trial

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.

In less than a month, Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison has exhibited a dizzying range of emotions as the goal line for the coveted $111-billion Warner Bros. Discovery deal has moved farther away.

The tech scion initially exuded confidence that Hollywood’s biggest merger in decades was on a fast track to completion by September. Ellison and others downplayed efforts by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to challenge the acquisition — until Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general gained momentum in their antitrust lawsuit, which now threatens to derail Paramount’s Warner Bros. deal or, at least, make it significantly more expensive.

Ellison and his executives have vacillated from anger to acceptance. Last week, Ellison attempted a high-profile reputation reboot, extolling his love for movies and blaming politics for opposition to the deal.

The mogul has told investors the company is willing to negotiate a settlement with Bonta in hopes of completing the massive merger as soon as possible.

But Ellison also is making contingency plans to shift Paramount’s historic home base from Melrose Avenue to Tennessee — or perhaps Texas — as early as this fall.

Paramount’s board has approved Ellison’s relocation plans, according to people familiar with the situation who were not authorized to speak publicly. Ellison shared the concept with his executive leadership team in a meeting last Wednesday but said his preference was to remain in California, these people said.

The proposal includes potentially selling the 65-acre Paramount lot in Hollywood — as well as the larger Warner Bros. campus in Burbank, should Paramount prevail in the merger battle. Such sales would generate revenue to help pay merger costs, one of the knowledgeable sources said.

Paramount’s sudden relocation plan has further rattled Hollywood, which already is reeling from thousands of job losses in recent years.

Bonta, in a statement Tuesday, blasted Paramount’s latest strategy, calling it “another attempt to blackmail the state into letting an illegal deal through.”

“Paramount has lost the plot as it continues to lose in court,” Bonta said. “My office remains committed to stopping illegal consolidation and protecting a vibrant California economy for businesses that play by the rules.”

Behind Paramount’s pivot is a desperate scramble to bolster its legal case and muster funds to help finance a deal Warner shareholders approved in April.

Paramount offered to pay Warner investors $31 a share as well as so-called “ticking fees” of 25 cents per share for every quarter after Sept. 30 until the transaction closes.

That sweetener was intended as a show of confidence that Paramount’s deal would sail through its regulatory reviews, unlike a Netflix acquisition that faced more regulatory scrutiny. Netflix subsequently dropped its bid.

Paramount was banking on the swift approval of the U.S. Department of Justice, which arrived in June. President Trump is friendly with the Ellison family, and he has been eager for a shakeup at CNN, one of Warner’s properties.

“Ellison thought he had an ace in the hole with Trump [and] the DOJ, but it backfired on him because the clearance was so obviously rubber-stamping,” London-based media analyst Alice Enders said. “Now, the issues have resurfaced and it’s a costly potential delay.”

The ticking fees could add $7 million a day — or $650 million a quarter — to the $81 billion that Paramount had already anticipated paying Warner shareholders. (Paramount also agreed to absorb about $30 billion of Warner Bros. debt left over from last merger, in 2022.)

Ellison has repeatedly defended his proposed purchase, saying the tie-up does not threaten competition because Hollywood has been transformed by Netflix and other deep-pocketed tech giants.

Already, Paramount has received clearances from 65 foreign regulators, including Britain and the European Commission.

To accelerate California approvals, Paramount requested a November trial date for Bonta’s suit. Instead, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín scheduled a March 2 trial — dealing another blow to Paramount.

Ticking fees alone could add $2.1 billion to the cost of buying Warner Bros. In addition, Paramount said that delaying the transaction until next spring will add $190 million in bridge loan financing costs.

Paramount disclosed that it had $1.6 billion in cash on hand and a revolving loan of $3.2 billion available for its use.

If the deal fails to close by June 4, Paramount would have to pay Warner Bros. a $7-billion breakup fee. That’s when Warner’s board could pull the plug on the Paramount deal.

Puck News first reported Ellison’s latest plan to quickly move Paramount’s operations as soon as October.

“This is a plan — not a threat,” said a person who was in the room when Ellison discussed his plans but who was not authorized to comment.

The relocation campaign echoes a tactic employed by software giant Oracle Corp., co-founded by Ellison’s billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Oracle was based in Redwood City for three decades, but in late 2020, the company moved its headquarters to Austin, Texas, joining other California tech firms leaving in protest of the state’s high taxes and steep cost of living.

Then, two years ago, the elder Ellison announced that Nashville would host Oracle’s new headquarters. At the time, Oracle saw that state’s healthcare industry as a promising growth business. Oracle since has bet heavily on artificial intelligence.

In contrast, it would be difficult for Paramount to pack up its operations because it depends on producers, directors, writers and stars to make its TV shows and movies. The two studio lots also boast dozens of soundstages; century-old fortresses that would not be easily duplicated. And many Paramount executives are not eager to leave Los Angeles.

Some observers questioned Paramount’s willingness to carry out a move, which surfaced a week after David Ellison’s guest essay in the New York Times, which described his love of Hollywood and movies ever since he was a boy.

Ellison believes the proposed Warner merger is the best way to save Hollywood, saying the combination of two storied studios would strengthen not harm the film industry.

“One moment he’s promising to reinvigorate theatrical releases. The next he’s talking about uprooting two historic companies and moving them 2,000 miles away in order to avoid a lawsuit,” said Gabriel Kahn, journalism professor at USC Annenberg School for Communication.

Paramount’s corporate headquarters are in New York but after the Ellison family’s acquisition last year, the center of gravity shifted west. Ellison and other top executives live in Los Angeles.

Another corporate move wouldn’t disrupt Bonta’s lawsuit, experts say.

Instead, they suggested Paramount’s flurry of recent activities — including winning the support of two large theater chains, AMC and Regal, with promises of a robust movie pipeline post-merger — appeared to be part of a public relations and pressure campaign.

“They lost a lot of leverage now that the trial is set for March,” said Abiel Garcia, a former prosecutor and partner at the Manhattan Beach firm Kesselman Brantly Stockinger.

“And when you don’t have leverage in court, you go the political route,” he said, adding that Paramount seems to be angling for Gov. Gavin Newsom to join the fight.

Newsom, who has presidential ambitions, has been sensitive to the flight of companies from California. However, he has avoided picking a side in the messy merger squabble.

What’s more, the governor lacks authority to intervene in the lawsuit brought by Bonta and 11 other state attorneys general.

“All I know is that if I was governor, I wouldn’t want to lose Hollywood from this state, I wouldn’t want to lose a major company like Paramount to another state,” Paramount Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim said late Tuesday at a Politico Live conference in Sacramento. He had been asked about the stances of Newsom and his potential successor, Xavier Becerra, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee.

“I hope it settles before court,” Becerra said at the conference. “It is easier to stand in a conference room and settle than it is to stand in a courtroom.”

Delaying the trial until March has been “devastating,” Delrahim said, adding that Paramount proposed settlement terms on May 19 — but the state attorneys general instead moved forward with their suit.

“It’s costing jobs. It’s costing a lot of uncertainty for a lot of our employees, for Warner Bros. employees,” Delrahim said.

Still, Garcia and others expressed doubts about Paramount’s full-court press.

“It just feels a little over the top. It feels like a PR blitz,” Garcia said. “It suggests to me that they think their case is weaker than I even thought.”

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

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

Paramount had asked for a Nov. 4 trial date.

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

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

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

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

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

Results were mixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Paramount, the issue is hugely important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonta — not Newsom — is leading the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peltz writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be a violation of CIF rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File Photo by Stephen Shaver/UPI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of the justices registered a dissent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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