trial

WASHINGTON: Jason Eaton insisted he was acting on orders from the CIA and Mossad when he shot three Palestinian college students who were walking past his home a few days after Thanksgiving. He said the US and Israeli intelligence agencies transmitted the messages to him via FM radio and that God was commanding him to protect his Jewish neighbors.

Eaton’s claims were at the heart of his insanity defens e as he went on trial Monday on attempted murder charges in a case that shook Burlington, Vermont, and reverberated in the West Bank, where the three wounded men grew up and became friends as schoolmates in Ramallah before moving to the US for college.

The November 2023 shooting, weeks after the start of the Israel-Hamas war, spawned calls for a hate crime investigation. But no hate crime charges were filed as questions persisted about whether anti-Palestinian animus, an altered mental state or something else had compelled Eaton to open fire on Hisham Awartani, Tahseen Aliahmad and Kinnan Abdalhamid, who were all 20 at the time.

The men testified one after another as Eaton, now 51, watched stoically from the defense table in a Burlington courtroom. He has pleaded not guilty but doesn’t dispute that he was the shooter. If convicted, he faces up to life in prison. If found not guilty by reason of insanity, he could be ordered to undergo mental health treatment.

Defense lawyer Joshua O’Hara, previewing testimony from a defense psychiatrist, told jurors in an opening statement that Eaton was suffering from a delusional, psychotic disorder after losing his job at a credit union two weeks before the shooting.

While listening to a local NPR affiliate, Eaton believed he was hearing messages that he attributed to the CIA, O’Hara said. At first, the messages were encouraging and validating, the lawyer said, but subsequent messages turned dark, insisting that Eaton “has to go out and shoot somebody.”

Prosecutor Sally Adams told jurors that a state psychiatrist who is slated to testify concluded that Eaton did not have a mental disease or defect. Evidence will show he intended to kill the men, was not legally justified in shooting them, and does not meet the test of legal insanity, Adams said.

Authorities found three shotguns in Eaton’s apartment and a Ruger .380-caliber handgun that crime lab testing concluded was the gun used in the shooting, Adams said. Eaton had purchased the gun seven months earlier from a Vermont gun store.

“If the defense tries to focus on the story that Mr. Eaton tells about why he intended to kill these three young men, that story is only part of the whole picture,” said Adams, the chief administrative deputy at the Chittenden County State’s Attorney’s Office.

Awartani, Aliahmad and Abdalhamid, all of whom are now 23, told jurors of their holiday weekend visit to Awartani’s grandmother’s house, a trip to a bowling alley to celebrate his twin cousins’ birthday, and the walk they took near the University of Vermont campus after dusk that ended in bloodshed.

Awartani, who was studying at Brown University in Rhode Island at the time, said they were smoking cigarettes and speaking a mix of English and Arabic. Two of them said they were wearing traditional Palestinian scarves known as keffiyehs. Awartani said he first noticed Eaton standing on a porch as they approached the apartment house where he lived.

Within seconds, Awartani said, Eaton was off the porch and walking toward them. His face was expressionless and he didn’t say anything. As Eaton got to about five to 10 feet (1.5 to 3 meters) away, “he pulled out a handgun and started shooting at us,” said Awartani, who was paralyzed from the waist down in the shooting and now uses a wheelchair.

Jacob Pyne, who lived in a different apartment in the same house as Eaton, testified that he heard four to six gunshots, followed by footsteps going up the stairs of the apartment house. He said he ran outside and heard two men speaking, one of whom was more vocal and yelling, “I’ve been shot, help me.” He then brought the men blankets and called 911.

Abdalhamid, a student at Haverford College near Philadelphia, said he fled and hid behind another home after seeing Aliahmad fall to the ground. He said he only realized later when he sat down that he had also been wounded. Awartani was shot in the chest and the bullet ricocheted off his scapula, causing paraplegia in his spinal cord. Aliahmad, who was a student at Trinity College in Connecticut, was struck in the collarbone, and Abdalhamid was shot in the right buttock.

O’Hara, the supervising attorney at the Chittenden County Public Defender Office, told jurors that Eaton was confused by the messages he said he was receiving, and became convinced that the CIA and Mossad were enlisting him into “overwatch duty” to protect a Jewish family living across the street.

“These were delusions,” O’Hara said. “He believed in the moment that he was doing something that was right. He had been commanded to do this. And that he did not have the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct in the moment because he believed he’d been instructed to do this by a government agency or God.”

The U.S. Justice Department failed to secure felony convictions against most of the 102 protesters arrested in Los Angeles and three other major cities last year on charges of assaulting federal authorities — a record far below the norm in federal assault prosecutions.

All of the dozen cases that made it to trial, mostly in L.A., ended in acquittal, mistrial or dismissal. Experts say that’s surprising for a department known for its ability to win at trial. The last three felony assault cases, in L.A. and Portland, Ore., will go to trial this fall.

The dismal record has raised questions about rushed investigations and aggressive charging tactics by prosecutors under pressure to show the Trump administration is cracking down on people who assault law enforcement. It comes as the Justice Department is facing broader setbacks in politically charged investigations, with grand juries repeatedly refusing to return indictments and trial juries granting acquittals.

“Prosecutors tend to win because they control what cases they pursue and they have a lot of resources and discretion,” said Mary Fan, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at the University of Washington.

The fact that the government failed to win any felony assault convictions at trial calls into question “whether or not these charges should have ever been brought in the first place,” she said.

Tracking the outcome of 167 arrests

The Associated Press’ analysis focused on arrests made during protests last summer and fall in L.A., Chicago, Portland and Washington, D.C. — cities with significant protests where President Trump deployed the National Guard or tried to.

Then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said those who interfered with federal law enforcement would face “severe consequences.”

Most of the arrests — 102 — were for felony assault on a federal officer, which can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Of those cases, 41% were dismissed and 34% were pleaded down to misdemeanors. Ten people pleaded guilty to felony assault. Nine people got prison time.

Of those arrested on other charges, seven were sentenced to prison for offenses including arson and obstructing law enforcement. A few defendants have diversion agreements, meaning their cases will be dismissed if they demonstrate good behavior.

The AP’s analysis shows that the Justice Department’s record failed to meaningfully improve since December, when an initial assessment showed early struggles to prosecute people on the charges for which they were arrested.

The Justice Department said in a statement that federal prosecutors are right to prioritize cases against people accused of assaulting federal officers and that “each case is based on the facts.”

“If there are mitigating factors identified in a case, then prosecutors must also act appropriately to inform the court, and in some cases downgrade or drop charges,” the department said.

Prosecutors failed to persuade

It’s rare for federal prosecutors to lose at trial. In 2024, 82% of defendants charged with felony or misdemeanor assault were convicted at trial or with a plea deal, according to data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. AP’s analysis found that less than half of the protesters charged for either felony or misdemeanor assault were convicted.

In Portland, a jury couldn’t reach agreement on felony assault charges for Oriana Korol, who was playing clarinet in a marching band demonstrating outside the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement building last October when a scuffle involving officers broke out. Officers pepper-sprayed her and pushed her to the ground, where she struck one with her foot, according to court documents.

After a mistrial, prosecutors filed a reduced misdemeanor assault charge. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced Sept. 1 to time served and one year of supervised release.

Her attorneys wrote in a court filing that she “has accepted responsibility for the bad choices she made over a few seconds that caused no injury.”

Jonathan Caravello, a lecturer at California State Channel Islands, was acquitted of assault on a federal officer after a three-day trial. He was accused of throwing a tear gas canister deployed by immigration agents back at them while protesting a raid at a Camarillo cannabis farm.

Caravello said he was trying to get the canister away from the crowd. Videos showed he had tossed it high above officers’ heads and it landed far behind them. The jury acquitted Caravello after a quick deliberation.

“They’re trying to get a chilling effect out of these charges,” said Caravello, who turned down a misdemeanor plea deal.

Michael Rabbitt was among six co-defendants accused of felony conspiracy to impede a government vehicle from accessing an ICE facility near Chicago last September.

The vehicle slowly advanced despite being surrounded by protesters, leading some to put their hands on it, Rabbitt said.

After the government dismissed charges against two of the defendants, defense attorneys requested transcripts of the grand jury proceedings that led to the conspiracy indictment. The government eventually dropped the conspiracy charge and proceeded on misdemeanor counts of impeding a federal officer.

The judge later reviewed the unredacted transcripts and admonished prosecutors for improper behavior before the grand jury. The charges were dismissed days before trial.

Rabbitt said he was proud they fought the charges.

“This case was bigger than us,” he said. “I’m proud that we won this case, not just for us, but for protesters across the country.”

Many pleaded down

Though many federal criminal cases end in plea deals, some legal experts say it’s rare for felony assault to be pleaded down and may signal overcharging — filing a more severe initial charge so defendants will be more willing to plead guilty to one with a lighter sentence.

“I think when prosecutors bring charges ethically, they should be prepared to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who is a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The U.S. Attorney’s office overseeing Los Angeles said it brought the prosecutions in response to a “wave of violence against law enforcement officers who were doing their jobs.” It voluntarily dismissed charges against some defendants after further investigation, it said.

L.A. prosecutors have arrested three additional people for felony assault at immigration-related protests this year. One pleaded guilty to a felony and two to misdemeanors.

In Chicago, all but one of 19 felony assault cases were dismissed. The U.S. Attorney’s offices in the Northern District of Illinois, District of Columbia and Oregon did not respond to requests for comment.

Some DOJ convictions

A man accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail at a hotel outside Los Angeles where federal authorities were staying was sentenced to five years in prison. Two others were sentenced to more than three years after pouring lighter fluid on a burning California Highway Patrol vehicle.

Federal judges sentenced eight people to decades in prison for their participation in a demonstration outside a detention center in Texas in July 2025 where a police officer was shot in the neck.

Three people were convicted at trial of conspiracy to impede or injure an officer for protesting outside a detention facility in Spokane, Wash., in June 2025. The Spokane and Texas cases were not included in AP’s analysis because they did not occur in one of the four cities where Trump deployed troops or attempted to.

Ding and Rush write for the Associated Press. Rush reported from Portland. AP writers Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pending defamation case against Fox News could go to trial in early 2028, around the same time the governor could be running a 2028 campaign for president.

Newsom sued the news network last year over its coverage of a phone call that took place between the governor and President Trump in June 2025, as unrest simmered over federal immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles. The governor accused the news outlet of intentionally manipulating its coverage to give the appearance that he lied about the call.

Despite an on-air apology from Fox News host Jesse Watters and attempts from the network to have the lawsuit thrown out, a Delaware Superior Court judge late last month set a trial date for March 6, 2028. Newsom filed the lawsuit in Delaware, where Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., are incorporated.

Newsom’s final term in office ends in early January and he is considering a run for president. The lawsuit seeks $787 million in damages, the same amount the network paid to settle a defamation suit brought by voting machine company Dominion. The company accused Fox News of airing false claims that voting machines were manipulated to help Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.

Lawyers for Fox News sought to have the case dismissed and Newsom ordered to pay attorneys’ fees. Judge Sean P. Lugg denied both motions this year, a ruling upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court.

“We will continue to vigorously defend against Governor Newsom’s meritless claims, which directly implicate core First Amendment protections for free speech, political commentary and a free press,” the network said in a statement to The Times.

“No media empire, no matter how rich and powerful, should get to lie to the American people with impunity,” said Michael Teter, the attorney representing Newsom in the case. “Governor Newsom is holding Fox accountable — and looks forward to proving this case in court. The truth matters.”

The case stems from a phone call between Trump and Newsom in early June 2025 as unrest brewed in Los Angeles over federal immigration raids and hours before the president took control of state National Guard troops, ordering them to protect federal buildings and immigration agents.

Newsom’s lawsuit accuses Fox hosts Watters and John Roberts, along with two senior news staffers, of misrepresenting Trump’s statements and asserting that Newsom lied about whether the call had happened.

The governor had previously publicly spoken about a late-night phone call he had with Trump on June 6 in California, which was early June 7 for Trump on the East Coast. He said that the National Guard was never discussed during that call and that the two did not speak about the immigration raids and protests again.

Trump told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with Newsom “a day ago.”

“Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job, he’s doing a bad job,” Trump said.

Newsom disputed Trump’s timeline, writing on social media, “There was no call. Not even a voicemail.”

Roberts then said on social media and on air that Trump sent him evidence that the call took place. Newsom’s lawsuit accused Roberts of leaving out key details about the time of the call.

Roberts “did not provide the critical fact that on June 10, President Trump had stated that he had spoken to Governor Newsom ‘a day ago.’ Nor did Mr. Roberts note that June 6 — or June 7 at 1:23 am — is not ‘a day ago’ when one is speaking on June 10,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit also accused Watters’ show of playing a clip of Trump’s remarks that was edited to remove the president’s reference to “a day ago.”

“Newsom responded, and he said there wasn’t a phone call,” Watters said after showing the clip. “He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump’s call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?”

A caption at the bottom of the screen during the report read, “Gavin lied about Trump’s call.”

Weeks later, Watters acknowledged the mistake and apologized, saying Newsom “wasn’t lying. He was just confusing and unclear.”

Newsom declined to drop the suit and in court documents demanded a jury trial.

Getting a trial date doesn’t necessarily mean a trial will take place, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson said.

Fox’s “motion to dismiss was denied. That means the case is continuing,” she said. “But what’s also happening throughout all of this is the sides are probably talking about some sort of settlement.”

The case now enters the discovery phase, where each side collects evidence to build their case.

Court records show Fox News lawyers last month sent subpoenas to Newsom’s political action committee and several top advisors, including his chief of staff, Nathan Barankin; communications director Bob Salladay; legal affairs secretary David Sapp; and political consultants Ace Smith, Lindsey Cobia, Jason Elliott and Nathan Click.

The subpoenas ordered them to produce documents related to the network’s coverage of Newsom, the phone call with Trump and the governor’s response strategy.

If a trial does happen, Levinson said, the timing could either help or hurt Newsom’s potential presidential campaign.

“He can use it as a talking point and say, ‘I don’t leave any stone unturned. I’m seeking to vindicate my reputation. I believe in the truth, and the other side does not believe in the truth. That’s why I’m bringing this case.’ So, he can use it as a part of his stump,” she said.

But if the trial proceeds and Newsom believes it would take time away from his campaign, he could ask for it to be moved to a different date.

“Trial dates get changed all the time for much less,” Levinson said.

Even had you never read Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities,” or even known of its existence, the odds are good that you have somewhere encountered its much quoted opening and closing lines: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” and (spoiler) “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known,” respectively, the latter possibly in the course of a Ronald Colman imitation. (Please do not ask who Ronald Colman is.)

Reckoned to be Dickens’ most popular novel, it has been several times filmed for the big and small screens, going back to 1911 — the big-budget Colman version came in 1935 — but has not been mounted in this century, until now, with a four-part adaptation premiering Sunday on MGM+ in a co-production with BBC One. It stars Kit Harington, whom “Game of Thrones” people know as Jon Snow, as Sydney Carton, a disheveled, cynical, self-loathing, alcoholic, yet clever London lawyer. London is one of the two cities whose tale this is. Paris, before and during the Revolution, is the other.

Daniel West’s adaptation hits the major plot points and select lines of dialogue, but has typically, unavoidably, been streamlined and compressed. Characters disappear, or have their attributes and actions assigned to different characters. But much has been added as well. Most of these alterations are trivial, although one major change, coming near the end, is a very bad idea. I can’t tell you what it is, though.

Francois Civil, left, and Kit Harington in “A Tale of Two Cities.”

(Marcell Piti / MGM+)

Other than that, the most substantial changes are to Lucie Manette (Mirren Mack), the female lead, in order to give her a more active, heroic role in the story, this being 2026. (Not that Dickens didn’t write a heroine or two.) So we meet her, a Frenchwoman raised in England, sneaking out at night to dissect corpses in a sort of one-woman underground medical school — knowledge that will come in handy when Charles Darnay (François Civil), a Frenchman living in London, shows up at the place where she lives, dying from a knife wound acquired in the process of chaperoning into England a young woman in danger from the French ancien régime (the king is still in his counting house); laying him out on the dining room table, she cauterizes the wound.

Darnay has also been tasked with delivering the message “Recalled to life,” which refers to the fact that the father Lucie believed dead has merely been languishing in the Bastille for 18 years and is now out. In the novel, he is simply released, but here he has escaped — or rather, has been escaped, since he is something of a wreck, as you might imagine — and is being hidden at the wine shop of the pre-revolutionary Defarges, Ernest and Thérèse. Like the novel’s first and last lines, Madame Defarge (Roxane Duran), with her knitting needles, has transcended the text into folklore.

“A Tale of Two Cities”

(Marcell Piti / MGM+)

But before a recovering Darnay can clear any of this up, he’s dragged away by English police, accused of spying for the French for the benefit of the Americans — our own revolution is in progress at this point — and put on trial. Lucie, having exhausted all other possibilities, and needing Darnay in order to find her father, hires a very reluctant Carton, who in a trick worthy of Perry Mason, gets him off when a witness cannot tell him and Darnay apart. (Make a note of their resemblance; it will be important later.) By this time, both men are in love with Lucie, which, historical action scenes and social commentary aside, is the real point of the story, which might as easily be titled “A Tale of Three Citizens.”

All this gets the miniseries off to an energetic start. After this, there will be a lot of going back and forth across the Channel; crimes of the aristocracy; Darnay’s own Big Secret revealed; more trials, more imprisonments. Still, though it wakes up when we get to the storming of the Bastille, economically but effectively rendered, and, later the Reign of Terror, in between it can turn into a murky, mopey slog. It is often dark, visually and temperamentally; the music tends to moodiness. The actors speak quietly, as if fearful of being overheard, whether or not there is anyone around to hear, and often regard one another with pained or stunned expressions. It’s not necessarily inappropriate — there’s a lot of death in the book, and in a love triangle, someone is bound to lose, at least in the pre-polyamorous 19th century. But this “Two Cities” does lean into the worst of times.

Nevertheless, as Lucie, Mack makes a consistently vital impression — one can see why everyone’s in love with her. (Harington, the big name here, is less vivid; he’s more interesting before Carton falls for Lucie, when he’s still a bit of jerk and not simply sad most of the time.) And as Madame Defarge , who will become the symbol of the revolution’s bloodthirsty overreach, Duran is splendid; she’s a monster, finally, but layered and human. She has her reasons.

After a gruelling five-week murder trial, Lindsay Clancy’s fate rests with 12 anonymous jurors. And they cannot make up their minds.

The jury of nine women and three men have told the judge, two days in a row, that they cannot reach a unanimous decision. Despite the judge’s continued urging that jurors keep at it, the struggle has raised the prospect of a mistrial in Clancy’s case.

“It is desired that the case be decided,” Judge William Sullivan told the panel on Wednesday afternoon, after members sent him a second note saying they are undecided after five days.

He read a mandatory, formal set of instructions and sent them back – some with frustrated expressions on their faces.

The 36-year-old former nurse does not dispute that she killed her two sons and daughter in 2023 in the basement of their family home in Massachusetts. But her lawyer argues she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time, and therefore could not distinguish right from wrong.

The prosecution claimed Clancy made a calculated, intentional decision to kill them and knew right from wrong in that moment. She is charged with three counts of first-degree murder.

Under US law, the jury must unanimously reach a conclusion “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If they cannot, the judge can call a mistrial, which ends the trial with no verdict.

This jury has several outcomes to choose from. Potential verdicts include not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter.

Aug. 26 (UPI) — Testimony ended Wednesday in Lindsay Clancy’s triple-murder trial, with closing arguments set to begin Thursday.

Clancy, 36, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the killings of her three children, ages 5, 3 and 8 months, at their Duxbury, Mass., home in January 2023. She pleaded not guilty.

The defense has argued that Clancy should not be held criminally responsible because of extreme mental health issues, including postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors say she deliberately killed the children. A panel of 12 jurors is expected to start deliberations after closing arguments.

An FBI psychiatrist, Dr. Gregory Saathoff, was the final witness Wednesday. He said Clancy could still appreciate right from wrong when she killed the children and noted her planning for it, CNN reported. Clancy sent her husband out for takeout before the killings and then attempted to take her own life, cutting her wrists and neck and jumping out a second-floor window. She was paralyzed by the fall.

“The fact that this was done without any witness present during a time where she had asked a potential witness to go on a longer errand — also I thought was significant,” Saathoff said.

The jury will have the choice of first- or second-degree murder or manslaughter charges. If Clancy is found guilty, she will face life in prison. If she is found not guilty by reason of insanity, she will likely be committed to a mental health facility.

The prosecution called more than 70 witnesses during the trial, while the defense called 10. Clancy’s defense included testimony from friends and family members who called her an “incredible” mother.

Clancy, who worked as a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital, sought treatment for her mental health issues and was prescribed more than a dozen psychiatric medications on and off over several months. Both sides called psychiatric experts to testify during the trial.

Meta, parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is on trial over claims it sought to hook young users on its platforms despite mental health concerns.

The top executive at Instagram has admitted that few teenagers have used a feature meant to counter addiction before it was turned on by default, as hearings in a landmark trial against its parent company, Meta, continue in the United States.

Adam Mosseri testified on Tuesday as Meta’s trial – over accusations that it designed its platforms, including Facebook, to be addictive to young people – entered its second week.

Mosseri, who has led Instagram since 2018, denied any suggestion by US states suing Meta that Instagram had stalled by not making the “Take a Break” feature the default setting for teenagers until September 2024, nearly three years after its launch.

“Most teens didn’t want it,” Mosseri said. “We decided to push forward with it anyway.”

Mosseri is a central witness in the lawsuit brought by 29 US states, in what experts call the biggest legal test yet of social media’s effects on young users.

Four of the states – California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey – have accused Meta of designing the platforms to hook young users, driving anxiety, depression and even suicide, while misleading consumers about the platforms’ safety.

All 29 states say Meta violated US federal law by improperly collecting and employing the personal data of children under 13 while they used its platforms.

The states are seeking approximately $200bn in damages from Meta.

‘Designed to fail’

Meta has rejected accusations that it sought to addict children, saying its research showed no clear link between adolescents’ social media use and a lack of wellbeing.

Under questioning from Jason Slothouber, a lawyer for Colorado, Mosseri acknowledged that the percentage of teenagers using Take a Break was in the low single digits before Instagram made it ⁠the default.

Take a Break encourages teenage users to close the app after a certain amount of time. Mosseri had estimated in a December 2021 blog post that more than 90 percent of teenagers who turned the feature on kept it on.

That number, however, referred to the number of those who had turned on the feature.

When asked whether Meta had disclosed its low adoption, which had reached only 1 or 2 percent of accounts, Mosseri admitted the company had not, but said the safety features were later turned on by default in Teen Accounts, which launched in 2024 and have parental controls.

Former Meta employees have said that features such as Take a Break and Quiet Mode were difficult to find and not widely used, casting doubt on whether they represented a serious effort by the company to limit screen time for young users.

“In my experience, Take a Break is a feature that’s designed to fail,” Arturo Bejar, a former Meta engineering director, testified last week.

George Volichenko, a data scientist who worked on safety features at Instagram in 2022 and 2023, likewise stated on Monday that adoption rates of such features were “very low” and that company leadership had declined to approve turning on Quiet Mode by default for young teenagers.

He added that turning on such features automatically would have had a “notable negative impact” on user engagement.

The trial could last six weeks.

Jurors are expected to issue an advisory verdict. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will decide whether Meta is liable and, if so, determine any civil penalties and changes to Facebook and Instagram.

The trial judge, Dabney Friedrich, has agreed that the start date should be set aside, underlining the potential importance of the new evidence.

She would have been extremely reluctant to allow an 11th hour postponement after months of preparation and marathon pre-trial legal battles.

For the relatives of those who died and Al-Marimi himself, this latest delay means a verdict might not come until next spring.

It is yet another stunning development in a saga that has witnessed countless twists and turns over nearly four decades.

Pan Am 103 was flying from Heathrow to New York when the bomb exploded in its forward hold, breaking the plane apart at 31,000 feet.

All 259 passengers and crew on board were killed. Another 11 people died in Lockerbie when the wreckage fell on their homes.

Of the victims, 190 were American and 43 from the UK.

Nearly four decades later, the bombing remains the worst terror attack and mass murder in British history.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — Defense lawyers representing Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy, on trial for the murders of her three children, rested their case Friday after testimony from a doctor who claimed she is innocent due to mental illness.

Attorney Kevin Reddington told the presiding judge in Plymouth, Mass., Superior Court that the defense had concluded its case following the testimony of Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist with expertise in postpartum disorders.

He told jurors Clancy was “frankly psychotic” on Jan. 24, 2023, when she killed her children.

A series of defense witnesses this week sought to show Clancy, 36, is not guilty of murdering her children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — at their Duxbury, Mass., home.

Clancy cut herself and jumped from a second-story window in a failed suicide attempt following the slayings, after which she became paralyzed from the waist down.

While not denying she killed the children by strangulation, they contend she is not criminally responsible because she was suffering from bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis.

She faces a possible sentence of mandatory life imprisonment without the chance of parole.

When questioned by Reddington, Resnick stated in his video testimony that based on his diagnosis Clancy suffered from a “postpartum psychosis” following the birth of Callum, noting that she heard voices commanding her kill her children and herself.

This, he said, triggered a “delusion of influence” in which a victim feels their body is overtaken by an “external force,” and thus Clancy should not be held criminally responsible for her actions, the Boston Globe reported.

“She felt that she had to obey the instructions,” he said. “It was a matter where she was just following the command, rather than being able to make any decision to do this or not.”

After the defense rested, prosecutors called several rebuttal witnesses including Dr. Avram Mack, a psychiatrist, who agreed with prosecutors that Clancy was able to understand that her actions were wrong when she killed her children, thus making her guilty of murder under state law.

He testified that Clancy had interacted normally with other people in the hours before the killings.

“There was the ability to act normally,” he said, adding that Clancy had said “Go to God” while committing the slayings, which he took to mean she knew her children were innocent as they died.

Lee and Chow were also leaders of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance (HKA).

The HKA was founded in May 1989 to support students holding pro-democracy rallies. Weeks later, the Communist Party crushed pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square with troops and tanks. Estimates of the death toll range from a few hundred to many thousands.

Over the next three decades, HKA called on authorities to accept responsibility for the crackdown, free dissidents and introduce democratic reform.

The Alliance’s leaders were charged in 2021 and have been behind bars since.

Rights group Amnesty International has said the case “relies on vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of ‘subversion'”.

Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director, said Chow and Lee had “not committed any recognisable crime”.

“Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan are prisoners of conscience who should never have been prosecuted in the first place. They must be released immediately and unconditionally”, she added.

In a separate case, Chow was arrested in June 2021 for “inciting” the public to take part in that year’s vigil and later found guilty.

However, Hong Kong’s top court overturned that conviction in 2022, with a judge ruling the police hadn’t properly justified the vigil’s ban.

Chow Hang-tung spoke to the BBC in 2021, weeks before her arrest on 4 June 2022.

“I am prepared to be arrested. That is how Hong Kong is now,” she had said.

“I am willing to pay the price for fighting for democracy”.

Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery could result in 4,500 jobs eliminated in Los Angeles over a three-year period, according to a new report.

Los Angeles County supervisors earlier this year wanted to explore the potential economic impact of David Ellison’s proposed union of two historic Hollywood studios. The report, completed this week by CVL Economics, paints a sobering picture of the potential aftermath of the debt-laden deal, including the prospect of an estimated $1.26 billion in lost wages.

“Los Angeles County’s film and television economy is already undergoing a significant structural contraction,” the report said. “The proposed merger of Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Skydance introduces an additional source of risk into that already changing market.”

California Atty. General Rob Bonta is leading a coalition of 12 states attempting to block the merger on antitrust grounds. A trial has been set for March. Paramount and other groups, including cinema chain owners and some Hollywood unions, have agitated for a settlement to curtail months of uncertainty over whether the deal will go through.

The proposed merger has been controversial in Hollywood due to fears of widespread layoffs. The Writers Guild of America has brought its own lawsuit to thwart the deal.

The goal of the county’s report was to provide “a comprehensive assessment of the merger’s production workforce implications,” amid the ongoing decline of L.A. based film and television production work. Los Angeles has witnessed the elimination of more than 50,000 entertainment jobs since 2022.

The 120-page report, from the county’s Department of Economic Opportunity and Film Office and requested by Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, found that more than 15,000 corporate roles would be at risk, including an estimated 2,495 jobs based in Los Angeles County.

The two companies would have an overlapping workforce within its linear cable channel divisions, film and television studios, streaming operations and corporate functions, including marketing, technology and advertising sales.

“Effects on crews, crafts, post-production personnel, vendors, and production-serving small businesses,” could also be substantial, the report said.

Paramount, in a statement, said the report highlighted the industry’s troubles and made a case for the merger.

“LA County’s own economic report underscores what we have been saying all along: our industry is in decline, production is down and jobs are being lost — and lost for good if we don’t act,” Paramount said. “Our plan to invest $30 billion annually in production and release at least 30 films a year.”

That commitment, Paramount said, would lead to “more jobs over time, and ultimately, a stronger, more durable entertainment industry for generations to come.”

Paramount has received clearances from the U.S. Justice Department and 65 other regulators around the globe to complete the merger.

For now, Bonta’s lawsuit is standing in the way.

Paramount has promised investors the deal would lead to at least $6 billion in cost savings through the consolidation of operations. The company has said the merger would ultimately be good for consumers and workers because a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. would have greater resources to compete with tech giants that are investing heavily in entertainment.

But the report pointed to the high level of debt that Paramount would have to take on — nearly $82 billion — to buy the stock of Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders to finalize the takeover.

“If revenues underperform or planned savings prove more difficult to achieve, pressure to identify additional cost reductions could increase,” the report said.

The two companies already are carrying substantial interest costs due to their existing debt structures. “In the quarter ended June 30, 2026, the two companies reported a combined $712 million in operating income and $737 million in net interest expense,” the report said, meaning that the companies were producing less profit than what was needed to support their debt obligations.

Despite Paramount predicting cost savings and reduction in debt over time, “those savings will take several years to fully realize,” the report said.

David Ellison was hoping to wrap up his $111-billion merger with Warner Bros. by September.

(PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images)

Television production in Los Angeles could be especially vulnerable, in large part, because Paramount and Warner Bros. already have moved most of their feature film projects outside of L.A. High levels of TV production continues at Warner Bros. complex in Burbank and Paramount’s and CBS’ soundstages in Hollywood and Santa Clarita.

“The economic impact extends well beyond employment,” with an expected elimination of $547 million in tax revenue, including $78.6 million in local taxes, the report said.

It noted that Warner Bros. and Paramount films were “particularly employment-intensive.”

“Their theatrical releases carry 2.74 times as many screen credits as the average theatrical release, while their streaming films carry twice as many,” the report found.

The document also highlighted a pre-existing pull-back in production at the two studios in recent years — something that Ellison plans to correct.

Paramount was struggling to remain solvent prior to the Ellison family’s purchase of the media company last year. Warner Bros. had scaled back offerings following Discovery’s $43-billion takeover of WarnerMedia in 2022 as it struggled to contain the debt from that deal.

“Between 2019 and 2025, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount accounted for a net reduction of approximately 195 major U.S. releases,” the report said. At the same time, other major distributors combined “added about 67 projects.”

Ellison is looking to finalize his massive Hollywood deal — folding CNN, HBO, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios under Paramount — as quickly as possible. He must hold together Paramount’s coalition of financiers and manage rising expenses, primarily legal fees and escalating obligations to Warner shareholders.

The state attorneys general, including from Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Washington and New York have argued that the blockbuster merger — the largest in Hollywood in decades — would violate the century-old Clayton Antitrust Act.

Paramount hoped the trial over Bonta’s lawsuit would begin in November but U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín set the trial for March 2.

If the deal goes forward, just four studios — 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 has argued that projects from Amazon MGM, Netflix and Apple should be included because they compete with the traditional companies for talent and audiences.

Paramount-Warner Bros. would also own more than 50 cable channels, including HGTV, Animal Planet, BET, MTV and Comedy Central.

McKINNEY, Texas — The judge in the case of a Texas teenager convicted of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old athlete at a high school track meet was ordered removed Wednesday, as the defendant seeks a new trial in a case that drew national attention.

Karmelo Anthony, now 19, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison after a suburban Dallas jury in June rejected his claims of self-defense during a confrontation with Austin Metcalf in the stadium bleachers last year.

The case attracted national attention in part because of a flood of social media posts that amplified the killing in racial terms. Anthony is Black; Metcalf was white. Lawyers on both sides, however, told jurors the tragedy had nothing to do with race.

Dozens of Anthony supporters gathered inside and outside the Collin County courtroom for Wednesday’s hearing, and some chanted “Free Karmelo!” in the parking lot after visiting Judge Sid Harle’s order to remove state District Judge John Roach as Anthony seeks a retrial.

A new judge will be assigned for Thursday’s hearing on Anthony’s request for a retrial.

Anthony’s legal team argued Wednesday that a retrial is needed in part because Roach enforced overly strict courtroom rules and gave an interview after the trial was over.

In the interview that was played as Wednesday’s hearing began, Roach was asked if the jury got “it right.”

“Yeah, they did,” Roach said, adding: “Whatever they say, they got it right.”

Harle said he did not know Roach and he believed Roach would be fair in a hearing for a retrial. But Harle agreed to Anthony’s request to remove him because of the way it might look to a third party.

Anthony attended the hearing wearing a green jumpsuit. His parents and Metcalf’s parents also were in the courtroom. Attorneys for Anthony’s and Metcalf’s families did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Anthony did not testify during the trial where students described a heated exchange over Anthony’s refusal on a rainy spring day to leave a tent that belonged to Metcalf’s team. The teens went to different high schools.

Several schools were competing when Anthony sat under the Memorial High School tent that was perched in the bleachers. Austin Metcalf and others had repeatedly told Anthony to leave, witnesses testified, leading to an escalating confrontation.

Prosecutors said Anthony provoked Metcalf, and witnesses testified that Anthony was the aggressor.

Anthony at one point reached inside a bag and replied: “Touch me and see what happens,” according to a police report.

Metcalf pushed Anthony, according to witnesses, who said Anthony then pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the chest.

Stengle writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 18 (UPI) — Medical experts and a family member testified in a Massachusetts courtroom Tuesday that Lindsay Clancy’s mental health was so precarious that she cannot be held responsible for the strangulation deaths of her three children.

A trio of doctors and Clancy’s former mother-in-law, Susan Clancy, each testified in her defense as her attorneys sought to show the 36-year-old defendant is not guilty of murdering her children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — at their Duxbury, Mass., home on Jan. 24, 2023 due to mental illness.

While not denying she killed the children, they contend she is not criminally responsible because she was suffering from bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis.

The Plymouth County, Mass., District Attorney’s Office, however, argues that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis when she strangled the children and jumped from a window, suffering permanent paralysis from the waist down.

After the prosecution rested its case last week, the defense continued with its own case.

Among the medical experts taking the stand Tuesday was Dr. Paul Zeizel, a clinical and forensic psychologist who testified about meeting with Clancy at the hospital after the killings.

After testifying that Clancy told him she had “fuzzy” memories of the killings, he said she told him she heard a man’s demanding she kill the children and then herself.

Zeizel forcefully suggestions of having “planted” that story with Clancy.

Also testifying for the defense was another medical expert, former medical examiner Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, who spoke about the injuries Clancy suffered in her suicide attempt in an apparent effort to counter prosecutors’ suggestions that she had not jumped out a window.

Another medical witness, Dr. Donald Condie, testified that Clancy exhibited symptoms consistent with postpartum depression, such as brain fog and anxiety.

The day’s testimony also included emotional words from Susan Clancy, the mother of Patrick Clancy, who said the couple had a “very good relationship,” WBTS-TV reported.

“She was very nurturing, very loving, she was a wonderful mother. Wonderful,” she said of Lindsay. “She loved her children, all of them, very, very much.”

A former nurse, Susan Clancy she said she noticed a change in Lindsay’s personality after the birth of Callan, the youngest child.

“She reached out to me in November and told me that she felt unwell,” she said. “Mostly, she had insomnia, she was losing her appetite, she was very anxious and sad.”

Opening statements in a landmark US case brought by a bipartisan coalition of 29 states against Meta – the parent company of Facebook and Instagram – began on Tuesday, with Colorado, California, New Jersey and Kentucky arguing that the company’s popular social media apps were designed in ways that harmed the mental health of young users.

The trial, which is expected to last several weeks, began in a US federal court in California before District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. While there is an eight-person jury, the group is serving in an advisory role as Judge Rogers will ultimately decide the case.

Megan O’Neill, a deputy California attorney general, in her opening statement said that the company designed its products to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public”.

She added that it worked “especially well for kids”.

The lawsuit, which was first filed in 2023, alleges that Meta made decisions to design its apps to hook users and facilitate excessive use among the platforms’ youngest users. The coalition also alleges that the company collected data on children under the age of 13 in violation of federal law.

“Meta needed kids, and it needed to reassure the people who cared about those kids that the kids are safe,” O’Neill said.

‘Limited claims’

Meta has long pushed back on allegations against the Silicon Valley social media behemoth.

In a statement before the trial, a Meta spokesperson said the states’ claims are unsubstantiated, and the company stands by its record of creating strong protections for teenagers, including launching Instagram Teen Accounts in 2024, which limit who can contact underage users, as well as a feature that allows parents to set time limits on usage.

“The State AGs may call this a landmark case, but their limited claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate,” Stephanie Otway, a Meta spokesperson, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification. Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout.”

The potential impact on Meta’s bottom line is existential. The company could face fines as high as $1.4 trillion, which is just shy of its $1.5 trillion market cap. However, the coalition is seeking fines of roughly $200bn.

Meta has already been ordered to pay $942m in fines in a separate New Mexico lawsuit – $375m in civil penalties in a March jury verdict and $567m ordered by a judge earlier this month.

Meta has acknowledged that the lawsuits it faces, including those related to youth social media addiction, could lead to “substantial monetary damages or fines” in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in January.

A long time coming

Meta, along with other social media giants, has faced a growing slate of cases across the United States, including from cities, states, school districts and even individuals.

The coalition of states is asking Meta to make changes to its platforms, including introducing new age restrictions and cutting the infinite scroll.

The case’s impetus came from a US Senate committee hearing in 2021, when whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former data scientist at Facebook, claimed that the company knowingly pushed products that could impact the health of young users as the Mark Zuckerberg-led company pursued higher profits.

Meta has repeatedly tried to end the coalition lawsuit, including in 2024 and as recently as June, when it sought summary judgement – a decision that a court might make without going to trial – which would have ended the lawsuit.

The case is impacting the company’s stock. On Wall Street, the social media giant is down more than 3 percent in midday trading.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison sued Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday, seeking to compel the extradition of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent to stand trial for assault and falsely reporting a crime in the wounding of a man during the agency’s crackdown in Minneapolis.

Ellison said he would request a temporary restraining order barring the Cameron County Sheriff’s Office in Texas from releasing ICE agent Christian Castro and requiring Abbott to sign the extradition warrant allowing Minnesota law enforcement agents to take custody of him.

Castro was arrested 11 days after Minneapolis prosecutors charged him with assault and falsely reporting a crime in the Jan. 14 nonfatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. The criminal complaint alleges that Castro fired a gun at the front door of a home in Minneapolis, striking a victim in the leg before lodging in a child’s bedroom wall, and then knowingly provided false information to an officer about it.

Ellison said at a news conference that unless he’s extradited, Castro faces release from jail next week — 90 days since he was detained — under Texas law, and could flee the U.S. from the border town where he’s being held.

“Christian Castro has been charged with breaking the law in Minnesota,” Ellison said. “He must face justice in Minnesota. Gov. Abbott should have granted Gov. Walz’s extradition request long ago and is required to do so now.”

“Christian Castro is not above the law and Greg Abbott isn’t either,” Ellison added.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said the legal action taken Tuesday to compel Castro’s extradition “should be a completely unnecessary lawsuit.” Officials at the jail and local prosecutors in Texas have been “very cooperative,” she said — “it is not supposed to be controversial.”

She said that since Castro’s arrest, Texas has extradited three unrelated criminal defendants without incident to Minnesota at the request of state authorities.

Gov. Abbott has received communication with us on an ongoing basis, including recently,” Ellison said. “We have to take the position that they are refusing to honor the extradition request.”

Vancleave writes for the Associated Press.