trial

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.

Wander Franco is guilty of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl in 2023, a judge in the Dominican Republic made clear Monday.

Yet in his next breath, the same judge ruled that the former Tampa Bay Rays star shortstop will not be sentenced to prison because he was a victim of blackmail and extortion by the girl’s mother.

Celebrity justice in the D.R. can be perplexing, and Judge José Antonio Núñez admitted as much. But he also contended that the judicial pardon he granted Franco was the result of “logical and legal reasoning.”

“It seems contradictory to declare criminal responsibility and, at the same time, exempt him from punishment,” Núñez said. “The court has granted Wander Franco a judicial pardon due to the particular circumstances that made him a material victim, but not a legal one.”

The court found that the girl’s mother extorted thousands of dollars from Franco. The woman was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of commercial sexual exploitation of a minor and money laundering.

The odds are long that Franco will return to Major League Baseball any time soon. The fact that the court found him guilty of repeatedly having sex with a minor puts him squarely in violation of MLB’s Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy.

The league is in the midst of an investigation into Franco’s conduct.

“We respect the legal process and the decision issued by the court,” the Rays said in a statement. “This is a serious matter, and our thoughts remain with those affected by the case.

“The Rays will continue to cooperate fully with Major League Baseball as it completes its review under the league’s Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy. Out of respect for the legal process and all parties involved, we will have no further comment at this time.”

Franco’s situation serves as a cautionary tale for MLB teams that hand out long-term contracts years before players become free agents. The Rays signed a 20-year-old Franco to an 11-year, $182 million deal in November 2021 after he batted .288 with 30 extra-base hits in 70 games as a rookie.

Franco appeared on his way to stardom during a stellar 2023 season, but according to court filings he carried on a relationship with the 14-year-old victim for several months.

An investigation was launched in August 2023. Franco was arrested Jan. 1, 2024, after failing to appear before Dominican authorities who sought to interview him.

Tampa Bay placed him on the restricted list early in the 2024 season, voiding his contract.

Franco was found guilty in a June 2025 trial. Although prosecutors sought a five-year prison sentence, he was given only a two-year suspended sentence by Justice Jakayra Veras.

“Look at us, Wander,” Veras said in open court. “Do not approach minors for sexual purposes. If you don’t like people very close to your age, you have to wait your time.”

An appeals court in December ordered a new trial, which took place Monday and resulted in his pardon.

“Thank God for everything,” Franco said as he embraced his mother, Nancy Aybar, after Judge Nuñez announced the pardon.

As he departed the courthouse, Franco was asked by a reporter how he felt.

“I feel calm,” he said.

Netflix is dropping a three-part docuseries that revisits Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial in which he was acquitted on charges of child molestation.

“Michael Jackson: The Verdict” drops June 3 and features archival footage and interviews with key players involved in the trial including jurors, figures from both the defense and the prosecution, journalists who were inside the courtroom and other eyewitnesses who saw the events unfold firsthand.

“It has been 20 years since the trial of Michael Jackson in which he was found not guilty. Yet, to this day, controversy still rages,” the filmmakers said. “No cameras were allowed in court, and so the public’s view of the facts at the time were filtered by commentators and presented piecemeal. It was time to take a forensic look at the trial as a whole.

“Anyone interested in the Michael Jackson story should feel this documentary gives them a window into what was largely a closed event and a chance to feel closer to what happened.”

The Santa Barbara Superior Court trial lasted 14 weeks, and the jury, which included eight women and four men, deliberated for more than 30 hours across seven days.

Jackson was acquitted on 10 felony charges: four counts of child molestation, four counts of plying a minor with alcohol in order to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation and one count of conspiracy to hold the boy and his family captive at the Neverland Ranch. He faced more than 20 years in prison.

Produced by Candle True Stories, the production company behind Netflix’s “Untold: The Liver King,” and directed by Nick Green, “Michael Jackson: The Verdict,” comes at a time of renewed interest in the “King of Pop.”

The Jackson-estate-approved biopic “Michael” hit theaters last month, and depicts the origin story of the hitmaker from childhood through his upward trajectory to superstar status in the 1980s. Notably, the movie omitted the slew of allegations that followed Jackson from the ’90s until his death in 2009.

Claudine Longet, the French-born star and ex-wife of crooner Andy Williams who became notorious for the fatal shooting of Olympic skier Vladimir “Spider” Sabich, has died. She was 84.

Her death was confirmed by her nephew, Bryan Longet, who posted a social media tribute on Thursday. Translated from French by The Times, he wrote, “You have been a true inspiration in my life and you will always be. … Another star in the sky. Thank you for everything, my aunt.”

Born in Paris on Jan. 29, 1942, Longet was the daughter of a doctor and an X-ray manufacturer. From a young age, she showed a knack for singing and dancing and envisioned her name on the marquee. In 1960, when she turned 18, American impresario Lou Walters (father of Barbara Walters) saw Longet dancing on French television and hired the ingénue to join the Tropicana casino’s flashy new production. She bid Paris adieu and sashayed to Las Vegas, where she starred in the Folies Bergère revue.

While working as a showgirl in Sin City, Longet met then-fellow Vegas performer Andy Williams one evening when her car broke down on the side of the road. Williams happened to be passing by as the young dancer was pushing her car down the highway with a friend, and Williams along with his manager stopped to help and was quickly charmed. The two were married on Christmas Day the following year, in 1961.

In 1962, Williams released “Moon River,” and the crooner’s career took off. The newlyweds left Las Vegas and moved into an oceanfront mansion in Malibu where they started a family, and over the next several years welcomed daughter Noelle and sons Christian and Robert, or “Bobby,” who was named after the couple’s close friend Robert F. Kennedy. Also in 1962, Williams’ eponymous variety show debuted and quickly became a hit. Longet was a regular on the show, and the family-oriented Christmas TV specials, often featuring the entire Williams clan, were a ratings juggernaut.

In addition to her regular appearances on “The Andy Williams Show,” Longet acted in television and film. Notably, the chanteuse captivated audiences singing Henry Mancini and Don Black’s “Nothing to Lose” in the 1968 comedy “The Party,” in which she played an aspiring actress. From 1967 to 1972, she released seven studio albums, five with A&M Records, including her debut single and album titled “Claudine,” and two with Barnaby Records. Her music was known for its breathy, lounge-pop quality, and she sang in both English and French.

By 1970, Williams and Longet’s marriage was on the rocks, and the pair separated. They officially divorced in 1975. The Emmy-winning host chalked it up to the pair growing apart. He told CBS’ “This Morning” during a 2009 appearance that he was never home. “It was all my fault, and I just didn’t take care of my marriage,” he said, noting that he regretted the split. The two stayed friendly afterward, and Williams stood by Longet when tragedy and scandal struck a year later, in 1976.

Longet met Olympian skier Sabich in Bear Valley at a celebrity skiing exhibition in 1972. There was an instant attraction between the two, and Longet relocated to Aspen, Colo., and ultimately moved into the pro skier’s ritzy Starwood chalet around 1975. On March 21, 1976, Longet shot Sabich in the abdomen with an imitation World War II .22-caliber German‐made pistol. Her daughter, Noelle, who was in the house at the time, testified that she heard Sabich yell out, “Claudine! Claudine!”

According to The Times’ archives, Longet told authorities that she found the handgun and asked Sabich how to use it. During Longet’s trial, Aspen Det. David Garms testified that Longet insisted the shooting was an accident. Garms said that Longet told him she’d pointed the gun at Sabich and then “jokingly said ‘bang, bang.’” She told investigators she thought the safety was on, and a ballistics expert said the safety did not work.

Longet was with Sabich in the ambulance when he died en route to the Aspen hospital. The “Love Is Blue” singer was subsequently questioned by investigators and charged with felony reckless manslaughter weeks later. She initially faced up to 10 years in prison. But in January 1977, after four days of testimony and 3½ hours of deliberations, Longet was acquitted of the felony charge and convicted of a misdemeanor charge of negligent homicide.

Ex-husband Williams accompanied Longet to her trial and told “This Morning” years later that he supported his ex-wife because he believed in her innocence.

“I did because I thought it was unfair,” he said. “I thought she was innocent. I thought it was an accident.”

During the trial, she testified in her signature French accent that she and Sabich were the “best of friends.”

“There were times over the four years that we would disagree. … [T]here would be times he would be a little bit offended by the attention I got and I would be a little bit offended by the attention he got, but we were the best of friends and we loved each other very much,” she told the court, per The Times’ archives.

Longet was sentenced to serve 30 days in jail “at a time of her own choosing.”

“There is not really much to say,” she told reporters outside the courtroom, per The Times’ archives. “Only that I have too much respect for living things to do that. I’m not guilty.”

The parents of Sabich filed a $1.3-million civil suit against Longet later the same year, but the case was settled out of court two years later. Longet was reportedly forbidden from speaking or writing about the shooting. As for her career in show business, she was finished.

The Sabich case became an absolute sensation in the media, not just in America but also globally, and Longet was internationally labeled Aspen’s femme fatale. Pop culture had its way with the incident as well. The Rolling Stones’ song “Claudine” was withheld from their 1978 album, “Some Girls,” because of legal considerations but was featured on the 2011 reissue of the album.

“You’re the prettiest girl I ever seen / I want to see you on the movie screen / I hope you never try to make a sacrifice of me, Claudine,” belted Mick Jagger in what may have been considered a diss track or a tribute, depending on whom you ask. “Nah ah / Don’t get, don’t get trigger happy with me, Claudine.”

In an April 1976 episode, “Saturday Night Live” also took aim at the deadly affair with a sketch titled “The Claudine Longet Invitational,” in which Chevy Chase and Jane Curtin play sports commentators who offer a play-by-play of a competition in which male skiers are “accidentally” shot by Longet as they race down the slopes.

The producers read an apology on air the following week.

Aspen attorney Ron Austin, who was on Longet’s defense team, left his wife shortly after the trial concluded to be with the embattled starlet. The two married in 1985 and remained in Aspen afterLonget’s conviction but also spent time at their second home in Hawaii. In 2023, the pair listed her $60-million Red Mountain Ranch estate, according to Robb Report.

Longet’s last known public appearance was in 2003 on the A&E channel’s Andy Williams “Biography” documentary, in which she recorded only voice-over. “To this day people stop me in the street and say how much they loved the Christmas show.”

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) The House on Thursday passed the Cashless Bail Reporting Act, which is intended to deter states and communities from releasing people charged with crimes before trial without paying bail. Ninety-six Democrats joined most Republicans to approve the measure, 308 to 116.

If the Senate were to write a companion bill and pass it, the act could have significant repercussions for the Black, Latino and low-income communities, according to researchers and activists. Advocacy groups also had raised concerns that the bill would lessen states’ rights.

“We have seen state and local governments making reforms to their bail systems in response to the growing body of research which has highlighted the inequities in bail systems, which disproportionately burden racial minorities, women and overwhelmingly the poor,” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., said in an earlier hearing on the bill

The bill expanded on a 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump, “Taking Steps to End Cashless Bail to Protect Americans,” which required the U.S. Attorney General to send a list of states and local jurisdictions that have eliminated cash bail for some crimes that “pose a clear threat to public safety and order.”

These crimes include violent, sexual and indecent acts, and burglary, looting and vandalism. To encourage elimination of cashless bail, the executive order also directed agencies to identify funding to these communities that could be “suspended or terminated.”

The bill would require annual lists of states and communities that allow cashless bail.

“It would be creating a bit of a hit list for different policymakers to attack and to try to pressure those states, counties, localities to change their policies and practices, to avoid … a lot of public safety funding that they get every year from the federal government getting completely gutted,” Nicole Zayas Manzano, deputy director of policy for the Bail Project, a non-profit group that advocates for bail reform and provides bail assistance, said about the lists.

In a Rules Committee meeting on Tuesday, Republicans said the act would lower crime rates.

“We know violent criminals released on cashless or artificially low bail have reoffended,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. voted for the bill, but said it would do little more than track bail practices in states and localities.

“It’s hard to see how issuing a report advances community safety or justice, given the strangely hostile rhetoric we are hearing from our colleagues about cashless bail,” Raskin said in the debate before the vote.

In a 2024 study, the Brennan Center for Justice found that there was “no statistically significant relationship” between cashless bail policies and increases in violent crime.

In the Rules Committee meeting, Rep. Michelle Fischbach, R-Minn., referenced the Bail Project, a non-profit organization that pays bail for low-income people who cannot afford it. She claimed that the group put violent offenders back on the street.

“In Indiana, from 2019 to 2021, 24% of the roughly 1,000 defendants cut loose by the Bail Project … had been charged with a crime of violence, so we’re putting violent offenders back on the road. And 35% were facing felony charges and had a previous charge of at least one crime of violence,” Fischbach said.

The group rejected the congresswoman’s description.

“The cutting loose reference mischaracterizes our work. We only step in after a judge has deemed somebody eligible for release, and it is only the affordability of cash bail that is preventing them from getting out, which is also unconstitutional,” Zayas Manzano said. “Then we really connect them with social services in their own communities.”

Moreover, studies found that cash bail disproportionately harms minorities, notably those in Black, Latino and low-income communities. In 2024, the Criminology & Public Policy Journal reported that Black defendants were 34% more likely to be recommended to be held behind bars until their cases were resolved when compared to white defendants.

Zayas Mazano said people jailed before trial were more likely to pre-emptively plead guilty, receive harsher punishments and end up with worse criminal records.

“Your life also just falls apart once you’re trapped inside, right? You could lose your housing if you can’t go and pay rent. You can lose your job if you’re not able to show up after a certain number of days. You could lose custody of your children. I mean, all kinds of things can really happen, but then just really snowball onto communities of color, in particular, and low-income people in general,” she said.

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, 69% of pretrial detainees were people of color, with Black (43%) and Hispanic (19.6%) defendants especially overrepresented compared to their share of the total U.S. population.

“Study after study shows that judges tend to assign people of color higher cash bail amounts and that they are less likely to be able to afford those cash bail amounts. And so they are very often forced into whether or not they must stay behind bars, which we certainly see huge racial disparities in jail, pretrial, and otherwise,” Zayas Manzano said.

During the Rules Committee meeting, Democrats mirrored concerns about the bill passing. Notably, Raskin discussed how the federal court system has functioned on a cashless bail system for about 60 years, instead of making bail decisions based on the danger of flight or violence to others.

“In America, whether you’re a president or a pope or a pauper, you’re innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of the charged offense,” Raskin said. “And no one should be detained pretrial simply because they don’t have the financial resources to post bail.”

NEW YORK — President Trump won’t have to pay an $83-million defamation award to a longtime advice columnist until the U.S. Supreme Court gets a chance to review the case or reject an appeal, according to a court entry Tuesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a request by one of Trump’s lawyers to let the president delay the payment to E. Jean Carroll, though it required that Trump post a $7.4-million bond to cover any additional interest costs, a request Carroll’s attorney had made.

The appeals court late last month refused Trump’s request for a rare meeting of the full 2nd Circuit to hear an appeal of a three-judge panel’s affirmation of the January 2024 verdict.

Afterward, Trump attorney Justin D. Smith asked the 2nd Circuit to stay the effect of its decision upholding the award so that the president would not be forced to pay the judgment before the high court has a chance to consider an appeal.

Smith said last week there was a “fair prospect” that the Supreme Court will find in favor of Trump, who has called Carroll’s claims — first made publicly in 2019 — that she was sexually attacked by Trump in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996, a “made-up scam.”

The $83-million award to Carroll, 82, came from a jury that briefly heard Trump testify and observed his animated behavior for several days.

In upholding the verdict, a 2nd Circuit panel wrote in September 2025 that Trump continued his attacks against Carroll for at least five years, making them “more extreme and frequent as the trial approached.”

“He also continued these same attacks during the trial itself,” the appeals court said. “In one such statement, issued two days into the trial, Trump proclaimed that he would continue to defame Carroll ‘a thousand times.’ ”

The jury had been instructed to accept the findings of a jury that in May 2023 awarded Carroll $5 million after concluding Trump sexually abused her in the department store and then defamed her after she published her account of it in a 2019 memoir.

Trump is challenging the $83-million award on several grounds, asserting “absolute immunity” for comments he made while president as he disavowed knowing Carroll and attacked her motivations, saying they were politically driven or arose from a desire to promote her memoir.

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.

A man accused of nabbing unreleased music by Beyoncé in a vehicle break-in last summer has pleaded guilty to the theft and has been sentenced to serve time in prison.

Kelvin Evans, 41, on Tuesday entered guilty pleas in Fulton County Superior Court in Georgia to counts of entering an automobile and criminal trespass. Fulton County Superior Court Senior Judge Jane C. Barwick sentenced Evans, who was set to go on trial this week, to two years in prison and three years on probation. Evans was also warned to keep his distance from the victims and the scene of the theft.

Evans was sentenced less than a year after stealing the pop diva’s unreleased music from her choreographer’s van in Atlanta. According to police, Evans broke into the Jeep Wagoneer rented by choreographer Christopher Grant and dancer Diandre Blue when they stopped at a restaurant to eat. The artists were in town for the “Diva” singer’s four-night takeover of Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium for her Cowboy Carter tour.

Evans damaged the trunk window and stole a pair of suitcases that contained two computers and five jump drives of unreleased music as well as footage, plans for the tour production and past and future set lists, the police report said. He also stole clothing, Apple AirPods Max headphones and designer sunglasses, police said.

Police arrested Evans in August. He was indicted in October and initially pleaded not guilty in January and even rejected the plea deal during a hearing last month.

Despite his arrest, police have not recovered the stolen items.

The chances of Beyonce releasing new music was already pretty slim heading into Evan’s scheduled trial. Speculation swirled online that the Grammy winner would drop the third act of her planned music trilogy timed to the summer. The singer’s rep Yvette Noel-Schure put a hard stop on those rumors in late April.

“This is unequivocally false!!” Noel-Schure posted on X.

Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

In a United States court, OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has rejected claims from fellow tech mogul Elon Musk that he betrayed the artificial intelligence company’s original vision.

Tuesday marked the start of Altman’s testimony in a contentious trial unfolding in Oakland, California, between some of tech’s richest and most powerful titans.

Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, has sued Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman on the basis that they “stole a charity” by shifting its purpose.

He alleged that OpenAI’s leader persuaded him to invest $38bn, based on a goal of improving humanity, only to see the company pivot to a for-profit venture in 2019.

On the witness stand on Tuesday, Altman instead framed Musk as a competitor obsessed with exercising control over OpenAI.

“It does not fit with my conception of the words ‘stealing a charity’ to look at what has actually happened here,” Altman told the court.

The two men have long had an acrimonious relationship, driven in part by differing views about artificial intelligence.

Musk — a self-described free speech “absolutist” — currently runs his own AI chatbot, Grok, which has been accused of perpetuating right-wing conspiracy theories and offensive materials.

He is seeking $150bn in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, one of its principal investors.

Altman’s testimony comes more than two weeks into the trial, which has seen him and Musk square off against each other.

In his testimony, Altman argued that Musk knew of the plans to develop OpenAI into a for-profit enterprise when he invested, and he asserted that Musk even petitioned to have a majority stake in the company.

“An early number that Mr Musk threw out was that he should have 90 percent of the equity to start,” Altman told the jury. “It then softened, but it always was a majority.”

The outcome of the trial could determine the future of OpenAI, its leadership, and products like ChatGPT. As part of his lawsuit, Musk is pushing for the removal of Altman and Brockman.

The trial comes as OpenAI prepares for a potential initial public offering that could see it valued at $1 trillion, a historically large sum.

During earlier testimony, Musk portrayed Altman as a liar who could not be trusted with the development of the technology.

“If you have someone who is not trustworthy in charge of AI, I think that’s a very big danger for the whole world,” Musk said.

Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, also sought to undermine Altman’s reliability during questioning on Tuesday.

“Have you misled people when you do business?” Molo asked Altman.

“I do not think so,” Altman replied.

Altman, meanwhile, sought to cast doubt on Musk’s leadership; Musk ultimately left OpenAI’s board in 2018 to pursue his own AI development.

“I don’t think Mr Musk understood how to run a good research lab,” Altman said. “He had demotivated some of our most key researchers.”

The US public, for its part, has been largely unconvinced by high-minded rhetoric about the transformative potential of AI.

A March 2026 poll by the Pew Research Center suggested that a majority of respondents in the US believe AI will worsen, rather than improve, the ability to think creatively, form meaningful relationships, make difficult decisions, and solve problems.

Just 10 percent of respondents said they were more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life.

But the industry has been quick to translate its substantial economic power into political influence as lawmakers consider how best to regulate the technology.

The use of AI has emerged as an election-season issue as the US midterms approach in November, and the administration of President Donald Trump has proposed a “national policy framework” for the technology to avoid a patchwork of state regulations.

The AI industry has become a driver of eye-watering investment in recent years, with the United Nations estimating that the global market could be worth $4.8 trillion by 2033.

May 11 (UPI) — A criminal court in the Bolivian city of Tarija declared former President Evo Morales in contempt after he failed to appear for trial on charges related to the alleged trafficking of a minor.

The hearing, scheduled for Monday, was expected to begin the final stage of a case investigating Morales’ alleged relationship with a 15-year-old girl in 2015, from which a child was allegedly born.

The contempt ruling triggered measures intended to ensure the appearance of the former leader of the ruling Movement for Socialism, or MAS.

Authorities issued an arrest warrant authorizing security forces to detain Morales anywhere in the country and prevent him from leaving Bolivia. The court also ordered freezing his bank accounts and precautionary registration of his assets.

Prosecutors said they gathered more than 170 pieces of evidence in the case, which were expected to be presented during the trial.

After Morales and his legal team failed to appear in court, the judge applied Bolivian law that prohibits criminal trials in absentia.

“Because the accused failed to appear and did not legally justify his absence, this court issues a contempt ruling,” the judge said, according to Bolivian newspaper El Deber.

The trial will remain suspended until Morales is arrested or voluntarily appears before the court.

Morales’ defense team argued the case already had been addressed and resolved in 2020, adding the former president should not face prosecution again. His lawyers also claimed “there is no victim” and describe the charges as politically motivated, according to Chilean news outlet Emol.

Attorney Nelson Cox, a member of Morales’ legal team, said insufficient security guarantees existed to transport the former president from the Chapare region of Cochabamba. He also described the case as a “political fabrication” intended to block Morales from running for office again, according to Bolivian broadcaster Unitel.

Prosecutors and lawyers representing the alleged victim criticized interruption of the trial.

“It is a mockery of the victims and the judicial system. The evidence is overwhelming and the accused must answer for his actions before the law,” the regional prosecutor’s office said.

Since October 2024, Morales has remained in the Chapare region, his main political stronghold, where he is protected by thousands of supporters and self-defense groups.

At that time, police were unable to execute an earlier arrest order after Morales supporters blocked roads for 24 days to prevent officers from entering the area where he remains sheltered.

The government of President Rodrigo Paz announced Tuesday it would seek information from U.S. judicial authorities to investigate Morales’ alleged links to drug trafficking networks. Bolivian authorities are seeking to participate as a “victim” in ongoing U.S. legal proceedings to gain access to evidence.

One of the most significant cases involves former anti-drug chief Maximiliano Dávila, who was extradited to the United States in December 2024 and sentenced in March to 25 years in prison for conspiracy to import cocaine.

Morales has argued that Dávila’s extradition is part of an effort to pressure him into testifying against the former president in exchange for legal benefits.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) could decide to alter the regulations around replacements after the first block of County Championship fixtures is concluded. Each team has two more games before the competition breaks for the T20 Blast.

During those two rounds of matches, match referees will speak to the directors of cricket at the 18 counties to gain feedback on the trial. The ECB wrote to counties this week to confirm they will be consulted.

The governing body has stressed that the new regulations are a trial, and it will learn each time the rules are applied. The protocols for selecting a replacement player are not new – substitutions for concussions and cases of Covid were in place before this season.

The International Cricket Council has permitted trials for injury replacements to take place in domestic cricket, with India and Australia implementing their own versions.

Though Anderson admits his team would have been left short of fit players against both Gloucestershire and Durham had replacements not been permitted, he said he was “leaning towards” scrapping injury replacements.

The 43-year-old is the most successful seam bowler in Test history, with 704 wickets.

Anderson suggested he would not ever be permitted to come into a game as an injury replacement, because he would always be more experienced than the player he would be replacing.

“It basically means I’ve got to play every game,” said Anderson.

“There’s no point me resting, because I can’t then come into a game – I can’t be a replacement, ever. If I get injured, I get injured. There’s more chance of me getting injured if I try to play every game.

“I can be replaced, because no one in our squad has the same experience, but I could never replace someone else.”