered Warner investors a sweetener, so-called “ticking fees,” to win the auction.

Those fees, which begin accruing in October, will cost Paramount an extra $7 million a day — until the purchase is finalized. And if Paramount fails to close the merger, it would owe Warner Bros. Discovery a $7-billion breakup fee.

“Anyone who thinks they know how this deal ends should think again,” Forrester Research analyst Mike Proulx said in a statement. “This deal may still close or it may not. … The path to either outcome just got longer, messier, and likely more expensive.”

Paramount now must strengthen its case for a high-stakes trial while fortifying Paramount’s existing businesses and holding together a coalition of financiers, which includes the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar which jointly agreed to contribute $24 billion for equity stakes in the combined company.

Paramount reversed course after U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín dealt the company a blow on Monday when she temporarily blocked Paramount from finalizing the acquisition until mid-August. Looming was a key Aug. 3 hearing for the judge to determine whether the moratorium should be extended.

Paramount was concerned the judge would block the deal for the foreseeable future.

“They saw the writing on the wall,” Bonta said in an interview.

Columbia Law School business professor Eric Talley added: “This doesn’t constitute Paramount Skydance coming out and waving a big white flag — but it is a small white flag of surrender.”

Paramount, in a statement, said heading straight to trial would prove advantageous.

“This is the fastest and clearest way to prove that this transaction is good for competition, good for consumers, and good for creators,” Paramount said. “We look forward to proving our case at trial.”

Last week, the Writers Guild of America separately filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the merger, alleging that writers would encounter less work and lower pay should Paramount buy Warner Bros.

Now the merger won’t close until after a resolution in the litigation or by June 1, 2027, whichever date comes first.

“This is what we’ve been asking for from the start,” Bonta said. “We just wanted the court to have sufficient time to review our case without the threat of the companies merging.”

Ellison, through a Paramount spokesperson, declined an interview request.

The delay brings a different set of challenges, Talley said, including pushing the date of the takeover until after November’s pivotal mid-term elections when control of Congress might change hands.

“That itself could be disruptive,” Talley said. “Suppose we get a flip of the House of Representatives or the Senate, then we may see testimony in Congress.”

Prominent Democrats, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) have expressed alarm over the potential consolidation, which would shrink the number of legacy film studios and bring CNN in addition to CBS News under Ellison control.

Attempts to get Ellison to testify in Congress have fallen short. The Paramount chief declined an invitation to appear before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights in February, as well as a subsequent request from Booker to appear during an April spotlight hearing.

“To what extent was the rush to get the deal done related to the midterms, and what press coverage was going to look like in the upcoming election season?” Talley asked. “CNN is not a huge money-making asset but it is a prominent asset of Warner Brothers Discovery.”

On Friday night, Trump extolled his friendship with the Ellison family during the White House Correspondents Assn. dinner while also criticizing prominent CNN anchors.

David Ellison is “going to make, I think, fantastic changes and keep some of the great stuff going,” Trump said.

CBS News has been roiled since shortly after the Ellisons acquired Paramount in August, and installed Bari Weiss as editor in chief of CBS News. She has overseen a series of controversial moves, including shaking up the evening news and sacking several “60 Minutes” correspondents.

Paramount scored one victory: the European Commission gave its blessing for the merger to go forward in the European countries it represents. The company now has gained clearances from more than 60 jurisdictions, including from the U.S. Justice Department, which found the merger would likely boost competition — not harm it.

Now, Paramount’s biggest obstacle is winning the case against Bonta and the other state attorneys general.

The states plan to request a trial in 2027, after the two sides conduct months of discovery to prepare their cases.

“We want to take depositions of employees. We want to take depositions of customers and competitors in these marketplaces that are impacted [and] we want documents,” Bonta said.

“We want to depose their experts and probe and test their experts’ opinions,” he said. “That all takes time.”

Bonta and the other state attorneys sidestepped the political landscape in making their lawsuit arguments.

“This is just a straight-up meat-and-potatoes antitrust case,” Bonta said. “The main point here is that antitrust enforcement is important because monopolies that lessen competition hurt everyday people.

“Once we have a trial, we’re going to win,” Bonta said. “So we think and we hope there will never be a merger.”

Paramount Skydance has agreed to delay its purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery to as late as next June as David Ellison’s media company mounts its defense to the antitrust challenge brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of 11 other state attorneys general.

The major concession comes as Paramount was facing an Aug. 3 hearing to try to convince U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín that its proposed $111-billion deal — which would reshape Hollywood with the combination of two historic studios — would not violate U.S. antitrust laws.

The judge appeared to be leaning toward the arguments of the state attorneys general, who have alleged the proposed union of two big film studios and television networks including HBO, CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and TBS, runs afoul of the 112-year-old Clayton Antitrust Act.

In a stipulation filed Friday, Paramount agreed to hold off on closing its blockbuster purchase until after the states’ antitrust case can be decided in a trial before the Oakland-based judge or by June 1, 2027, whichever date comes first.

The move came after Martínez-Olguín issued a temporary restraining order earlier in the week — requested by Bonta and the others — which paused the deal until next month’s preliminary injunction hearing when she was set to decide whether a lengthy moratorium should be imposed.

Privately, Paramount officials were worried they might lose that round before Martínez-Olguín, so, during negotiations with the states, Paramount stipulated that it would not close the deal on its preferred timetable.

Paramount had wanted to finalize the takeover this month — or at least have it wrapped up by Sept. 30.

In a statement, Bonta celebrated the delay as “great news for audiences, movie theaters, and the many people who write, build, and create the art, news, and entertainment so many of us enjoy.”

“Our argument against this illegal merger is straightforward: When too few corporations have too much power in markets central to American life, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse,” Bonta said.

Now, Paramount will incur added deal costs and significant legal fees as it prepares the case for a full-blown trial. Paramount, in a statement, framed the delay as “a significant win” for the company.

“The result is exactly what we have sought from the outset: a direct path to a trial based on the evidence,” a Paramount spokesperson said in a statement. “This is the fastest and clearest way to prove that this transaction is good for competition, good for consumers, and good for creators, a conclusion dozens of competition authorities around the world have already reached. We look forward to proving our case at trial.”

On Wednesday, the European Commission gave its blessing, allowing the Paramount-Warner merger to move forward in European countries. More than 40 jurisdictions have given their consent. The U.S. Justice Department last month signed off — an approval that had been expected because of President Trump’s desire to see the Ellison family own CNN.

Paramount shares slipped on the news, falling 3.3% to $8.21 — marking the year’s lowest trading day. Warner’s stock gains since Monday’s restraining order ruling were suddenly erased. Warner shares finished at $25.77 — 17% lower than Paramount’s deal offer.

Now Paramount will have to pay Warner Bros. Discovery investors more than the $31 a share it previously promised.

In a show of confidence earlier this year, the company boasted it would quickly secure the necessary regulatory approvals to finalize the Warner purchase by late September. As an added incentive to win over investors, the company said it would pay so-called “ticking fees” should the deal encounter snags.

Those fees of $.25 a share per quarter begin Oct. 1, adding about $650 million to the pricetag each quarter until close. If Paramount is unable to close the deal by June 1, it would owe Warner Bros. Discovery a $7 billion breakup fee.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired the smaller Paramount in August.

The Democratic state attorneys general, including from New York, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, filed their lawsuit nearly two weeks ago.

The state attorneys general have alleged the deal would harm competition in three markets: films released widely (in more than 3,000 theaters); potential blockbuster films; and a concentration of cable TV channels.

Paramount insists that streaming marketshare be included in the market definition because a combined Paramount+ and HBO Max would still trail industry leaders, Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime and Disney+.

“Plaintiffs’ market definitions bear no relationship to the realities of today’s marketplace and cannot withstand scrutiny,” Paramount’s spokesperson said.

In her order earlier this week, Martínez-Olguín wrote that the plaintiff states presented “compelling evidence” that the merged company could wield too much control in theatrical distribution.

Friday’s agreement came after Martínez-Olguín on Thursday extended the restraining order for another 14 days — until Aug. 17 — in recognition the two sides needed time to hash out their scheduling requests. In addition, the Writers Guild of America has filed its own antitrust lawsuit, and the judge agreed to allow that case to move forward with the states’ case.

The Aug. 3 preliminary injunction hearing will be canceled as the two sides prepare for a trial.

“We are eager to continue to make our case in court …to ensure this unlawful merger never sees the light of day,” Bonta said.

The months-long delay is expected to affect Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav’s proposed $887-million exit package.

As part of a pact earlier this year, Warner board members agreed to cover Zaslav’s expected $335 million in tax obligations tied to his enormous payout, according to regulatory filings. However, Warner is not on the hook to cover Zaslav’s tax bill should the deal extend into 2027.

The merger has faced stiff resistance in Hollywood and beyond. More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers have signed an open letter calling on Bonta to block the merger.

Britain’s culture minister has also signaled that she may open a full inquiry into the proposed media consolidation, which could also bring other delays.

“This victory in putting the merger on hold belongs to the people who refused to treat the merger as inevitable,” Norm Eisen, a former ambassador and Obama White House ethics lawyer who is helping lead the #BlocktheMerger campaign.

“Artists, journalists, filmmakers, and consumer advocates spoke out despite the risk of retaliation, more than 5,500 people signed our open letter,” Eisen said in a statement. “This collective resistance is turning the tide.”

A transcript from an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by former JSerra girls’ basketball coach Chyanne Butler indicates the school could be facing a Southern Section investigation for CIF rules violations.

“We are aware of the transcripts and the trial,” Southern Section spokesman Thom Simmons said Friday.

JSerra has “no comment” while the case continues, a school spokesman said.

Butler alleged employment discrimination after being dismissed in January of 2025. A jury trial earlier this year resulted in a hung jury over an allegation of gender discrimination and a new trial is scheduled for Aug. 24 in Orange County Superior Court with Judge David O Carter presiding. Allegations of race discrimination and a sexual harassment claim against an assistant coach were dismissed.

JSerra has not self-reported any CIF violations even though in the first trial, an assistant coach testified under oath about recruiting a player from another school and then providing family expenses including “medical insurance, medical bills, groceries, toiletries, incidentals, basketball shoes.”

That would be a violation of CIF rules.

The Southern Section usually sends allegations of rules violations back to the school to investigate.

Butler is represented by attorney Tim Lawson, who deposed JSerra officials.

Caracas, July 23, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores returned to court on Wednesday for a brief hearing in which Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein approved a schedule for proceedings that will see their trial begin on June 1, 2027.

The calendar was jointly proposed by US Justice Department prosecutors and the respective defense teams.

Under the agreed timetable, prosecutors are expected to complete the bulk of their disclosure of unclassified evidence by September 22, while classified evidence is scheduled to be turned over by November 15. A preliminary hearing to determine the admissibility of the evidence has been set for November 17.

Following this phase, and no later than March 11, 2027, Maduro’s legal team will formally file pretrial motions. Barry Pollack, one of Maduro’s attorneys, has disclosed plans to invoke immunity and seek a dismissal of charges against the Venezuelan leader. The approved procedural calendar also includes a second round of pretrial motions, which would address additional evidence.

The hearing marked the third court appearance since Maduro and Flores were kidnapped by US military forces in Caracas on January 3 and transferred to a federal detention center in Brooklyn.

During their arraignment on January 5, both pleaded not guilty to all charges, including narcoterrorism, drug trafficking conspiracy and weapons possession. At the time, Maduro stated in Spanish that he was Venezuela’s “constitutional president” and considered himself “a prisoner of war.”

The case was initially mired in controversy as Washington blocked Maduro and Flores from having their legal expenses covered by the Venezuelan government headed by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez. In April, the US Treasury Department granted a waiver to allow Caracas to pay the legal fees of the attorneys representing Maduro and Flores.

The latest hearing had originally been scheduled for June 30, but prosecutors requested a postponement, citing security concerns related to transporting the defendants and coordinating police operations in New York, as law enforcement resources had been heavily committed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Wednesday’s hearing saw dozens of international solidarity activists gather outside the federal courthouse in New York to express solidarity with the Venezuelan president and first lady and demand their immediate release.

In Caracas, hundreds of supporters of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), along with members of grassroots and communal organizations, gathered at Plaza Caracas for a rally led by Caracas Mayor Carmen Meléndez and Maduro’s son, National Assembly Deputy Nicolás Maduro Guerra.

“In the face of this unjust trial, the people have raised their voices (…) Today has been an emotional day—200 days without hugging my father, without seeing Cilia in person (…). This kidnapping has been extremely difficult for my family,” Maduro Guerra said.

He added that “despite Venezuela having been subjected to a military aggression, the country’s political leadership made the courageous, wise, and intelligent decision to resolve any conflict and any differences through politics and diplomacy.”

The Venezuelan government, including Acting President Rodríguez, have offered no comment in recent weeks concerning the US prosecution of Maduro and Flores.

In a June interview with Spanish journalist Javier Negre, Rodríguez said that Maduro remains Venezuela’s legitimate president but stopped short of demanding his liberation, instead claiming that he has the right to “demonstrate the truth” before the US justice system.

Washington and Caracas restored diplomatic and consular relations on March 5, ending a seven-year hiatus. Shortly afterward, the White House formally recognized Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader.” 

The Trump administration recently stepped in and requested that a Florida court grant Rodríguez immunity from a civil action brought by three US citizens who spent time in prison in Venezuela. Judge Darrin Gayles entered a default ruling against Maduro and several other high-ranking current and former Venezuelan officials who did not respond to a lawsuit. He also awarded US $314 million in damages to the plaintiffs over alleged “torture” claims.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

July 22 (UPI) — The man who rushed a stage to attack author Salman Rushdie will face federal terrorism charges in a trial that began Wednesday in New York.

Hadi Matar, 28, was found guilty of murder in state court last year and was sentenced to 25 years in prison for the August 2022 attack that left Rushdie blind in one eye and without use of one hand.

The federal case will determine if the attack was an act of terrorism and if he was carrying out a fatwa against Rushdie, set by the former Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, or if it was for Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militia in Lebanon, or neither.

Khomeini, then the ayatollah of Iran, created the fatwa in 1989 because of Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, published in 1988. Hardline Muslims considered the book blasphemous because of the way it portrayed the Prophet Muhammad.

The attack on Rushdie happened at the Chautauquah Institution in Chautauquah, N.Y., as he was delivering a speech for more than 1,000 people on writers in political exile. Matar rushed the stage and stabbed Rushdie more than a dozen times.

Matar is a U.S. citizen of Lebanese origin who was raised in New Jersey and California. His friends and relatives said that after some professional and academic frustration, he became religious. His mother told The New York Times that she could not support him.

Rushdie, 79, wrote and published in 2024, Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder, a memoir about the attack and his recovery.

Matar had written in his notebook a list of pros and cons to attacking Rushdie. The Times reported that a page provided by prosecutors showed that he wrote one reason not to do it was: “Could make life worse. But I doubt that. It kind of sucks already.”

July 21 (UPI) — On this date in history:

In 1861, the first major military engagement of the Civil War occurred at Bull Run Creek, Va.

In 1918, a German U-boat fired on the town of Orleans, Mass., on Cape Cod peninsula, damaging a tug boat and sinking four barges, and severely injuring one man. It was the only place in the United States to receive an enemy attack during World War I.

In 1925, the so-called Monkey Trial, which pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan in Dayton, Tenn., in one of the great confrontations in legal history, ended with John Thomas Scopes convicted and fined $100 for teaching evolution in violation of state law.

In 1969, U.S. astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, lifted off from the moon in the Apollo 11 lunar module Eagle and docked with the command module Columbia piloted by Michael Collins.

In 1970, after 11 years of construction, the massive Aswan High Dam across the Nile River in Egypt was completed, ending the cycle of flood and drought in the Nile River region but triggering an environmental controversy.

In 2000, a report from special counsel John Danforth cleared U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and the government of wrongdoing in the April 19, 1993, fire that ended the Branch Davidian siege near Waco, Texas.

File Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI

In 2007, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and final installment in the best-selling series, sold more than 8.3 million copies on its first day in bookstores.

In 2011, Greece continued efforts to climb out of a financial chasm with a second bailout pledge from other eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund worth $157 billion. Earlier, the nation dealt with its debt crisis with the help of a $146 billion loan package.

In 2024, President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid in the 2024 presidential race, formally endorsing his vice president, Kamala Harris. Former President Donald Trump defeated Harris in November 2024 to win his second term in office.

In 2025, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee announced that it plans to follow U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender women from women’s sports.

PROVO, Utah — Lawyers for the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk planned to call a final witness Friday as they try to raise doubts about the prosecution’s case before it can go to trial.

A Utah judge is deciding whether prosecutors have enough evidence to put Tyler Robinson on trial on a charge of aggravated murder. Kirk, 31, was killed as he spoke to a crowd of thousands at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.

One of Robinson’s attorneys, Michael Burt, tried to inject uncertainty into the case Thursday by challenging the reliability of ballistics tests on a bullet fragment recovered from Kirk’s body.

Authorities sought to tie the fragment to the suspected murder weapon, but the results were inconclusive.

“Saying anything but inconclusive was inappropriate,” said Samantha Karner with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Earlier in the week, Robinson’s team questioned the reliability of DNA evidence that investigators said linked Robinson to the scene. Experts say the science behind DNA testing is sound.

Robinson has not entered a plea. He turned himself in a day after the fatal shooting of Kirk, a close ally of President Trump credited with helping galvanize young voters for the Republican in the 2024 election.

At the request of Kirk’s family, State District Judge Tony Graf said he would allow to be shown inside the courtroom an altered version of campus surveillance video that prosecutors said shows Robinson crawling out to a rooftop “sniper’s perch” before shooting Kirk.

The unaltered video was previously shown. The altered version includes footage that zooms in on a figure that prosecutors said was Robinson and red marks that were added to the video.

The weeklong preliminary hearing ends Friday, but a decision won’t come until after Sept. 1, when Graf scheduled oral arguments in the matter.

Prosecutors on Thursday aired portions of a recorded interview with Robinson’s roommate, Lance Twiggs. The day after Kirk was shot in the neck, Robinson allegedly told Twiggs “he wishes he hadn’t done it,” a recording played in court revealed.

Later that same day — and only about an hour before turning himself in — Robinson posted “it was me at UVU yesterday,” in a chat room on the Discord social media platform, according to investigators and messages shown by prosecutors.

Defense attorneys unsuccessfully fought the public release of the statements from Twiggs and the chat room messages. They argued prosecutors would characterize the material as a confession, undermining Robinson’s right to a fair trial.

Prosecutors contend the shooting endangered others at Kirk’s campus event — an aggravating circumstance that could make the crime punishable by death under Utah law. Robinson also faces possible sentence enhancements based on claims by prosecutors that he targeted Kirk because of his political views.

Twiggs said in the April interview with prosecutors and investigators that Robinson sometimes talked about politics, including Trump. But Twiggs said he never heard Robinson talk about Kirk before the shooting. The defendant also did not talk much about gender issues or LGBTQ rights, Twiggs said.

The weeklong preliminary hearing has attracted intense media coverage and spectators who have angled for one of the 14 seats in the courtroom that are reserved for the public.

People have lined up early — sometimes sleeping there overnight — in hopes of getting in.

Schoenbaum and Brown write for the Associated Press. Brown reported from Billings, Montana.

July 10 (UPI) — On this date in history:

In 1925, the so-called Monkey Trial, in which John Scopes was accused of teaching evolution in school, a violation of state law, began in Dayton, Tenn., featuring a classic confrontation between William Jennings Bryan, the three-time presidential candidate and fundamentalist hero, and legendary defense attorney Clarence Darrow.

In 1962, the United States launched the first telecommunications satellite, Telstar, into orbit, which relayed TV pictures between the United States and Europe.

In 1985, Coca-Cola, besieged by consumers dissatisfied with the new Coke introduced in April, dusted off the old formula and dubbed it “Coca-Cola Classic.”

File Photo by Stephen Shaver/UPI

In 1989, Mel Blanc, the voice of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and countless other Warner Bros. cartoon characters and radio and TV comic creations, died from complications of heart disease. He was 81.

In 1991, Boris Yeltsin was inaugurated as the first freely elected president of the Russian republic.

In 1992, former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was sentenced to 40 years in prison for cocaine racketeering.

In 2009, General Motors completed its race through bankruptcy with the signing of a contract with the U.S. government, which got 61 percent of the company. The recovery plan included considerable shrinkage, including the closing of factories and layoffs of 21,000 union workers.

Then-General Motors CEO Fritz Henderson attends a press conference in New York City on June 1, 2009. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI

In 2011, media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World, Britain’s best-selling weekly newspaper, abruptly ceased publication amid allegations that its reporters and investigators had hacked into telephones of royalty, politicians, celebrities, homicide victims, families of fallen soldiers and others to illegally gain material for stories.

In 2012, an Israeli court acquitted former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of corruption but found him guilty of breach of trust. The charges stemmed from a period before he was PM.

In 2018, divers rescued the last of the 12 boys and their soccer coach from a flooded cave in Thailand, where they’d been trapped for more than two weeks.

In 2024, the original Hermes Birkin bag — designed by Jean-Louis Dumas specifically for actor and singer Jane Birkin in 1985 — sold for $10 million at auction in Paris. A Japanese business executive, Shinsuke Sakimoto, won the bidding, making it the most expensive handbag ever sold.

File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI

July 9 (UPI) — A humanoid robot successfully assisted during a laparoscopic surgery for a gall bladder removal, suggesting that robots may serve a purpose in some health care scenarios.

The operation, which involved surgery on non-human primates, could pave the way toward robots assisting with surgeries on human beings, the University of California San Diego said in a news release.

In a study published in the journal Nature, UCSD researchers outlined two surgeries that were performed with the assistance of non-human robotic humanoids on non-primate mammals.

“Remotely operated and autonomous humanoid robots have real potential for amplifying access to critical surgeries to which patients would otherwise not have access,” Michael Yip, UC San Diego Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, said.

“Our goal is an operating theater of the future, where humanoid robots and humans work side by side as an integrated team to deliver procedures to those in need, both in traditional hospital settings, as well as in non-traditional, field medicine scenarios,” Yip said.

The benefit, Shanglei Liu, assistant professor of surgery at UCSD in its School of Medicine, said that using robots for some surgeries could help to curtail costs and staff needed for surgical procedures.

“It’s easy to deploy,” she said, “anywhere from rural areas, to the battlefield, and even to space,” Liu said.

Liu said that one of the research team’s goals is to develop autonomous surgical assistants in order to treat people in areas that are difficult to get to.

“One of our goals is to develop the autonomous surgical assistant,” Yip said, adding that using robots in places where there are not enough doctors could solve the problem of patients not being treated.

NEW YORK — E. Jean Carroll can be paid the $5.8 million that was set aside after a jury found three years ago that President Trump sexually abused her in 1996 before he became president and defamed her after she publicly revealed the attack, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued an order that says the money can be paid to Carroll, along with interest that has grown since the verdict.

Carroll’s lawyers had requested the disbursement after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the 2023 civil verdict.

Trump had resumed defamatory attacks against Carroll as his lawyers considered asking the high court to reconsider its decision.

Both sides’ attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The jury reached its verdict in a trial that Trump did not attend after Carroll testified that she was sexually abused by him in the dressing room of a Manhattan luxury department store after a flirtatious and friendly chance encounter between them turned violent.

Carroll, 82, first talked about the attack publicly in 2019 in a memoir while Trump was president. He repeatedly insisted that he never knew Carroll. He also accused her of trying to sell books at his expense and having political motives.

Trump is also appealing $83 million in defamation compensation granted to Carroll by a separate Manhattan jury after a January 2024 trial at which Trump briefly testified.

At that trial, Kaplan required the jury to accept the findings of the previous jury and only determine how much money, if any, Trump owed Carroll for comments he made about her as president.

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.

July 6 (UPI) — Prosecutors in the Philippines called for accountability Monday on the first day of an impeachment trial for Vice President Sara Duterte, whose lawyers said the case was politically motivated.

Sara Duterte, who is the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, faces allegations of misusing public funds. The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to impeach her in May, with 257 of 290 lawmakers voting in favor.

The allegations center on the wealth she gained after becoming mayor of Davao in 2019 along with her use of funds as vice president.

In opening arguments, Gerville Luistro, a House representative from Batangas, questioned, “does accountability still matter in our country?”

“If a small village treasurer can’t explain missing funds, he is investigated. If a school principal squanders public funds, even just 5,000 pesos, she is punished. If ordinary people are held to account, why not the most powerful government official,” Luistro questioned, as reported by the BBC.

Sara Duterte’s lawyer, meanwhile, said lawmakers are targeting her politically because she received more votes in the 2022 presidential election — 32.2 million — than President Bongbong Marcos did in his race — 31.6 million.

“It is clear that the objective is to oust her,” lawyer Sheila Sison said.

“Whatever one’s political persuasion is, the reality is that the prosecution now comes for this court to remove a vice president chosen by an overwhelming number of the electorate,” she added, as reported by the Philippine Star reported.

After opening statements, Sen. Chiz Escudero, the presiding officer in the trial, ordered the return of Sara Duterte’s tax records to the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Sara Duterte was not present in the courtroom as the trial got underway.

She issued a statement saying her decision not to attend the proceedings and not to testify are a “legal strategy.” She also criticized Marcos for speaking against that decision.

“The burden remains on the prosecution to prove its case,” Sara Duterte wrote in her statement on Facebook. “Choosing to appear through counsel rather than testify personally does not diminish accountability or imply a lack of transparency. The integrity of an impeachment trial depends on adherence to the rule of law — not on whether the respondent personally takes the stand.”

Marcos, who was on a trip to Canada, told reporters in Vancouver that he would appear in person in court if he were facing an impeachment trial.

While this is Sara Duterte’s first impeachment trial, it’s her second impeachment as vice president. In 2024, she claimed to have arranged for Marcus to be killed if she were killed. The House of Representatives voted to impeach her for the comments, but the country’s Supreme Court blocked the effort.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Monday turned down without comment President Trump’s appeal of a $5-million jury verdict for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman store in Manhattan nearly 30 years ago.

None of the justices registered a dissent.

When Carroll reported the incident in a book, Trump called it “a hoax and a lie,” prompting her to file a second claim for defamation.

Trump and his lawyers argued he was unfairly held liable because the jurors heard from two other women who said Trump groped them. And they listened to Trump’s own words on his willingness to abuse women.

“When you’re a star … you can do anything,” Trump said on the “Access Hollywood” tape from 2005 that the jurors heard.

Trump defended those comments in a 2022 deposition that was used during the trial.

“Historically, that’s true with stars,” he said. “If you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Unfortunately, or fortunately.”

Usually, a defendant’s prior bad acts are excluded from a jury trial.

But in 1994, Congress amended the federal rules of evidence to make an exception for civil suits involving alleged sexual abuse. Rule 415 says the judge “may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault.”

In Trump’s case, the U.S. appeals court in New York said the rule “permits a jury to consider evidence of a different sexual assault precisely to show that a defendant has a pattern or propensity for committing sexual assault.”

Two women testified that Carroll had told them about the dressing room assault shortly after it happened. And two other women testified Trump had assaulted and groped them.

Carroll testified over three days at the trial. Trump did not attend and chose not to testify.

Trump posted on social media that he was surprised by the court’s refusal to act on his appeal.

“I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength. This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be!”

The federal rules say judges may exclude “propensity evidence” if they decide its value is “substantially outweighed by a danger of … unfair prejudice, confusing the issues or misleading the jury.”

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the trial, permitted the use of the propensity evidence, and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his decision in December 2024, shortly after Trump won election to a second term.

Lawyers for a Missouri law firm founded by Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed an appeal petition in November urging the court to review the case of Trump vs. Carroll and order a new trial.

They said Carroll’s claims were “facially implausible and politically motivated” and her trial “rested fundamentally on improper propensity evidence that courts ordinarily disavow.”

They devoted most of their appeal to arguing that the court should take up the case because judges are divided on when propensity evidence should be excluded.

But they also urged the court to intervene because they said Trump was being mistreated by the judges in New York.

“It is deeply damaging to the fabric of our Republic for President Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, to have to take his focus away from his singular and unique duties as Chief Executive to continue fighting against decades-old, false allegations and the myriad wrongs throughout this baseless case,” they wrote.

Trump is also appealing a separate but related defamation verdict that ordered him to pay Carroll $83 million.

Casablanca court delivers landmark verdict in ‘Escobar of the Sahara’ case: up to 12 years for top figures.

A Moroccan court has handed prison sentences of up to 12 years to 29 individuals – including prominent politicians and sports figures – concluding a major international drug trafficking and corruption trial.

The verdicts, delivered late on Thursday in Casablanca following a two-year trial, mark one of the largest anti-corruption operations in Morocco’s history.

Among those convicted were Abdennebi Bioui, a construction tycoon and former regional council president, Said Naciri, former president of Casablanca’s Wydad AC football and sports club and former MP Belkacem Mir – all senior members of the governing PAM party. Naciri received 10 years, Bioui 12 and Mir 10.

Besides the three main defendants, sentences for the remaining ranged from two to nine years, depending on their individual role in the network.

The wide-ranging case was triggered by courtroom testimony from El Hadj Ahmed Ben Brahim, a notorious Malian drug trafficker nicknamed the “Pablo Escobar of the Sahara”.

Currently serving a 10-year sentence in Morocco, Ben Brahim told judicial investigators that his former Moroccan political and business associates had betrayed him, seizing millions of dollars worth of his luxury real estate and vehicles following his arrest in 2019.

The trial involved more than 20 defendants, 18 witnesses and two civil parties which centred on a sophisticated network that transported tonnes of Moroccan cannabis resin across North Africa to Europe, alongside Latin American cocaine shipments.

Defendants were convicted on charges including drug and gold trafficking, corruption, forgery and money laundering.

The court also ordered the seizure of assets and levied hundreds of millions of dollars in customs and exchange fines against the principal ringleaders.

Moroccan media reported that families of the convicted, present without legal representation due to a lawyers’ strike, were left in shock, with some collapsing in the courthouse.

The scandal reached the highest levels of state, prompting King Mohammed VI to demand a legally binding code of ethics aimed at “moralising” parliamentary life.

June 20 (UPI) — Begona Gomez, the wife of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, had her passport revoked on Saturday because a judge said she is a flight risk ahead of her trial on corruption charges.

Gomez is alleged to have exploited her position in Spain’s government to obtain a position at the Complutense University of Madrid and used public money for her own private interests, Politico, El Pais and The New York Times reported.

In barring Gomez from leaving the country, Judge Juan Carlos Peinado also is requiring her to appear in court every 15 days until her trial, a date for which has not been set.

The first lady has been under investigation since 2024, and is one of several of Sanchez’s allies and relatives that have been accused of corruption, as well — including his predecessor Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

In addition to Gomez, Peinado ruled to allow her assistant, Cristina Alvarez, and a businessman who allegedly benefited Gomez’s actions, Juan Carlos Barrabes Consul, to also stand trial.

Allies of both Gomez and Sanchez calling the ruling unprecedented, as well as “delusional, obsessive and shameful.”

“She is innocent,” the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, which Gomez runs and her husband is member of, said in a statement on X.

“She has been judicially and politically persecuted for two years,” PSOE said in the statement. “What happened today is just another step, a democratic scandal that doesn’t hold up. They won’t stop.”

The investigations into Gomez over the last two years are based on complaints alleging that she aimed to benefit from public contracts for companies she has ties to.

“Behaviors such as these emanating from presidential palaces seem more characteristic of absolutist regimes, thankfully long forgotten in our country,” Peinado said in Saturday’s ruling.

AUSTIN, Texas — A lawyer who represented Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton for nearly a decade over accusations of corruption and securities fraud is supporting Democrat James Talarico — and not his former client — in one of the biggest U.S. Senate races.

Talarico on Monday drew attention to his campaign winning the endorsement of Houston attorney Dan Cogdell, who was part of Paxton’s defense team during the Republican’s historic impeachment trial in 2023 that ended in acquittal.

The legal troubles that shadowed Paxton in public office in Texas are a central attack line of Talarico’s campaign, though in his endorsement, Cogdell didn’t cite concerns about his client’s past.

Cogdell said he didn’t dislike Paxton as a person and felt that Texas lawmakers were right to eventually acquit the attorney general. But as a politician, Cogdell said, Paxton is too focused on appeasing President Trump.

“I worked my ass off for the man for nine years,” Cogdell said in an interview with the Associated Press. “But that’s a different inquiry, my obligation to Ken ended at the courthouse steps and my obligation as a citizen is to do what I think is the right thing.”

Cogdell said Texas needs a lot of work, pointing to education and health care, “and to simply bootlick or rubber stamp Trump, that’s not what we need in D.C. right now.” He also recently spoke to Talarico at length on Cogdell’s podcast.ty.

Asked for comment, an aide to Paxton’s campaign said Cogdell is a Democrat and called the endorsement unsurprising.

The lead defense attorney in Paxton’s impeachment trial, Tony Buzbee, reiterated that on X. Buzbee added that he was supporting Paxton in the race.

Cogdell described himself as a registered Democrat, although voters in Texas do not register by political party. He added, however, that he considers himself a moderate who has given more campaign contributions over the years to Republican candidates than Democrats.

Talarico has given Democrats hope of flipping the statewide seat in Texas blue as the party scrambles to retake control of the U.S. Senate in November.

Paxton’s insurgent campaign beat Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican Senate primary runoff last month, helped by a Trump endorsement in the final days of the race.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

More than 20 years after Michael Jackson was acquitted on charges of child molestation — and two months since the global superstar’s record-breaking biopic skirted any mention of abuse allegations — a new Netflix docuseries brings his trial and the aftermath to the foreground.

“Michael Jackson: The Verdict,” a three-part documentary directed by Nick Green and released Wednesday, chronicles his 2005 trial in Santa Maria that began with a search raid of the pop star’s sprawling Neverland Ranch and ended with a jury finding him not guilty on 10 counts, including four counts of child molestation. At the center of the case was Gavin Arvizo, a then-15-year-old cancer survivor from Los Angeles.

Because recording was not allowed in the courtroom, the documentary relies heavily on archival footage from media surrounding the trial and firsthand accounts of key figures involved, including prosecutor Ron Zonen, Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, journalist Diane Dimond, two trial jurors, and friends and supporters on both sides of the case.

The episodes also delve into the 2003 documentary “Living With Michael Jackson,” in which the pop star is interviewed by British journalist Martin Bashir, that sparked questions about his behavior, leading to the charges against Jackson. Jackson’s historically questionable relationships with children, the media circus surrounding the trial and the effect it had on fans, the family at its center and Jackson himself are explored, too.

Here are six key takeaways from “The Verdict.”

Jackson allegedly had his personal assistant order child pornography

One of the docuseries’ most revealing interviews came from Vincent Amen, a former Jackson associate who worked at Neverland Ranch from 2002 to 2003. He said he was put in charge of taking care of the Arvizo family during their stay at the property following media backlash from Gavin Arvizo’s appearance in “Living With Michael Jackson.”

At that time, Amen said, he “wholeheartedly” believed in Jackson’s innocence, especially because Jackson’s friend Frank Tyson, also known as Frank Cascio, a member of the family who filed a lawsuit against Jackson’s estate in April detailing alleged sexual abuse, vouched so strongly for him. Cascio, who met Jackson when he was 5 years old and later became his personal assistant, told Amen, “Michael would never do this with a child.”

Amen’s conviction shifted, however, after he discovered a disturbing magazine that apparently belonged to Jackson in Cascio’s possession.

“Frank cleaned out his house of anything that came from the Neverland Ranch. And he hands me a Nike bag,” Amen said in the docuseries. “I took the bag and I’m driving home, and I felt, ‘Something’s a little suspicious.’ And I said, ‘Let me take a look in this bag.’ I start taking videos to document this. I open the bag. I start looking, and I see a magazine.”

The series shows shaky footage of Vincent apparently finding a nudist magazine called “Naturally.” He flips to a video ordering section with titles circled in black marker, including videos called “Nudist Youth Weekend” and “Euro-Nudist Family.”

“I confronted Frank, I said, ‘Frank, what is this magazine? Because, you know, there’s circles around videos with naked children,’” Amen recounted. “He said, ‘That’s just a phase that Michael and I went through. He circled the videos that he wanted, I ordered them, and it was a phase that we went through.’ They watched them together.”

The Arvizo children called Jackson ‘daddy’ and had their own bizarre nicknames

Along with footage of the nudist magazine, Amen held on to other evidence of his time with Jackson and the Arvizo family, including a set of Polaroid pictures featuring Gavin’s mom, Janet, and younger brother, Star.

In one, Star points directly into the lens. It’s captioned, “You my daddy Michael.” Another photo of a smiling Janet and Star includes a handwritten caption from Janet that says, “Dearest loving Michael, we appreciate you being our family. What God brings together, no man can undo. We love you.”

Under a photo of Star with a cross-eyed expression, he wrote, “I love you, my daddy Michael. Your son, Blowhole.”

“These are the nicknames that Michael would give these young boys,” Amen said.

Bashir documentary marked a pivotal shift in the perception of Jackson

Martin Bashir in “Michael Jackson: The Verdict.”

(Netflix)

Though the first allegations of child molestation against Michael Jackson emerged in 1993, it was footage from Bashir’s “Living With Michael Jackson” that ignited public concern about Jackson’s relationship with Gavin.

In a pivotal scene from the 2003 documentary, Jackson brings Gavin in as an example of a child with cancer that he helped. Gavin, 13 at the time, leans his head on Jackson’s shoulder and holds his hand. Jackson tells Bashir that the two often share a bed at the Neverland Ranch, though in another scene he stresses that it’s not sexual.

“I realized that we had something that was hugely significant, but I didn’t realize the extent of the bombshell until the broadcast,” Bashir recalled in “The Verdict.”

“You can see it. You can look at that moment in the Martin Bashir documentary and you can actually pin the end of his life to that very moment,” J. Randy Taraborrelli, Jackson’s childhood friend and biographer, said in the docuseries.

Given Jackson’s stardom, news and tabloid media swarmed the scene of the trial along with droves of dedicated fans (and a much smaller contingent of detractors). And the archival footage from “The Verdict” shows the extent to which fandom and media frenzy influenced the proceedings.

Jackson’s fans stationed themselves throughout the route he’d take to the Santa Maria courthouse with signs showing their support, sometimes standing and shouting and other times driving alongside him and honking. Jackson had his director of security, Kerry Anderson, film these drives while he waved and engaged with supporters.

As many as 1,000 fans showed up on the first day of the trial, and many would line up starting at 5 a.m. for raffle tickets that would allow them to enter the courtroom. One fan interviewed for the docuseries, Sheree Wilkins, said she quit her job as a preschool teacher to move to Santa Maria for the trial. When the “not guilty” verdicts were announced, she fainted and had to receive medical attention.

TV news stations from around the world, including Taiwan, Japan and Mexico, sent crews to cover the trial.

Even inside the courtroom, where cameras were not allowed, enthusiasm for Jackson’s music could not be contained. Attendees recalled everybody, from the jury to the judge and even the prosecution, “swaying in their seats” when songs played as part of an evidence display.

“I remember me moving in time to his music,” prosecutor Ron Zonen said. “At one point Tom [Sneddon, the District Attorney leading the prosecution] jabbed me and said, ‘Would you stop moving your foot?’ ”

Jackson’s mental and physical health deteriorated

Mark Geragos briefly served as Jackson’s defense attorney.

(Netflix)

According to numerous interviews in “The Verdict,” Jackson’s substance use was problematic before and during the trial.

Jackson was not at Neverland during the raid that predated his charges. According to journalist Dimond, her sources said he was in Las Vegas “having wild parties.”

“There were cigarette burns in the leather couches and chairs. There were empty liquor bottles on every table. And this is where Michael Jackson had been for several days, entertaining young teenage boys, who all spoke German,” she said.

Later, Jackson’s well-publicized physical pain became the catalyst for controversy when he was hospitalized overnight, where he was allegedly given enough pain medication “to tranquilize an elephant,” and failed to show up on time for court the next day. The judge threatened to issue a warrant for his arrest if he didn’t make it to the courthouse within the hour, leading Jackson’s team to speed there at 90 mph.

Throughout the trial, stress took an enormous toll on Jackson, defense attorney Mark Geragos said in the docuseries.

“I watched him just disintegrate, literally disintegrate. The ingestion of substances was just astronomical. There was a time when I actually saw him in the fetal position on the floor, and I thought, ‘What do we do?’ I mean, you don’t want his death to be on your hands because you took some inaction,” he said. “We had genuine concerns whether he could even withstand a trial — physically, mentally.”

The prosecution’s case fell apart at the hands of key witnesses

“The Verdict” lays out, step by step, how the trial ended in Jackson’s full acquittal. One major contributor, the docuseries seems to argue, is the downfall of the prosecution at the hands of its own witnesses.

Defense attorney Tom Mesereau was an expert at discrediting witnesses, subjects told the filmmakers, but certain key witnesses, like Janet Arvizo, struggled to connect with the jury on their own.

“I called her Janet from another planet,” admitted juror Melissa Herard. “Sorry, but that’s just how she acted.”

Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe was meant to take the stand as a smoking gun for the prosecution but instead revealed no new information and came to Jackson’s defense.

The prosecution also partially hinged its case on past allegations of child sexual abuse against Jackson, but conflicting testimony caused these efforts to backfire. A former Neverland employee claimed to witness Jackson molest Wade Robson when he was a child, but Robson took the stand and denied anything happened.

“It’s hard to convince a jury when the subject of the act itself said it didn’t happen,” Zonen said.

In 2013, Robson reversed his stance and filed a lawsuit against the Jackson estate alleging sexual abuse. His allegations, along with those of James Safechuck, were the subject of the 2019 documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has denied Bill Cosby’s request for a new trial after a civil jury recently found he was liable for $19 million in damages in a sexual assault case.

Judge Bradley S. Phillips ruled Friday that Cosby did not prove there was “any irregularity” in the court proceedings that would have prevented him from getting a fair trial and that the damages awarded to his accuser were not “excessive.”

“The Court finds that there was sufficient evidence … to support the jury’s finding that defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff’s damages,” Phillips wrote in Friday’s order.

In March, a jury awarded former waitress Donna Motsinger $19.25 million in damages after she sued Cosby in 2023, alleging that the disgraced comedian drugged and sexually assaulted her in 1972 after escorting her to one of his shows.

Motsinger, now 84, claimed Cosby picked her up at her home and gave her wine and a pill she thought was aspirin on the way to the venue.

“Next thing she knew, she was going in and out of consciousness while two men attending to Mr. Cosby were putting her in the limousine,” the original complaint said. “The last thing Ms. Motsinger recalls were flashes of light,” before waking up in her house in nothing but underwear.

Cosby has denied Motsinger’s allegations, as well as those brought by dozens of other women who said they had been drugged and sexually assaulted by the former actor. Cosby served about three years in a Pennsylvania prison on sexual assault charges before that case was overturned in 2021.

Cosby had filed a motion for a new trial in the Motsinger case in early April. Attorneys for Cosby did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Friday’s ruling.

Times staff writer Fedor Zarkhin contributed to this report.