National

(DEDHAM, Mass.) — With closing arguments now underway, the second sensational trial of Karen Read — accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend in 2022 — is nearing a close.

Prosecutors allege Read hit her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, with her car outside the home of fellow police officer Brian Albert in January 2022 and then left him to die there during a major blizzard.

The defense has argued Read’s vehicle did not hit O’Keefe and instead said O’Keefe was attacked by a dog and beaten by other people who were in the house before he was thrown out in the snow to die.

Read’s first trial ended in a mistrial last July after the jury could not reach a verdict.

At least four jurors who served on her first trial last year have confirmed that she was found not guilty of second-degree murder and leaving a scene of personal injury and death, according to Read’s attorneys. However, the jury could not come to an agreement on a third charge of manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence, the attorneys said.

Her lawyers filed multiple appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming Read should not be retried on the counts the jury apparently agreed on, saying it would amount to double jeopardy. Each appeal was denied.

Read has pleaded not guilty to all three charges and maintains her innocence.

Here are top takeaways from the trial as the jury is about to receive the case:

Former state police officer not called to testify in 2nd trial

The lead investigator in the case, former Massachusetts State Police officer Michael Proctor — who was a key witness in Read’s first trial — was not called to the stand in her retrial.

Damning testimony in her first trial led to the suspension and later firing of Proctor last July. Two other state troopers were also subject to internal affairs investigations after her first trial.

It was revealed that Proctor was communicating with Canton police officer Kevin Albert — the brother of the man who hosted the gathering where O’Keefe was found dead — during the investigation ahead of Read’s first trial.

Proctor also sent text messages that described Read in lewd and defamatory manner, as revealed during the first trial.

At one point during the first trial, attorneys for Read questioned Proctor about searching for nude photos on Read’s phone.

Judge denied 1st motion for mistrial

Read’s attorneys made motions for a mistrial twice during her second criminal trial, both of which were denied by the judge.

The first motion came after prosecutors questioned a defense expert witness about whether there was evidence of dog DNA on O’Keefe’s sweater from the night of the murder. The defense’s witness had argued marks on O’Keefe’s arm were evidence of a dog attack.

The sweatshirt had — up to this point in trial — not been presented to this jury. The jury was removed from the room as attorneys made arguments to the judge.

Defense attorneys for Read argued that prosecutors could not mention DNA in this trial since it had not been mentioned so far. Prosecutors said they had always planned to introduce DNA evidence on rebuttal.

The defense also questioned the credibility of the report that determined there was no dog DNA and questioned why there was no swabbing of the wounds on O’Keefe’s arm for DNA. They also had a series of concerns about the chain of custody of the sweater.

Prosecutors admit to making a mistake over O’Keefe sweater, mistrial motion denied

In an explosive moment during the trial, defense attorney Robert Alessi claimed prosecutor Hank Brennan pulled a “stunt” in his cross-examination of Dr. Daniel Wolfe. Brennan had shown Wolfe the back of O’Keefe’s sweatshirt, and asked him if the holes in the back of the sweatshirt could be related to the alleged killing.

Alessi said the holes had been made by the prosecutor’s witness, criminologist Maureen Hartnett.

Alessi said the defense had “no idea” that Brennan was going to do this, claiming it was an intentional “stunt” to mislead the jury into believing the holes were caused by Read allegedly hitting O’Keefe with her car.

Brennan addressed the court and admitted he had made a mistake by presenting the hoodie as he did.

However, Judge Beverly Cannone denied the motion for mistrial. but did instruct the jury to disregard Brennan’s line of questioning, and will allow the exhibits presented by Alessi into evidence.

Karen Read does not take the stand

Like her first trial, Read did not take the stand in her own defense.

Read’s defense rested after its last witness on Wednesday and prosecutors did not call any rebuttal witnesses.

“I am not testifying. The case is — it’s our last witness. [The jury] has heard my interview clips. They’ve heard my voice,” Read said to reporters outside the courthouse last week, according to Boson ABC affiliate WCVB. “They’ve heard a lot of me.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty Friday to human smuggling charges, one week after he was brought back to the Unites States from detention in El Salvador.

The 29-year-old has been the subject of a prolonged legal battle since he was deported in March to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison — despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation to that country due to fear of persecution — after the Trump administration claimed he was a member of the criminal gang MS-13, which his family and attorneys deny.

The Trump administration, after arguing for nearly two months that it was unable to being him back, returned him the U.S. last week to face a two-count indictment alleging that, while living with his wife and children in Maryland, he participated in a yearslong conspiracy to haul undocumented migrants from Texas to the interior of the country.

Federal prosecutors say the conspiracy involved the domestic transport of thousands of noncitizens from Mexico and Central America, including some children, in exchange for thousands of dollars.

Prosecutors have also asked the judge in the case, Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, to schedule a pre-trial detention hearing in order to determine if Abrego Garcia should continue to be held in custody pending trial. Judge Holmes is expected to consider that motion on Friday.

In a court filing on Monday, prosecutors acknowledged that Abrego Garcia would almost certainly be immediately taken in custody by ICE if Judge Holmes were to deny their motion for pre-trial detention — but they asked the court to consider, for the sake of argument, the possibility that he “would have an enormous reason to flee” if he were not immediately detained by ICE.

They also argued that Abrego-Garcia’s alleged MS-13 ties put him at risk of attempting to obstruct justice or intimidate potential witnesses against him, including his alleged co-conspirators.

“The United States would submit that at least one co-conspirator has described that the Defendant has previously used his membership in MS-13 not just to facilitate his illegal activity in the smuggling conspiracy but also to intimidate others in the conspiracy who attempted to confront him about the treatment of female smuggling victims and his smuggling of firearms and drugs which added to the conspiracy’s risk of detection and were not a goal of the overall conspiracy,” the government’s filing said.

In response, attorneys for Abrego Garcia said in a filing Wednesday that the Trump administration’s arguments for a detention hearing are meritless.

“It should also come as no surprise that the government has not cited a single case holding that a generic alien-smuggling charge provides grounds for a detention hearing,” Abrego Garcia’s attorneys said. “This case should not be the first.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys also argued in the filing that their client is not a flight risk, and said that the government “points to zero facts” suggesting Abrego Garcia has a history of evading arrest, has any prior restrictions, or has “systematically engaged in international travel in the recent past.”

The attorneys also argued that there is no “serious risk” Abrego Garcia will obstruct justice, arguing that the government’s “baseless gang-affiliation allegations” do not support a finding that he poses a “serious risk” of obstructive behavior.

“[The] government is not entitled to seek detention in this case, Mr. Abrego Garcia respectfully asks the Court to deny the government’s motion for detention,” the attorneys said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Levels of the harmful toxin microcystin have been detected in Lake Erie weeks earlier than usual, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Microcystin is a group of toxins produced by cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They are the most common cyanobacterial toxins and can be found inside algal cells. They can also accumulate in common marine life, such as zooplankton, mussels, and fish.

At certain levels, microcystin toxins produced by certain types of freshwater blue-green algae can pose health risks to people and pets, NOAA said in a release on Friday. They primarily affect the liver but can impact the kidneys and reproductive systems as well, according to the EPA.

The presence of microcystin may also prompt additional treatment at public drinking water systems, according to NOAA.

Microcystin is detected every year at Lake Erie, but the early measurements of the toxin could impact recreation and drinking water as the summer months continue, according to NOAA. 

Water samples taken from western Lake Erie on April 28 by NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab (GLERL), is the earliest the toxin has been detected in Lake Erie.

The levels at which the toxin was detected — levels of 0.12 parts per billion of microcystin — are not high enough to trigger treatment measures at nearby drinking water facilities or prompt warnings against swimming or taking pets into the lake, said Reagan Errera, a research ecologist at GLERL in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

However, the early detection could pose problems later in the summer when concentrations are anticipated to rise to above advisory levels for drinking water — at 1.6 parts per billion — and recreation, at 8 parts per billion, according to NOAA.

Since 2008, toxin levels have exceeded advisory levels for drinking water and recreation in some areas of Lake Erie. Over the last seven years, researchers have seen the toxic period of the harmful algal bloom starting 10 days earlier, Errera said.

The lab begins routine monthly testing of Lake Erie in late April and increases the sampling frequency to weekly in June, according to NOAA. The sampling continues through October.

There are eight sites within that have historically seen harmful algal blooms, according to NOAA. The GLERL also tests five sites bi-weekly in Saginaw Bay in Lake Huron.

The testing involves taking samples by boat and testing for 19 water quality parameters, which include cyanobacteria toxins, according to NOAA.

“Early detection of toxins provides drinking water facilities, water managers, and the public more time to make informed decisions regarding the health risk associated with harmful algal bloom events,” Errera said.

It is unclear whether the toxin originated in Lake Erie or the nearby Maumee River, which runs from northeastern Indiana into northwestern Ohio and Lake Erie, according to NOAA.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEWARK, N.J.) — Four detainees at an immigration detention center in New Jersey remain unaccounted for on Friday, according to law enforcement officials, following what the city’s mayor referred to as an “uprising” at the facility.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A federal appeals court on Friday declined to rehear President Trump’s challenge to a $5 million civil judgment after a jury found him liable in 2023 for the battery and defamation of the writer E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s.

A jury in Manhattan federal court found in 2023 that Trump attacked Carroll in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the 1990s and later defamed her when he denied her claim.

Trump had sought a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit after a three-judge panel declined to overturn the judgment.

A divided court left intact the decision upholding the jury’s damage award.

The appellate court denial of an en banc hearing came without explanation, as is common.

In a concurring opinion, three judges said they found “no manifest error by the district court” that would warrant additional review.

In dissent, Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump appointee, said the district court should have allowed the defense to present evidence that Trump believed Carroll’s lawsuit “had been concocted by his political opposition — and therefore that he was not speaking with actual malice.”

In a statement responding to Friday’s decision, Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said, “E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today’s decision. Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed. He remains liable for sexual assault and defamation.”

Trump is also appealing a separate defamation award of $83 million to Carroll.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LOS ANGELES) — A federal appeals court Thursday delayed an order requiring the Trump administration to return control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom, dealing the administration a temporary reprieve to what would have been a major reversal of its policy on the protests in Los Angeles.

Earlier Thursday, a federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order that would have blocked Trump’s deployment of California National Guard troops during protests over immigration raids in LA and returned control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who did not consent to the Guard’s activation.

The order was set to take effect on noon Friday local time, but a panel of three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of the lower court’s order and set a hearing for June 17. Two of the judges on the panel were nominated by President Donald Trump, and one was nominated by former President Joe Biden.

In a Friday morning post to Truth Social, Trump praised the appeals court’s decision, saying once again “If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now.” Newsom and local officials have said the federalization of the National Guard and deployment of the military violated the state’s sovereignty, was unnecessary and has served to inflame the situation.

In its appeal to the Ninth Circuit, administration lawyers called the district judge’s order “unprecedented” and an “extraordinary intrusion on the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.”

The district judge’s order, which did not limit Trump’s use of the Marines, called Trump’s actions “illegal.”

“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not,” U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in his order granting the temporary restraining order sought by Newsom. “His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”

In a press conference after the district court’s order, Newsom said he was “gratified” by the ruling, saying he would return the National Guard “to what they were doing before Donald Trump commandeered them.”

“The National Guard will go back to border security, working on counter drug enforcement and fentanyl enforcement, which they were taken off by Donald Trump. The National Guard will go back to working on what we refer to as the rattlesnake teams, doing vegetation and forest management, which Donald Trump took them off in preparation for wildfire season. The National Guard men and women will go back to their day jobs, which include law enforcement,” Newsom’s speech continued.

Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta had filed an emergency request on Tuesday to block what they called Trump and the Department of Defense’s “unnecessary” and “unlawful militarization” after Trump issued a memorandum over the weekend deploying more than 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid the protests — over objections from Newsom and other state and local officials.

What the lower court judge said in his order

In his order, Breyer pointed to protesters’ First Amendment rights and said, “Just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ is untenable and dangerous,” he wrote.

Breyer wrote that the protests in Los Angeles “fall far short” of the legal requirements of a “rebellion” to justify a federal deployment. Rebellions need to be armed, violent, organized, open, and aim to overturn a government, he wrote. The protests in California meet none of those conditions, he found.

“Plaintiffs and the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions,” the judge wrote in his order.

“Regardless of the outcome of this case or any other, that alone threatens serious injury to the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity,” the judge wrote.

Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines were ordered to the Los Angeles area following protests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary.

Protests have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle.

To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows a federal deployment in response to a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.” In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions.

The judge did not decide whether the military’s possible involvement in immigration enforcement — by being present with ICE agents during raids — violates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from performing civilian law enforcement. The judge said he would hear additional arguments on that point at a hearing next week.

During a court hearing earlier Thursday, Breyer said during Thursday’s 70-minute hearing that the main issue before him was whether the president complied with the Title 10 statute and that the National Guard was “properly federalized.”

The federal government maintained that the president did comply while also arguing that the statute is not justiciable and the president has complete discretion. The judge was asked not to issue an injunction that would “countermand the president’s military judgments.”

Meanwhile, the attorney on behalf of the state of California and Newsom said their position is that the National Guard was not lawfully federalized, and that the president deploying troops in the streets of a civilian city in response to perceived disobedience was an “expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power.”

Bonta additionally argued in the emergency filing that Trump failed to meet the legal requirements for such a federal deployment.

“To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together,” Bonta wrote.

Breyer had earlier declined California’s request to issue a temporary restraining order immediately and instead set the hearing for Thursday afternoon in San Francisco and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to file a response.

In their response, Department of Justice lawyers asked the judge to deny Newsom’s request for a temporary restraining order that would limit the military to protecting federal buildings, arguing such an order would amount to a “rioters’ veto to enforcement of federal law.”

“The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief’s military directives — and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous,” they wrote.

They also argued California should not “second-guess the President’s judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary” and that a federal court should defer to the president’s discretion on military matters.

Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to send in the National Guard and Marines, saying the situation in LA was “out of control.”

“All I want is safety. I just want a safe area,” he told reporters. “Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it.”

Trump went on to suggest that he sent in the National Guard and the Marines to send a message to other cities not to interfere with ICE operations or they will be met with equal or greater force.

“If we didn’t attack this one very strongly, you’d have them all over the country,” he said. “But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they’re going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here.”

ABC News’ Jeffrey Cook and Peter Charalambous, Alyssa Pone and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(BOCA GRANDE, Fla.) — A 9-year-old girl was attacked by a shark while snorkeling off the Florida Gulf Coast, with the animal nearly biting her entire hand off, her family said.

At approximately 12 p.m. on Wednesday, 9-year-old Leah Lendel was swimming in Boca Grande, Florida, near the shore, with her mother and two younger siblings about 4 feet away from her, Leah’s family said in a statement provided to ABC News.

Leah then went underwater to snorkel, but as she came up, “she screamed,” the family said.

Her mother, Nadia Lendel, looked over and saw her daughter’s right hand “up to the wrist all in blood and mostly torn off,” the family said.

As the mother screamed for help, she attempted to get Leah and her other children out to shore, with her husband — who was snorkeling “some distance away” — swimming “as fast as possible to shore,” the family said.

Once Leah made it to the shore, nearby construction workers who were on their lunch break assisted the family by calling for paramedics and putting a towel “to make a tourniquet and stop the blood loss,” the family said.

One of the construction workers, Alfonso Tello, told ABC Southwest Florida affiliate WZVN the shark that attacked Leah was about 8 feet long.

“Everybody was in shock,” Tello told WZVN.

After paramedics arrived on scene, they decided to airlift Leah to Tampa General Hospital for treatment, the Boca Grande Fire Department told ABC News in a statement.

Leah underwent a “long surgery” once at the hospital, the family said.

“We ask for mostly prayers and privacy at this time so we can process the situation,” the family said in a statement.

The status of Leah’s condition as of Thursday remains unclear.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The Army is reviewing how pro-President Donald Trump merchandise wound up being sold on one of its bases this week at a service-sponsored event orchestrated by the White House and the president’s supporters.

Earlier this week, Trump spoke at Fort Bragg in North Carolina in celebration of the Army’s 250th birthday. At the event, vendors were spotted selling Trump merchandise — including “Make America Great Again” hats and other “America First” swag. The practice is likely at odds with long-standing Defense Department policy, which prohibits troops from wearing political garb such as hats or flags or expressing their political opinion while in uniform.

The policy is intended to preserve America’s tradition of apolitical military forces, serving at the behest of a democratically elected president regardless of party.

When asked about pictures of troops in uniform buying Trump merch on a military base, a spokesperson for the base said the matter was under review.

“The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,” said Col. Mary Ricks, a spokesperson for the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg.

“The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents,” Ricks added. “The vendor’s presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar occurrences in the future.”

The public event at Fort Bragg, which is home to the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and serves as the headquarters of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, was orchestrated much like a Trump campaign rally.

Trump spoke for nearly an hour, repeating false claims of a “rigged and stolen election” and bashing his political rivals. He referred to Los Angeles as a “trash heap” in the grip of “transnational gangs and criminals” — a reference to the ongoing protests in the city. He said immigration protestors were part of a “foreign invasion,” an assessment at odds with his top military adviser, Gen. Dan Caine, who publicly contradicted that statement in testimony.

Sources say organizers of the event placed soldiers who volunteered to attend directly behind the president as he aired his political grievances. Some of the troops nodded and cheered at Trump’s suggestion of putting people in jail for burning the American flag and some jeered when he mentioned the “fake press.”

Several of the soldiers booed at Trump’s references to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

“In Los Angeles, the governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, they’re incompetent and they paid troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists,” he said of the protests in Los Angeles. “They’re engaged in this willful attempt to nullify federal law and aid the occupation of the city by criminal invaders.”

In hindsight, one Army official said, uniformed officials on the ground probably should have pushed back more on the political nature of the event. Two weeks prior, the president had turned a commencement ceremony at West Point into a politically charged speech in which he also advised cadets to avoid “trophy wives.”

“But what can you do? To you, he’s the president. To us, he’s the commander-in-chief,” the official said, a reference to the president’s democratically appointed role in commanding the nation’s fighting forces.

Sources say civilians from the federal commission America 250 — many of them with close ties to the White House — were given “full creative control” of the Fort Bragg event. America 250 did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

When asked about the Army review and concern that DOD policy might have been violated to accommodate the event, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said “it’s bizarre that ABC is taking issue with President Trump’s moving, unifying speech at Fort Bragg, which honored 250 years of U.S. Army history and recognized military heroes and Gold Star families.”

According to two people familiar with the planning effort, the organizers told Army officials on base ahead of the rally that they wanted a certain number of soldiers eager to stand behind the president. These troops would have to undergo a criminal background check for security reasons. Also required, according to sources, — the troops would need to look fit, not fat, in keeping with the new administration’s focus on fitness standards, warrior ethos and lethality.

The troops would have to agree to behave professionally and respectfully, sources said. No eyerolling, for example, or reacting negatively during Trump’s speech.

Army officials from the base worked diligently with America 250 organizers to find troops that would fit the bill.

“We’re soldiers,” one person said. “We do what we’re told.”

As it turned out, finding troops on base willing to be respectful of Trump wasn’t hard, sources said. Trump tends to be popular at Fort Bragg among many of the rank-and-file there. And because the event was voluntary, the spectacle attracted his most ardent supporters.

In the end, footage of troops booing and cheering a political speech while being offered MAGA merch was regrettable, said the Army official.

“We wish it hadn’t happened,” the official said. “The Army would like to focus on the history and the celebration of its 250th anniversary and its commitment to defend the nation.”

ABC News’ Luis Martinez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A New York judge has declared a mistrial on the third-degree rape count in Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes retrial on Thursday, after the jury foreman refused to return to deliberate.

The foreman had told Judge Curtis Farber on Wednesday that he was afraid to be in the same room with fellow jurors after he claimed they yelled at him to try and change his mind.

Asked if he would be willing to go back to the deliberation room Thursday, the foreman said, “No, I’m sorry.” Farber then dismissed the remaining jurors.

The former movie mogul was accused of sexually assaulting three women over a decade ago in New York City.

The mistrial comes a day after the jury convicted Weinstein on one count of criminal sex act involving Mimi Haley and acquitted him of another count of criminal sex act involving Kaja Sokola.

The third count related to an alleged assault on aspiring actress Jessica Mann in 2013.

All three women have publicly come forward and testified during the trial.

Farber said he spoke to the remaining jurors who told him they were “disappointed” they did not get to render a verdict on the third count.

“I will say they were extremely disappointed that deliberations ended before they reached a verdict,” Farber said.

The judge also said the remaining jurors did not describe anything like the discord and threats recounted by the foreman.

“They all thought they were involved in a normal discourse, and they don’t understand why the foreperson bowed out,” Farber said.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office prosecuted the case, said they “immediately” informed the court Thursday that they are ready to try Weinstein again on the rape count after conferring with Mann.

“Harvey Weinstein is going to be held accountable for his conduct as to Miss Haley, and he’s facing a very significant term of imprisonment for that,” Bragg said during a press briefing Thursday. “But the jury was not able to reach a conclusion as to Miss Mann, and she deserves that.”

Bragg thanked the three women for their “immense sacrifices,” saying they “spent days on the witness stand sharing the most traumatic moments of their lives in a room full of strangers.”

“Their credibility and character were attacked during lengthy cross-examinations. They were accused of being money-hungry. They were called liars. They were even told that they in fact were the abusers,” he said. “But they stood their ground, and for that, I am extraordinarily grateful.”

An attorney for Weinstein, Arthur Aidala, said they plan to appeal the conviction in the retrial.

“We have very powerful evidence that there was gross juror misconduct at this trial,” Aidala told reporters outside the courthouse. “None of us have ever heard of that where a jury is so intimidated a grown man who was in good physical shape in his late 30s saying, I’m afraid to go back into the deliberating room.”

“If that doesn’t cast doubt on the verdicts here, I don’t know what would. This is not over,” he said.

Aidala further alleged jury misconduct, saying they found out that jurors were considering evidence not admitted at trial.

The foreperson told the judge on Monday that jurors were discussing Harvey Weinstein’s past, according to a transcript of the closed encounter in the judge’s chambers. When the judge summoned the entire jury that day, he reminded them to discuss only the evidence presented at trial and to be cordial.

Asked if he would be looking into the alleged jury malfeasance, Bragg said, “Vigorous and robust exchange of ideas within the jury room is a hallmark, an important hallmark, of our system. And so from what we’ve seen within the record, the jury notes and our observation, this is consistent with the administration of justice.”

Weinstein was being retried for sexually assaulting Haley and Mann after his earlier conviction was overturned on appeal. He was also charged with sexually assaulting Sokola, who was not part of the first trial.

Prosecutors said Weinstein “preyed” on the three women as “he held unfettered power for over 30 years” in Hollywood, while the defense countered the producer did not coerce the women and claimed they were using him for his connections.

Weinstein, 73, pleaded not guilty and has said his sexual encounters were consensual. He did not testify during the trial.

The split verdict and mistrial on the third count came after some discord in the jury room during deliberations.

Early Wednesday, the jury foreperson sent a note telling Farber he “cannot go back inside with those people.” That followed a closed-door conversation during which the foreperson complained to the judge that the jurors were “attacking” one another and fighting — adding, “I don’t like it” — according to a transcript.

Without the jury present, Weinstein addressed the judge on Wednesday and complained the jury behavior is depriving him of a fair trial.

“We’ve heard threats, we’ve heard fights, we’ve heard intimidation,” Weinstein said. “This is not right for me, the person on trial here.”

Farber had proposed a cooling-off period, then the jury came back in saying they had a verdict on the two criminal sex act counts.

They resumed deliberations on the rape count on Thursday, wtih Farber reminding the jurors to be respectful to one another.

Mann said in a statement Wednesday that she “laid bare my trauma” and “stood up and told the truth. Again and again.”

“I would never lie about rape or use something so traumatic to hurt someone,” she said.

New York’s highest court overturned Weinstein’s initial 2020 conviction on appeal last year, finding the trial judge “erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes.”

Weinstein has also appealed his 2022 conviction on sex offenses in Los Angeles. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison there.

Aidala said Thursday they are “very confident that that appeal will be successful.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW CASTLE COUNTY, Md.) — A Maryland mother has been charged with the murder of her 3-year-old daughter after falsely reporting to police that the child was kidnapped at gunpoint, according to Maryland State Police.

Darrian Randle, 31, was charged with first- and second-degree murder, first-degree child abuse resulting in the death of a minor under 13 and “other related criminal charges,” police announced on Wednesday. She was also charged with filing a false police report in Delaware, according to Philadelphia ABC station WPVI.

Randle previously reported to police on Tuesday that her daughter, 3-year-old Nola Dinkins, had been kidnapped at gunpoint, which led to the issuing of an Amber Alert in Newark, Delaware, police said. Information “gleaned throughout the investigation revealed the initial report provided by Randle was false” and the Amber Alert was subsequently canceled, police said in a press release.

Through their search efforts, officials located human remains that are “consistent with that of a child” in a vacant lot in North East, Maryland, on Wednesday afternoon, police said. The identification of the remains — and whether or not they are Dinkins’ — is pending autopsy results by the medical examiner, police said.

Randle previously stated she and Dinkins had left her apartment complex and arrived at a dead-end road, with the child beginning to “cry for an unknown reason,” according to the arrest warrant.

While Randle was trying to figure out why her daughter was crying, she said an unknown black SUV with “either rust or dirt on its sides” pulled up behind Randle’s vehicle, with a male voice asking if she was OK, according to the warrant.

Randle replied that she was OK and then “directed her attention back to looking in her car” to her crying child, the warrant said.

While she was looking inside her vehicle, she said an “unknown white male, approximately 40 years of age,” wearing a black hoodie and gray shorts, exited the SUV and approached Randle’s vehicle, she told police.

The male once again asked if Randle was OK and then removed a “black handgun from his shorts” and pointed it at the mother and the child, according to the warrant. She told police the male said he was “not going to hurt them,” but then grabbed the child, “picked her up, placing her underneath his arm” and retreated to the SUV, which was driven by a white female.

At the time of the report, police issued an Amber Alert and an intensive search began overnight. The Amber Alert was canceled after police determined the mother lied to police, with the case then being investigated as a homicide, New Castle County Police said.

Randle later admitted to police she was lying about the kidnapping and the suspects involved, saying she made up the report to “divert attention from her then boyfriend,” who was identified as 44-year-old Cedrick Antoine Britten, police said.

Britten was also arrested and charged with accessory to first- and second-degree murder, failure to report the death of the child and “other related criminal charges,” police said.

Randle is currently being held at the Baylor Women’s Correctional Institution in Delaware, with her preliminary court hearing scheduled for June 23, according to jail records. Britten remains in police custody in Maryland awaiting transport to the Cecil County District Court for an initial appearance, police said.

Additional details on what led to the murder charges have not been revealed by officials.

It was not immediately clear whether Randle or Britten have attorneys who can speak on their behalf.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.