(ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MN) — Three major wildfires raging out of control in the same Minnesota county have burned more than 20,000 acres combined, destroying dozens of structures, triggering evacuations and prompting the governor to call in the state National Guard to help battle the flames.
The largest fire in St. Louis County — the Camp House Fire — exploded overnight to nearly 12,000 acres and was 0% contained on Tuesday afternoon, officials said.
“The responders are doing everything they can, working long hours under extremely tough conditions,” Cmdr. Ryan Williams of the Minnesota Incident Command System (MNICS) said at a news conference.
The Camp House Fire, which started on Sunday in the Superior National Forest near Brimson, about 35 miles north of county seat Duluth, grew overnight from roughly 1,200 acres to 11,788 acres by Tuesday afternoon, according to Williams.
He said that up to 150 structures, including seasonal cabins, remain under mandatory evacuation orders.
St. Louis County Sheriff Gordon Ramsay said in a video statement that more than 40 structures, including homes and cabins, have been destroyed by the Camp House Fire.
Fueled by wind gusts, relative low humidity, warm temperatures, dry underbrush and a build-up of dead trees killed by an insect infestation, the Camp House Fire has quickly spread through the area, according to officials.
“When the fire torches through tree canopies, it throws embers into the air like confetti,” Williams said.
Two other wild fires burning in St. Louis County were the Jenkins Creek Fire — which started on Monday afternoon and had spread to 6,800 acres as of Tuesday afternoon — and the Munger Saw Fire, which also started Monday afternoon and had grown to 1,400 acres as of Tuesday afternoon, according to the MNICS. Both fires were also 0% contained, officials said.
No injuries have been reported from any of the fires, officials noted.
As of Tuesday morning, wildfires had scorched over 37,000 acres — far above the state’s typical yearly total of about 12,000 acres.
“We are seeing the effects of climate change,” Sarah Strommen, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, said at Tuesday’s news conference. “It’s harder to compare current fire seasons to what used to be normal. We are trending toward hotter, drier weather — and that’s changing everything.”
On Monday night, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called in state National Guard troops to help firefighters gain control of the three fires.
“Last night, many of our firefighters were out there with no sleep in extremely dangerous conditions,” Walz said in a statement. “We’ve already seen 970 wildfires this year — 40 on Sunday and another 40 on Monday. These are record-setting numbers, and the fires are burning fast.”
The blazes ignited amid red flag fire danger warnings issued by the National Weather Service for nearly the entire state of Minnesota.
Making matters worse for firefighters were high temperatures forecast for most of Minnesota this week. On Monday and Tuesday, temperatures in the Duluth area reached the 80s.
(LOS ANGELES) — Erik and Lyle Menendez were resentenced on Tuesday to 50 years to life in prison, which makes them eligible for parole — the latest step in a years-long battle for the brothers trying to get released after 35 years behind bars.
The parole process will be long and could take years.
Erik and Lyle Menendez were initially sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. They have the support of over 20 family members in their efforts to be freed.
After the resentencing, Erik Menendez released a statement on Tuesday night, saying, “I am touched and humbled by the outpouring of support.”
“This has to be the first step in giving people who have no hope in prison some hope,” he said. “My goal is to ensure there are no more people spending 35 years in prison without hope. That possibility of having hope that rehabilitation works is more important than anything that happened to me today.”
The brothers watched Tuesday’s much-anticipated resentencing hearing via video from prison and gave their own statements to Judge Michael Jesic.
“I killed my mom and dad,” Lyle Menendez told the judge. “I give no excuses.”
He also admitted to committing perjury by lying in court in the 90s. He apologized to his family for years of lies and the shock and grief of the crimes.
“I committed an atrocious act,” Erik Menendez told the judge. “My actions were criminal, selfish and cowardly. … No excuse. No justification for what I did.”
He admitted to lying for years and apologized.
“I have come a long way on this path” of redemption, Erik Menendez said, adding, “I will not stop trying to make a difference.”
“This was absolutely a horrific crime,” the judge said. He noted that he was moved by letters from prison guards and is amazed by what the brothers have accomplished.
The brothers’ attorney Mark Geragos said after court, “I’m hopeful and glad that we’re one huge step closer to bringing the boys home.”
“This encourages people who are incarcerated to make the right decisions, to take the right path,” Geragos said, adding, “It’s just a win-win on so many levels.”
Menendez cousin Anamaria Baralt commended her cousins’ rehabilitation, telling reporters, “Ultimately, we are here today with this result because of Erik and Lyle. Because they chose to live their lives with clarity and a purpose of service that the judge was impressed by.”
Geragos called several Menendez relatives to the stand at Tuesday’s hearing, including Baralt.
Through tears, Baralt pleaded with Jesic to release her cousins, noting time is running out for them to be reunited with aging family members.
“They are very different men” than when they committed the murders, Baralt said, adding that “their transformation is remarkable.”
During cross-examination, Baralt told prosecutors that the brothers have taken full responsibility for the crimes and Lyle Menendez has admitted to asking a witness to lie at trial. But Baralt conceded they haven’t acknowledged some aspects of the case to her, as prosecutors argue the brothers haven’t admitted to the full extent of their crimes and cover-ups.
A retired judge who worked with therapy dogs said on the stand that the brothers are looked at as leaders and that they changed his views on inmate rehabilitation. He said he used to want to punish defendants, but because of the brothers and their work to help the elderly and other inmates, he now believes in rehabilitation.
The prosecution did not call any witnesses.
Jesic’s resentencing decision follows the recommendation made in October by then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón.
Gascón recommended the brothers’ sentences of life without parole be removed, and said they should instead be sentenced for murder, which is a sentence of 50 years to life. Because both brothers were under 26 at the time of the crimes, they’re eligible for parole immediately under California law.
Gascón’s office said its resentencing recommendations take into account many factors, including rehabilitation in prison and abuse or trauma that contributed to the crime. Gascón praised the brothers’ conduct in prison, saying they rehabilitated themselves and started programs to help other inmates.
In November, Gascón lost his reelection bid to Nathan Hochman, who in March filed a motion to withdraw the resentencing petition, calling the brothers’ claims of self-defense part of a litany of “lies.” The judge denied Hochman’s request.
Tuesday’s resentencing hearing was a face-off between Geragos and Hochman, who wants to keep the brothers behind bars.
Geragos told reporters outside court on Tuesday, “There are no two better candidates in the state of California right now for resentencing than Erik and Lyle Menendez.”
“It’s a unicorn-style situation where you have horrific crimes — that nobody is walking away from — but also remarkable, remarkable, almost unparalleled rehabilitation and redemption,” he said.
At the time, Hochman told reporters, “The Menendez brothers have failed to come clean with the full extent of their criminal conduct, their cover-up, their lies and their deceit.”
Following the sentencing Tuesday, he released a new statement saying, “The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community, and the principles of justice.”
“Our office’s motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the Court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision,” the statement continued, with Hochman calling the case “a window for the public to better understand the judicial system.”
“This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye,” he continued. “Our opposition and analysis ensured that the Court received a complete and accurate record of the facts.”
A hearing was held May 9 to determine whether the resentencing case should include information from the California Board of Parole’s newly completed risk assessment, which was conducted as a part of a separate clemency path. The risk assessment came at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom as a part of the brothers’ clemency bid; the brothers are pursuing multiple avenues to freedom, and the clemency path is separate from the resentencing path. Newsom can grant clemency at any time.
The risk assessment said Erik and Lyle Menendez pose a moderate risk to the community if they’re released.
The assessment revealed the brothers possessed illegal cellphones in prison, among numerous other violations, though many are not recent. However, Erik Menendez had a phone as recently as January of this year, which Hochman stressed was during the resentencing effort when he should have been on his best behavior.
The defense noted Erik Menendez had one write-up for violence 25 years ago and Lyle Menendez has had none.
Their next court appearance for the clemency case is June 13.
(AUSTIN, TEXAS) — Two juveniles were arrested and charged with capital murder after allegedly shooting a man and striking him with a vehicle during a carjacking, according to the Austin Police Department.
The suspects, a 12-year-old male and a 13-year-old male, were arrested and charged with capital murder by terroristic threat, after allegedly killing 20-year-old Anthony Salas earlier this month, police confirmed to ABC News.
At approximately 2:58 a.m. on May 3, the Travis County Sheriff’s Office received a 911 call from a family “reporting their vehicle had been stolen from their driveway” in Del Valle, Texas, police said in a press release.
Then at approximately 3:21 a.m. the same morning, the Austin Police Department received a call that reported a “person was hit by a vehicle” near the Del Valle Elementary School, police said.
Officials responded to multiple scenes and interviewed multiple witnesses, determining that the victim, Salas, was “shot, hit with a vehicle and killed as he attempted to recover his family’s stolen vehicle near the intersection,” police said.
The juvenile suspects appeared to “burglarize multiple vehicles throughout south and east Austin” late on May 2 into the morning of May 3, police said.
Previously, police issued a reward of up to $1,000 for any information that led to an arrest of the individuals.
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs are an “unprecedented and unlawful expansion” of executive power, a lawyer for a group of small businesses told a federal court Tuesday morning.
The hearing at the Court of International Trade in Manhattan marks the first time a federal court has taken up the question of whether Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are legal.
According to Jeffrey Schwab – a lawyer from the conservative Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs – the question isn’t even close. Schwab argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act – a 1977 law that gives the president the right to regulate commerce during national emergencies – does not give Trump the right to unilaterally to impose tariffs.
He added that Trump’s purported emergency of trade deficits has been a problem for years and fail to meet the legal standard for an emergency of being brief, rare and not ongoing.
“This case is so far outside of what an emergency is and what an unusual and extraordinary threat is that this Court could easily say that it is not an emergency,” Schwab argued.
When the three judge panel hearing the case – including judges appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan – pushed for a legal standard on which to issue their future ruling, Schwab said the unlawfulness of the tariffs is so obvious that the judges shouldn’t overthink it.
“I’m asking this court to be an umpire and call a strike, you’re asking me, well, where’s the strike zone? Is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?” Schwab said. “I’m saying it’s a wild pitch and it’s on the other side of the batter and hit the backstop, so we don’t need to debate that.”
The lawsuit was filed last month by a group of small businesses, including a New York liquor distributor, Utah pipe company, Virginia electronics store, Pennsylvania-based tackle shop, and Vermont cycling company. Each company argued they rely on imports from countries like China and Mexico and would be irreparably harmed by what they called Trump’s “unprecedented power grab illegal.”
The small business argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president the power to unilaterally impose tariffs like Trump did last month with a blanket tariff rate and higher rates for certain countries.
They described the national emergency Trump used to justify the tariffs as a “figment of his own imagination” because the United States has operated with massive trade deficits for years without causing economic harm.
“If actually granted by statute, this power would be an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive without any intelligible principle to limit his discretion,” they argued.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have pushed back on the lawsuit, saying that Congress permits the president to impose some tariffs, and Trump’s invoking of a national emergency makes his power “broader,” justifying the sweeping tariffs. They have also argued that a court order blocking the tariffs would unlawfully encroach on the president’s authority.
“Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction would be an enormous intrusion on the President’s conduct of foreign affairs and efforts to protect national security under IEEPA and the Constitution,” they argued.
At least six separate lawsuits have targeted Trump’s use of tariffs, including a case filed by the state of California and a coalition of twelve state attorneys general. While some of the cases were filed in district courts, the cases have gradually been transferred to the Court of International Trade, making Tuesday’s argument the first time a panel of judges hears a challenge to Trump’s tariffs.
Last month, the court rejected an emergency request for a temporary order to block the tariffs, finding that the businesses failed to prove that an “immediate and irreparable harm” would stem from the tariffs.
Tuesday’s argument will be heard by a panel of three judges – Gary S. Katzmann, Timothy M. Reif, and Jane A. Restani – who were appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan respectively.
Tucked away in a corner of New York’s Foley Square, the Court of International Trade has nationwide jurisdiction on trade disputes and has recently focused its energy on more niche issues, like honey customs disputes and mattress imports. Tuesday’s oral argument is set to provide the most high-profile hearing for the court in recent memory.
(NEW YORK) — A federal judge on Tuesday seized control of New York City’s notorious jail complex on Rikers Island, which will now be run by an official who reports directly to the court.
In a 77-page ruling, Judge Laura Taylor Swain wrote that she found the conduct of city over the last nine years “leaves no doubt that continued insistence on compliance with the court’s orders by persons answerable principally to political authorities would lead only to confrontation and delay.”
She also wrote “that the current management structure and staffing are insufficient to turn the tide within a reasonable period; that defendants have consistently fallen short of the requisite compliance with court orders for years, at times under circumstances that suggest bad faith; and that enormous resources — that the city devotes to a system that is at the same time overstaffed and underserved — are not being deployed effectively.”
The manager, who will report to the judge, will work with the city’s jails commissioner and will be “empowered to take all actions necessary” to fix the complex.
“While the necessary changes will take some time, the court expects to see continual progress toward these goals,” the judge wrote.
New York Mayor Eric Adams addressed the ruling during a news conference at city hall on Tuesday, saying that Rikers’ problems were “decades in the making.” He claimed that the legal requirement that the jail close in 2027 limited his administration’s ability to address them.
“It stated you can’t make any capital improvements on Rikers Island,” Adams said. “We can’t spend money on Rikers Island to improve the conditions.”
Mayoral candidate Scott Stringer, who previously served as the city’s comptroller, praised the judge’s ruling as “long-overdue but necessary” in a statement released on Tuesday.
“For decades, Rikers has represented a systemic failure of multiple mayoral administrations — plagued by violence, neglect, and dangerous and inhumane conditions,” he said. “While I applaud this decision, I do not view it as a victory; instead, it is a scathing indictment of our city’s failed leadership.”
(LOS ANGELES) — Erik and Lyle Menendez’s much-anticipated resentencing hearing is underway, with lawyers set to battle over whether the brothers should get a lesser sentence, clearing the way for a potential release from prison.
Defense attorney Mark Geragos, who is pushing for their release, said he plans to call seven witnesses during the Tuesday and Wednesday proceedings, while the prosecution said it will call no witnesses.
Menendez cousin Anamaria Baralt was the first on the stand as Erik and Lyle Menendez watched via video from prison.
Through tears, Baralt pleaded with the judge to release her cousins, noting time is running out for them to be reunited with aging family members.
“They are very different men” than when they committed the murders, Baralt said, adding that “their transformation is remarkable.”
During cross-examination, Baralt told prosecutors that the brothers have taken full responsibility for the crimes and Lyle Menendez has admitted to asking a witness to lie at trial. But Baralt conceded they haven’t acknowledged some aspects of the case to her, as prosecutors argue the brothers haven’t admitted to the full extent of their crimes and cover-ups.
Erik and Lyle Menendez are serving life without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. They have the support of over 20 family members in their efforts to be freed after 35 years behind bars.
Their resentencing case gained momentum in October when then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón announced he supported a reduced sentence.
Gascón recommended the brothers’ sentences of life without parole be removed, and said they should instead be sentenced for murder, which would be a sentence of 50 years to life. Because both brothers were under 26 at the time of the crimes, they’d be eligible for parole immediately under California law.
Gascón’s office said its resentencing recommendations take into account many factors, including rehabilitation in prison and abuse or trauma that contributed to the crime. Gascón praised the brothers’ conduct in prison, saying they rehabilitated themselves and started programs to help other inmates.
In November, Gascón lost his reelection bid to Nathan Hochman, who in March filed a motion to withdraw the resentencing petition, calling the brothers’ claims of self-defense part of a litany of “lies.” The judge denied Hochman’s request.
This resentencing hearing will be a face-off between Geragos and Hochman, who is trying to keep the brothers behind bars.
“The issue is not never for the resentencing,” Hochman told ABC News in an exclusive interview Monday night. “It’s not yet.”
“The Menendez brothers have failed to come clean with the full extent of their criminal conduct, their cover-up, their lies and their deceit,” Hochman said outside court Tuesday morning.
“When and if they do, and they do it sincerely,” Hochman said, they would be “ready for resentencing.”
Hochman continues to refuse to say whether he believes the brothers were sexually abused.
A hearing was held Friday to determine whether the resentencing case should include information from the California Board of Parole’s newly completed risk assessment, which was conducted as a part of a separate clemency path. The risk assessment came at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom as a part of the brothers’ clemency bid; the brothers are pursuing multiple avenues to freedom, and the clemency path is separate from the resentencing path.
The risk assessment said Erik and Lyle Menendez pose a moderate risk to the community if they’re released.
The assessment revealed the brothers possessed illegal cellphones in prison, among numerous other violations, though many are not recent. However, Erik Menendez had a phone as recently as January of this year, which Hochman stressed was during the resentencing effort when he should have been on his best behavior.
The defense noted Erik Menendez had one write-up for violence 25 years ago and Lyle Menendez has had none.
Judge Michael Jesic indicated he will take some of the risk assessment into account for the resentencing case, but he added that the information in the assessment is preliminary and attorneys can’t question the psychologists who performed the examinations.
(TALLAHASSEE, Fla.) — The 20-year-old who allegedly killed two and wounded several others in a mass shooting on the Florida State University campus last month made his first appearance in court on Tuesday after spending weeks in the hospital.
The suspect, FSU student Phoenix Ikner, was shot and wounded by officers minutes after he allegedly opened fire on the Tallahassee campus on April 17, officials said.
Ikner was released from the hospital on Monday and taken to a detention facility on two counts of first-degree murder and seven counts of attempted murder, Tallahassee police said.
He made his first court appearance remotely on Tuesday as victims watched the proceedings in person and on Zoom.
Ikner was held on no bond and is prohibited from contacting any victims, their families or potential witnesses.
Cellphone video from the day of the shooting showed 23-year-old graduate student Madison Askins lying on the ground while Ikner stood “with his feet shoulder width apart and his arms outstretched in front of him,” according to the probable cause affidavit released Tuesday.
“After Ikner takes this stance, three gunshots can be heard in succession” and then Ikner fled, the document said.
Askins was shot and survived.
Video also showed Ikner allegedly chasing and shooting 45-year-old Tiru Chabba, according to the probable cause affidavit. Ikner then allegedly returned to Chabba and shot him again as he laid on the ground, the document said.
Chabba, an employee of campus vendor Aramark Collegiate Hospitality, died from his injuries.
A camera also showed Ikner allegedly running up behind Robert Morales and fatally shooting him in the back, the probable cause affidavit said.
(NEW YORK) — In an obscure courthouse in downtown Manhattan on Tuesday, a group of small businesses will take on one of President Donald Trump’s boldest uses of executive authority.
A panel of judges on the Court of International Trade will hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging Trump’s sweeping tariffs, as the president’s trade war continues to disrupt the international economy and raise the specter of a recession.
The lawsuit was filed last month by a group of small businesses, including a New York liquor distributor, Utah pipe company, Virginia electronics store, Pennsylvania-based tackle shop, and Vermont cycling company. Each company argued they rely on imports from countries like China and Mexico and would be irreparably harmed by what they called Trump’s “unprecedented power grab illegal.”
The small business argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president the power to unilaterally impose tariffs like Trump did last month with a blanket tariff rate and higher rates for certain countries. They described the national emergency Trump used to justify the tariffs as a “figment of his own imagination” because the United States has operated with massive trade deficits for years without causing economic harm.
“If actually granted by statute, this power would be an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive without any intelligible principle to limit his discretion,” they argued.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have pushed back on the lawsuit, saying that Congress permits the president to impose some tariffs, and Trump’s invoking of a national emergency makes his power “broader,” justifying the sweeping tariffs. They have also argued that a court order blocking the tariffs would unlawfully encroach on the president’s authority.
“Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction would be an enormous intrusion on the President’s conduct of foreign affairs and efforts to protect national security under IEEPA and the Constitution,” they argued.
At least six separate lawsuits have targeted Trump’s use of tariffs, including a case filed by the state of California and a coalition of twelve state attorneys general. While some of the cases were filed in district courts, the cases have gradually been transferred to the Court of International Trade, making Tuesday’s argument the first time a panel of judges hears a challenge to Trump’s tariffs.
Last month, the court rejected an emergency request for a temporary order to block the tariffs, finding that the businesses failed to prove that an “immediate and irreparable harm” would stem from the tariffs.
Tuesday’s argument will be heard by a panel of three judges – Gary S. Katzmann, Timothy M. Reif, and Jane A. Restani – who were appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan respectively.
Tucked away in a corner of New York’s Foley Square, the Court of International Trade has nationwide jurisdiction on trade disputes and has recently focused its energy on more niche issues, like honey customs disputes and mattress imports. Tuesday’s oral argument is set to provide the most high-profile hearing for the court in recent memory.
(NEW YORK) — Attorneys for wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia pushed back on the Trump administration’s invocation of the state secrets privilege in a court filing Monday, saying that the government has produced no evidence “showing that it has made the slightest effort to facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from detention in El Salvador.
“There is little reason to believe that compliance with a court order to facilitate the release and return of a single mistakenly removed individual so that he can get his day in court implicates state secrets at all,” the attorneys argued.
“No military or intelligence operations are involved, and it defies reason to imagine that the United States’ relationship with El Salvador would be endangered by any effort to seek the return of a wrongfully deported person who the Government admits never should have been removed to El Salvador in the first place,” they said.
The filing came a week after the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, said in a court order that the Trump administration had invoked the rarely used state secrets privilege to shield information about the case.
Judge Xinis has scheduled a May 16 hearing on the matter.
Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who had been living with his wife and children in Maryland, 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. His wife and attorneys deny that he is an MS-13 member.
The Trump administration, while acknowledging that Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador in error, has said that his alleged MS-13 affiliation makes him ineligible to return to the United States.
Judge Xinis ruled last month that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States, and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that ruling, “with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”
Following the government’s inaction, Judge Xinis ordered several government officials to testify under oath through expedited discovery in order to resolve the matter, which prompted the administration to invoke the state secrets privilege.
In their filing Monday, Abrego Garcia’s argued that the Trump administration “does not come close to making a showing that would disturb the common sense conclusion that there are no genuine state secrets at play here,” saying the administration’s public statements — including in congressional testimony, public interviews and social media posts — demonstrate that “answering the requested discovery would not imperil national security.”
Attorneys for the Department of Justice argued in their own brief Monday that the discovery requests by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys “would damage United States’ foreign relations.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a sealed declaration submitted to the court, affirmed “after actual personal consideration” that “disclosure of such materials reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to the foreign relation[s] and national security interests of the United States,” DOJ attorneys said.
“Specifically, Secretary Rubio feared that if this information were disclosed, foreign governments would be less likely to work cooperatively with the United States in the future because the disclosure would be viewed as a breach of trust,” said the DOJ attorneys.
Attorneys for Abrego Garcia responded that because Rubio is not the head of either the Justice Department or the Department of Homeland Security, “he did not and could not claim” state secrets privilege for those departments.
“Simply saying ‘military secret,’ ‘national security’ or ‘terrorist threat’ or invoking an ethereal fear that disclosure will threaten our nation is insufficient to support the privilege,” they argued.
Aristide Economopoulos For The Washington Post via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — As testimony begins in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ criminal trial, his fate is in the hands of a jury that represents the city that allowed Combs to rise from working-class roots to the pinnacle of global cultural fame.
Twelve New Yorkers were sworn in as jurors, along with six alternates — who do not yet know of their alternate status — on Monday.
The jurors range in age from 30 to 74, with an average age of 52, and come from across the Southern District of New York, including five jurors from Manhattan, three from the Bronx and four from Westchester. Eight of the jurors are men, and four are women.
Each juror has some kind of college degree – including two master’s degrees and one PhD. The jurors work in a diverse array of fields, with an architect and scientist sitting alongside a deli clerk and massage therapist.
With allegations about Combs well publicized in the past year, at least seven of the jurors said they heard about the case before they arrived for jury selection last week, though they each vowed to remain unbiased and to rely only on the evidence presented at trial.
Here’s what we know about the New Yorkers who will decide Combs’ racketeering and sex trafficking case:
The 12 jurors
Male, 69, massage therapist: He works as a massage therapist, has a BFA in Acting and lives alone in Manhattan. He told the judge overseeing the case that an immediate family member was a victim of domestic violence, but that experience would not bias him as a juror.
Male, 31, investment analyst: He works as an investment analyst, lives in Manhattan and is an active member of his church. While he vowed to be a fair juror, he flagged that he has a moral objection to capital punishment. He said he saw the video of Combs assaulting his former girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, and is aware of the allegations against Combs.
Male, 51, scientist: He has a PhD in Molecular Biology and works as a scientist. He told the judge overseeing the case that he is vaguely aware of the allegations against Combs based on news reports.
Female, 30, deli clerk: She works as a deli clerk, generally doesn’t watch the news and lives with her family in the Bronx. She said she enjoys listening to hip-hop music and reggae.
Female, 42, nursing home aide: She works in a nursing home, lives in Manhattan, has two children and prefers getting her news by “word of mouth.” She said she got a ticket 15 years ago for carrying an open container of alcohol and said she is generally familiar with the allegations against Combs.
Male, 41, clerk at correctional facility: He works as a clerk in a correctional facility, said he enjoys listening to ’90s hip-hop and lives in the Bronx. He said he was familiar with the basic allegations of the case but his preexisting knowledge would not prevent him from being a fair juror. He said he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fraud after the medical practitioner he used after a car accident was accused of insurance fraud. He got a one-year conditional discharge.
Male, 68, retired: He is retired but used to work for a bank, lives in Westchester and has adult children. He said he enjoys listening to Indian music and playing cricket and volleyball.
Male, 68, retired: He is a retired lineman for a telephone company who enjoys listening to classic rock. He lives with his family in Westchester. He said he was familiar with some of the names associated with the case because he watched Combs’ reality television series, “Making the Band,” when it originally aired in the early aughts. Despite having a distaste for “looking at violence on video,” he said he watched the Ventura assault video.
“I seen a video of Mr. Combs and it seems like this person was in this video and harm was being done to her in the video on TV,” he said. “I didn’t exactly know the reason why he was doing that. But I don’t think that would impede me from making a decision as far as if he went any further with it or what. I didn’t see too much of it.”
Female, 43, physician’s assistant: She works as a physician’s assistant, lives in Westchester with her family and listens to R&B and hip-hop. She is part of both a community-based organization for women in Harlem and a social-justice public theater.
Male, 39, social worker: He works as a preventative social worker for a child care organization, frequently handling domestic violence cases. He is also a licensed security guard. He lives with his family in the Bronx, likes listening to R&B and Afrobeats, gets his news from YouTube, and likes watching sports.
Male, 67, bank analyst: He works as an analyst for a bank, lives in Westchester and has three adult children, including one who works as a security guard. He said he once served on a jury for a criminal case in the Bronx, but the jury did not reach a verdict.
Female, 74, treatment coordinator: She works as a treatment coordinator for an organization dedicated to serving the disabled, lives alone in Manhattan and enjoys classical music. She has a bachelor’s degree in sociology.
6 alternate jurors
Male, 57, architect: He works as an architect, lives in Westchester and is active in the Boy Scouts. He said he is familiar with the allegations against Combs based on media reports but generally does not pay attention to “celebrity media.”
“I’m old enough to have heard a lot of stories before trial and then when the evidence is actually presented, things are, you know — the truth comes out,” he said.
Male, 35, unemployed: He is unemployed but used to work as a window cleaner, enjoys watching crime shows and listens to metal and R&B music. He said he was familiar with the basic allegations against Combs despite not watching the news.
“He was accused of like the sex trafficking, but that was about it,” he said.
Male, 40, physician: He is a physician who lives in Manhattan with his wife. He said he previously read an article written by someone who said Combs threatened her but does not think that information is relevant to the trial.
Female, 71, nonprofit employee: She works for a dance nonprofit, lives with her spouse in Manhattan and enjoys classical music.
Female, 24, site operator: She works as a site operator for a coffee service company, lives in the Bronx and is married, though her spouse lives in West Africa. She listens to hip-hop, rap, soul and West African music. She said she is aware of the Ventura video but said he could still be a fair juror.
“There are both sides to every story. I don’t know the full story, so I can’t be completely one-sided,” she said.
Male, 37, officer at international organization: He works as an administrative officer with an international government organization and has a master’s degree in international relations. He enjoys rock, pop and classical music. He said he was familiar with the allegations in the case despite not liking “celebrity kinds of cases.”
“No one likes hearing about prostitution and things like that. I mean, no one is not like pro-prostitution, and things like that, or other drug charges, and things like that. You know, they’re not good allegations. But I could still be objective and fair,” he said.
