News

(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.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(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.

A motive is not clear.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(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.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(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.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(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.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(DALTON, GA) — A 19-year-old college student from Georgia remains in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody after a traffic stop led to her detainment, records show.

Ximena Arias-Cristobal was arrested on May 5 in Dalton, Georgia, when her dark gray truck was mistaken for a black pickup that made an illegal turn.

The Dalton Police Department announced on Monday that a review of dash cam video showed she was not the driver who committed the traffic violation and all charges against her have been dropped.

City officials — including the city administrator, prosecuting attorney and city attorney — confirmed the stop was in error and notified Arias-Cristobal’s legal team.

Despite the dismissal of charges on Monday, the 19-year-old Dalton State College student had been taken into ICE custody following the traffic stop and remained in custody on Monday, triggering concerns about her immigration status.

Arias-Cristobal, who is undocumented, has lived in Whitfield County since she was 4 years old, her family told ABC News’ Tennessee affiliate WTVC.

Her family said that Arias-Cristobal was not eligible to register in the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program because it had ended.

Arias-Cristobal is being held at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, ICE records show.

Her attorney, Charles Kuck, said in a statement to ABC News that despite the charges being dropped, Arias-Cristobal is “inside the Trump deportation machinery” and is still facing deportation.

Arias-Cristobal has a bond hearing next week, her attorney said.

According to WTVC, Arias-Cristobal’s father, Jose Francisco Arias-Tovar, was similarly detained by police in Tunnel Hill, Georgia, two weeks ago for going 19 miles over the speed limit.

The family told the outlet that he is being housed at the same ICE detention center.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(SAN FRANCISCO) — A disturbing avian mystery is unfolding in a Northern California town where residents have reported birds “exploding.”

Residents of a neighborhood in the Bay Area community of Richmond, northeast of San Francisco, claim they have found multiple dead birds in their yards on their street. Security cameras even recorded one fowl’s fatality, showing it falling to its death from a power line after a loud pop was captured in the footage.

Richmond resident Maximillian Bolling said he witnessed several birds succumb to a horrible death after perching on power lines.

“So when they land and it happens, they just quickly explode and it’s really violent,” Bolling told ABC San Francisco station KGO-TV.

Bolling said he and his neighbors have now counted at least 13 birds that have met a baffling demise.

As the casualties have mounted, locals have speculated on everything from the birds being electrocuted by power lines to a phantom serial bird killer being on the loose.

Another resident, Sharon Anderson, a self-described “animal lover,” told KGO-TV that seeing the birds drop dead has been heartbreaking.

“It was just horrifying,” Anderson said.

The wildlife mystery began several months ago when the first birds turned up dead, according to residents.

The California State Department of Fish and Wildlife has launched an investigation, a spokesperson for the agency told ABC News on Monday.

Some residents have alleged that power lines in the area that belong to the Pacific Gas & Electric Company have something to do with the deaths and have pleaded with the utility company to do something to rectify the problem.

But PG&E spokesperson Tamar Sarkissian told ABC News on Monday that an investigation has uncovered no evidence that its power lines are the culprit.

“We appreciate the concern of our customers in Richmond about the recent series of bird deaths,” PG&E said in an additional statement to ABC News.

PG&E said it sent crews to examine a power pole in the Richmond neighborhood that residents have cited as the possible root of the lethal problem. The company said the power pole in question is compliant with avian safe guidance established by the Avian Powerline Interaction Committee.

The utility company said it asked the Department of Fish & Wildlife to evaluate two of the bird corpses and that the examinations indicated foul play.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wildlife Health Lab confirmed to ABC News it had received two dead birds — a mourning dove and a European starling — and that injuries were consistent with trauma from a pellet gun, BB gun or a slingshot not electrocution from power lines, but said “the exact cause of the trauma to all of these birds could not be determined.”

Neighbors have also asked the Contra County Sheriff’s Office to look into this situation. The sheriff’s office did not respond to a request from ABC News for comment.

Bolling said he and his neighbors just want to deaths to stop.

“It’s very traumatic, super traumatic to see this,” Bolling said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.