trial

The case against the woman who authorities allege fired multiple bullets at pop singer Rihanna’s Beverly Hills mansion can move forward, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Florida woman Ivanna Lisette Ortiz, 36, was deemed mentally competent by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maria Cavalluzzi, meaning the criminal case can proceed after a competency evaluation delayed it for more than four months.

Case documents with Ortiz’s psychiatric evaluations were marked as confidential and sealed.

Officials allege that she put “numerous lives at risk” on March 8 when she drove a white Tesla to Rihanna’s neighborhood and fired about 20 rounds from an assault-style rifle. Rihanna, her partner A$AP Rocky and their three young children were home at the time.

Police discovered bullet holes or impacts on the exterior of the gate of Rihanna’s residence, a fence, the front windshield of an Airstream trailer, a patio area and on the exterior wall of a nursery room, according to a police document reviewed by City News Service.

At the time of the shooting, Rihanna and A$AP Rocky were inside the trailer, and their kids were inside the nursery room, according to reporting by the Associated Press.

Ortiz is facing 14 felony counts, including one count of attempted murder, 10 counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and three counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle or other target, court records show.

Ortiz had several prior arrests in her home state, The Times has reported. She was involved in a bankruptcy case in 2013, arrested on suspicion of careless driving in 2021, and arrested in 2023 on suspicion of domestic violence and battery.

Though she had no known affiliation with Rihanna, Ortiz often posted on social media about celebrities. In February, she shared a meme alleging Rihanna had AIDS and tagged Rihanna in a post on Facebook telling her to “say something to me directly instead of sneaking around.”

Another hearing is set for Wednesday morning at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, court records show.

City News Service contributed to this report.

Harvey Weinstein’s winding legal saga took a new turn this week, one that reaffirmed that the former Hollywood kingmaker — whose alleged history of sexual assault and abuse sparked the cross-industry #MeToo reckoning — will likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

Weinstein, 74, was sentenced on Wednesday to 15 years in prison for a felony sex crime tied to allegations from former “Project Runway” production assistant Miriam “Mimi” Haley. After a retrial last year, a majority-female jury found the disgraced Hollywood mogul and co-founder of the defunct Weinstein Co. guilty of sexually assaulting Haley in 2006 at his New York apartment.

Haley described the lasting and “devastating” effects of Weinstein’s assault as she addressed the court during Wednesday’s sentencing.

“Making the decision to speak up will have me looking over my shoulder for years to come,” she said. “It’s a life sentence for me.”

Weinstein said he has “remorse for Miriam Haley’s pain,” but maintained that he’s innocent.

The New York sentencing this week was not the first time Weinstein received a lengthy prison sentence for sex crimes. Since the damning sexual assault and harassment allegations against Weinstein first entered the legal spotlight in 2017, the Oscar-winning producer has faced convictions for rape and sexual assault over the course of trials — and retrials — from 2020 to 2025.

Weinstein has already served more than six years in New York, leaving him with about nine years left on that sentence. A pending resentencing in California — he was sentenced to more than a decade for a 2013 rape — could keep the mogul behind bars for life, the Associated Press reported.

Here’s a look back on Weinstein’s previous convictions and the prison sentences that followed.

March 2020: 23-year prison sentence in New York

Weinstein was first sentenced for his sex crimes against women in New York almost three years after the #MeToo movement upended his career as a prolific movie producer.

The mogul’s 2020 sexual assault trial, the first in a handful that would follow in the coming years, ended in February 2020 with a jury delivering a mixed verdict. The jury convicted Weinstein of committing a criminal sexual act and third-degree rape based on accusations from Haley and former actor Jessica Mann, respectively. The jury acquitted him on the most serious charges, including two counts of predatory sexual assault.

Harvey Weinstein arrives at a Manhattan courthouse for jury deliberations in his rape trial, Monday, Feb. 24, 2020, in New York.

(Seth Wenig / Associated Press)

A month later, New York Supreme Court Judge James Burke announced that Weinstein would carry out a 23-year prison sentence for his crimes. He was ordered to serve 20 years for his 2006 attack against Haley in his Manhattan apartment. The judge added three years to Weinstein’s sentence for raping Mann in a Manhattan hotel in 2013. Weinstein was to serve those sentences consecutively.

At the time, the Miramax co-founder denied all wrongdoing and planned to appeal. Those efforts come into play in 2024.

February 2023: 16 years in California

Weinstein, a movie titan who once dominated Hollywood and produced some of the modern film industry’s most defining titles, including “Pulp Fiction” and the divisive Oscar best picture winner “Shakespeare in Love,” was tried in his stamping grounds in October 2022. He was prosecuted for allegations that he raped and attacked four women in Beverly Hills hotel rooms between 2004 and 2013. Before the trial, Weinstein was indicted on 11 counts of rape, forcible oral copulation and sexual battery in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. He denied all wrongdoing.

The acrimonious trial, which stretched more than a month, ended in December 2022 with a jury convicting Weinstein of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by a foreign object. The jury acquitted Weinstein of the sexual battery of a massage therapist and failed to reach verdicts on counts involving two other women. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lisa Lench declared a mistrial on the charges that left the jury deadlocked.

Weinstein’s conviction hinged on an account from an Italian model and actor identified in court as Jane Doe 1. She said the producer barged into her hotel room in Beverly Hills, where she was staying while attending a film festival, to assault her. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison in February 2023.

Harvey Weinstein appears in court at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on Oct. 4, 2022, in Los Angeles.

(Pool / Getty Images)

“There is no prison sentence long enough to erase the damage,” Doe said during the sentencing. “He deserves to experience the same shame, humiliation and fear as I did.”

Lench ruled at the time that Weinstein cannot serve his New York and Los Angeles sentences concurrently. His attorney said the producer would return to New York to carry out the remainder of that sentence before going to prison in California.

Earlier this year, a three-panel judge from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal unanimously agreed to deny Weinstein’s efforts to appeal the Los Angeles conviction. The Los Angeles trial judge was also ordered to resentence the mogul.

“This is not the end of the appellate process,” Juda Engelmayer, Weinstein’s publicist, said in June. “We intend to seek review in the California Supreme Court because we continue to believe significant legal errors affected the proceedings and warrant further review.”

Weinstein is awaiting resentencing for this case.

April 2024 to now: New York retrial leads to an updated prison sentence

Weinstein, imprisoned and suffering from declining health, sought relief in both California and New York. A glimmer of that relief arrived in April 2024, when a New York appeals court overturned the sex assault conviction that launched his first lengthy prison sentence.

In a dramatic reversal of the landmark #MeToo case, a state appeals court found that the judge who presided over Weinstein’s 2020 trial prejudiced his case by allowing four women who said Weinstein had assaulted them to serve as witnesses, even though their allegations were not part of the case. The appeals court also ruled the judge made a mistake in ruling prosecutors could cross-examine Weinstein about uncharged and decades-old allegations if he decided to testify.

What ensued was a retrial in 2025 that exceeded a month and featured emotional testimony from former accusers Haley and Mann, and model Kaja Sokola, who did not testify against the mogul in the 2020 trial.

The fallen Hollywood boss was retried on the allegations that led to his original rape and criminal sex act convictions. He was also tried on a new sexual assault charge stemming from Sokola’s allegation that he forced oral sex on her in 2006 when she was 19. Weinstein pleaded not guilty and his defense maintained the alleged sexual encounters were consensual. He did not take the stand, similar to his first trial in New York and his rape trial in Los Angeles.

Before Weinstein was convicted in June 2025 of forcing oral sex on Haley, he declared “it’s just not fair.”

“My life is on the line, and you know what? It’s not fair,” he said at the time. “It’s time, it’s time, it’s time, it’s time to say this trial is over.”

Time, it appears, is of the utmost importance for Weinstein, considering his renewed prison sentences in New York and an incoming sentence in California. Weinstein spoke at length with the Hollywood Reporter in March about carrying out his sentence and the possibility of dying behind bars. The former executive was jailed at the notorious Riker’s Island jail complex in New York at the time of the interview.

“It scares the s— out of me. Cold and heartless,” he told THR. “It’s incredible to have the life that I had and the things that I did for society and not have the leniency to deal with me in a kinder way. Whatever they think I did bad in my life, I didn’t get the death penalty.

“I don’t want to die in here.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

PARIS: France’s ex-culture minister Rachida Dati appeared in court Wednesday on corruption charges linked to dealings with the Renault-Nissan group, just months after her bruising defeat in the Paris mayoral race.

One of the most prominent figures on the French right, Dati, 60, stood in court dressed in black to hear the charges against her, all of which she denies.

Carlos Ghosn, the fugitive former Renault-Nissan chief now living in Lebanon, is being tried in absentia.

Dati has been dogged by controversies for much of her political career.

She resigned as culture minister in February to concentrate on the Paris mayoral race, but lost to Socialist rival Emmanuel Gregoire in March.

She stands charged with corruption and influence-peddling over alleged lobbying for Renault-Nissan between October 2009 and February 2013 while she was a member of the European Parliament.

She became an MEP after serving as justice minister between 2007 and 2009 under President Nicolas Sarkozy.

She has been accused of accepting 900,000 euros (around $1 million) in lawyers’ fees from a Netherlands-based subsidiary of Renault-Nissan.

Dati, who is still the mayor of the French capital’s wealthy seventh district, denies all the charges.

She faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to 450,000 euros, if convicted. She could also face a five-year ban on holding public office.

Her legal team said Dati worked “exclusively” as a lawyer for the Netherlands-based subsidiary.

“Unfounded allegations of influence-peddling in the European Parliament stem from an artificial intellectual construct devised by the prosecution,” her lawyers said.

– ‘Explain facts’ –

French prosecutors argue that a legal services contract signed in 2009 between Dati and Ghosn, under which the former minister was paid an annual fee of 300,000 euros, was used to disguise lobbying work.

Investigators obtained the contract in 2019 during a search of Renault’s headquarters following Ghosn’s arrest in Japan, in a separate case.

Ghosn, the 72-year-old former chairman and chief executive of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, was arrested in Japan in 2018 on suspicion of financial misconduct, before being sacked by Nissan’s board.

He made a dramatic escape from Japan hidden in an audio-equipment box, landing in Beirut, where he remains at large.

Ghosn faces a litany of charges, including abuse of power and bribery. He has denied any wrongdoing.

In a letter sent to the court in August and seen by AFP, Ghosn requested that the proceedings be postponed.

Denying any attempt to “delay the trial”, Ghosn said he was prepared to appear by video link to “explain facts” that he disputes.

Dati has repeatedly sought to have the charges against her quashed.

She has also been accused of accepting nearly 300,000 euros in undeclared payments from energy group GDF Suez, also while an MEP.

Prosecutors said last year they were looking into reports that Dati failed to declare jewelry and watches worth 420,000 euros upon taking ministerial office.

She has denied any wrongdoing.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands: Former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte is expected to appear in public for the first time on Wednesday since being transferred to the International Criminal Court 18 months ago to face ‌murder charges related ‌to his war on drugs.

Duterte, ​81, ‌served ⁠as president ​from ⁠2016 to 2022, before being charged with crimes against humanity for creating, funding and arming death squads that targeted narcotics peddlers and users. He was arrested and taken to The Hague in March 2025.

On Wednesday, judges will hear arguments about his health and ability to stand ⁠trial, which is scheduled to begin ‌in November. His lawyers have ‌argued that he suffers from cognitive decline ​and is not well ‌enough.

Duterte’s lawyer and family did not respond to ‌requests for comment.

ICC judges said in January that Duterte’s health was good enough for him to follow proceedings and requested his presence in court, rather than by video link from ‌the detention unit.

Duterte’s warrant says he was responsible for a widespread and systematic campaign ⁠that led ⁠to thousands of killings between 2011 and 2019, including when he served as mayor of the southern Davao city.

ICC prosecutors have said as many as 30,000 people may have been killed in the crackdown, the details of which were reported in a Reuters investigation.

According to police, 6,200 suspects were killed during anti-drug operations. Duterte said he instructed police to act in self-defense and told supporters he was ready to “rot in jail” ​if it meant ridding ​the Philippines of illicit drugs.

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.