News

(MOSCOW, Idaho) — University of Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger returned to court on Wednesday for a high-stakes hearing to decide what evidence will be allowed at his trial, which is set to begin in August.

The use of particular language has been a major point of contention in the ongoing hearing.

Judge Steven Hippler agreed to the defense’s request to ban the words “psychopath” and “sociopath” from the trial.

The defense asked that the phrases “touch DNA” and “contact DNA” be excluded, arguing that it is misleading and can be misunderstood by a jury.

Hippler said he was not inclined to “police phraseology” and noted the concern that if a “banned word” is accidentally used in the courtroom it could result in a mistrial. Hippler encouraged council to avoid the terms but said he will not “police experts in the field” and encouraged legal teams to not “underestimate the reasonableness and intelligence of jurors.”

Kohberger’s defense team also worked to ensure their client will have the opportunity for physical support from his family during the trial.

The judge asked the state to call Kohberger’s family members who are witnesses early in the trial so they can sit behind him in the courtroom after they testify.

“I think their ability to be here to see the trial is important,” Hippler said.

Kohberger is accused of fatally stabbing Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen and Xana Kernodle at the girls’ off-campus house in Moscow in the early hours of Nov. 13, 2022. Chapin, Kernodle’s boyfriend, was sleeping over at the time.

Kohberger, a criminology Ph.D. student at nearby Washington State University at the time of the murders, was arrested in December 2022. He’s charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary, and a not guilty plea has been entered on his behalf.

The judge said Wednesday that he will allow a 3D model of the home at trial.

Many arguments have still yet to be ruled on by the judge.

One point of contention is a description of the intruder from one of the two roommates who survived the murders. The roommate said in the middle of the night she saw a man with “bushy eyebrows” walking past her in the house, according to court documents.

The defense wants that description banned during trial. The defense argues the roommate’s account lacks credibility, claiming that in interviews with police she admitted to drinking heavily throughout the day and that she had an “absolute lack of certainty.”

The defense is also pushing for the death penalty to be taken off the table if Kohberger is convicted, citing what they say is Kohberger’s autism spectrum disorder.

“When it comes to evidentiary hearings, the prosecution’s goal is trying to admit as much damning evidence as possible,” ABC News legal contributor Brian Buckmire said, while the defense tries “to limit how much evidence comes in that is detrimental to their case.”

The hearing is ongoing Wednesday and may continue on Thursday.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration has frozen more than $1 billion in federal funding to Cornell and $790 million to Northwestern, as the government investigates alleged civil rights violations at the schools, according to two White House officials.

“On Monday, several Trump administration agencies froze roughly $790M of federal funding and roughly $1.05B of federal funding from Northwestern and Cornell, respectively,” a senior administration official told ABC News. “The money was frozen in connection with several ongoing, credible, and concerning Title VI investigations.”

The funding pause mostly involves grants from and contracts with the Department of Agriculture, Defense, Education and Health and Human Services, according to White House officials.

Northwestern said in a statement to ABC that it was informed by “members of the media” that the federal government plans to “freeze a significant portion of our federal funding. The University said it “has not received any official notification.”

“Federal funds that Northwestern receives drive innovative and life-saving research,” the University said. “This type of research is now at jeopardy. The University has fully cooperated with investigations by both the Department of Education and Congress.”

Cornell wrote in a statement they have received “more than 75 stop work orders from the Department of Defense related to research that is profoundly significant to American national defense, cybersecurity, and health.”

“We are actively seeking information from federal officials to learn more about the basis for these decisions,” Cornell said.

“The affected grants include research into new materials for jet engines, propulsion systems, large-scale information networks, robotics, superconductors, and space and satellite communications, as well as cancer research,” the school continued.

The New York Times first reported on the funding freeze.

Legal experts are questioning the authority of the Trump administration to pause the federal funding.

“This is completely lawless, as far as I can tell, to the extent that we don’t even know what legal provision the government is relying upon,” Genevieve Lakier, professor of law at the University of Chicago, said.

If the funding halt is justified under the Civil Rights Act, as White House officials have told ABC News, Lakier said the law requires there to be a set of procedures followed and notice given.

“There has to be a hearing. You have to give members of Congress 30 days before you do it. You have to give the school 30 days. You have to allow the right to appeal. None of this is being followed,” Lakier said.

Michael Dorf, professor at Cornell Law School, echoed Lakier’s assessment.

“There’s a federal statute that explains if agencies and the government believe a funding recipient is not complying with its civil rights obligations, there’s a whole set of procedures they have to follow before you cut those off,” Dorf said. “The government has followed none of those procedures.”

The move comes as the administration doubles down on allegations of antisemitic conduct and harassment from elite universities.

The Department of Education and other agencies are reviewing Harvard University for allegedly fostering antisemitism on its campus. The administration stripped Columbia University of $400 million in grants earlier this month after a task force investigation says it found inaction by the school to protect Jewish students.

In response to the review, Harvard President Alan Garber released a statement saying, “We fully embrace the important goal of combatting antisemitism, one of the most insidious forms of bigotry.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Harvey Weinstein was back in court on Wednesday with less than a week before the start of his second New York sex assault trial. His trial is expected to last four to six weeks once testimony begins, prosecutors at the Manhattan district attorney’s office said Wednesday.

Jury selection begins Tuesday and is expected to last as long as five days, Judge Curtis Farber said.

Prospective jurors will be told about the nature of the case and the significant media attention it has received and must decide whether those things are an impediment to their ability to be fair and impartial, Farber said.

Weinstein, 73, sat at the defense table in a wheelchair as he has dealt with multiple health issues in the last year, including emergency heart surgery in September and being diagnosed with leukemia in October.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges of forcibly performing oral sex on a woman in 2006. He will also be retried for two other alleged sexual assaults after his conviction on those charges was overturned on appeal in April 2024.

The judge gave the attorneys 40 minutes to question each group of potential jurors after defense attorney Arthur Aidala asked for additional time.

“You have a shtick,” Farber deadpanned before granting the exuberant criminal defense lawyer an extra 10 minutes to question jurors.

Jurors will be told Weinstein has no obligation to testify in his own defense. If, however, he does, Farber decided there would be certain limits on the kinds of things he can be asked about his prior record.

Weinstein will stand trial on a new sexual assault charge at the same time he is retried on two other sexual assault charges after his earlier conviction was overturned.

In 2020, he was found guilty of criminal sexual assault and third-degree rape, receiving 23 years in prison.

His conviction was overturned after the appeals court found the judge in his first trial “erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes.”

Because Weinstein was also convicted in California on sex crimes, and sentenced to 16 years in prison, he was not released after the verdict was overturned.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(SECURITY-WIDEFIELD, Colo.) — Three children and two dogs were rescued from a storm drainage system in Colorado, according to fire officials.

Officials responded to a neighborhood in Security-Widefield, Colorado, searching for “three children and two dogs lost in the maze of the underground storm drainage system” over the weekend, the Security Fire Department said in a statement on Monday.

After an “extensive search,” the children and the dogs were located and were extracted through a manhole in the street “more than a half-mile from where they had entered,” officials said.

“Kids may think it would be fun to explore storm drains looking for those ninja turtles, but it can be very dangerous and even deadly,” the fire department said.

Even though the children and canines were safely removed, officials emphasized the dangers of being in a storm drainage system.

“Getting lost underground, hypothermia, rapid weather change flooding in drainage system (drowning risk), oxygen deficiency, toxic gases (such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide) and of course critters like rattlesnakes,” the fire department said.

The fire department encouraged parents to talk to their children about “the dangers of playing in and around” storm drains.

Officials were not clear why the children and the dogs were exploring the storm drains or how long they were lost.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A federal judge in New York and another federal judge in Texas on Wednesday temporarily blocked the deportation of several purported Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that migrants being held in the Southern District of New York could not be deported without them first receiving notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

Hellerstein suggested his decision was meant to define the parameters set by Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion that allowed the Trump administration to remove Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act — but not without due process.

“Given the history, it seems to me people need to be protected,” Hellerstein said.

The Trump administration last month invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport more than 200 alleged migrant gang members to El Salvador by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. issued a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from removing three men in Texas and “any other person that Respondents claim are subject to removal under the Proclamation” from the El Valle Detention Center there.

“In the present matter, the Court finds that the removal of J.A.V, J.G.G., W.G.H., or any other individual subject to the Proclamation, by the United States would cause immediate and irreparable injury to the removed individuals, as they would be unable to seek habeas relief,” Judge Rodriguez wrote, noting the ” substantial likelihood exists that the individual could not be returned to the United States” if they are deported.

Judge Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, set a hearing for Friday to consider extending his order, which expires on April 23.

Judge Hellerstein’s ruling came in the case of two plaintiffs identified by their initials, G.F.F. and J.G.O, who were pulled off planes to El Salvador and transferred back to New York from Texas, where they were initially detained on suspicion of alignment with Tren de Aragua.

Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, said the men were entitled to a hearing to determine whether they are actual gang members, but he stopped short of deciding whether the Alien Enemies Act was the appropriate authority to deport them.

“Whether or not you’re a gang member, the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used under these circumstances,” argued Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It is a military authority. It is not supposed to be used in peace time against a gang.”

The relief Hellerstein granted is limited to approximately a dozen accused gang members currently detained in a several New York counties. The judge set a hearing for April 22.

ACLU lawyers representing the two migrants had argued that authorities “seek to move Petitioners in secret, without due process, to a prison in El Salvador known for dire conditions, torture, and other forms of physical abuse — possibly for life.”

“This has already borne out for over 130 individuals on March 15 who have lost all contact with their attorneys, family, and the world,” the attorneys wrote in a filing.

According to lawyers with the ACLU, one of the men is a 21-year-old Venezuelan national who entered the United States in 2024 to seek asylum, fleeing threats from Tren de Aragua and potential persecution from the Maduro regime based on his sexual orientation.

The other plaintiff is a 32-year-old Venezuelan national who filed an asylum application after entering the United States in 2022, claiming he feared torture and imprisonment based on his protests of the Maduro regime.

The ACLU argued that the Alien Enemies Act was improperly invoked by the Trump to target a criminal organization — not a state actor — and that it was invoked outside of a war or an invasion.

“The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions: it cannot be used here against nationals of a country — Venezuela — with whom the United States is not at war, which is not invading the United States, and which has not launched a predatory incursion into the United States,” the lawyers argued.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.