Will Trump go to prison for felony hush money conviction? Experts are split

Will Trump go to prison for felony hush money conviction? Experts are split
Will Trump go to prison for felony hush money conviction? Experts are split
Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during his campaign rally at Sunset Park on June 09, 2024 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

(NEW YORK) — After becoming the first former president to face criminal charges, Donald Trump faces another historic first next month: He could become the first former president in U.S. history to be ordered to prison when he’s sentenced in his New York hush money case.

Several experts told ABC News that the odds are against the former president serving any time behind bars before the 2024 election, after a jury in May found him guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to an effort to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election.

But it’s possible that the nature and circumstances of Trump’s alleged criminal conduct — in addition to his lack of remorse and behavior during the trial — could provide Judge Juan Merchan justification to impose a sentence that includes prison time, some experts told ABC News.

Of the 14 lawyers and law professors who spoke with ABC News, five believed a prison sentence was likely, two described the decision as a toss-up, and seven believed a prison sentence was unlikely due to a combination of the logistical challenges, a lack of precedent supporting incarceration for first-time offenders, and the political implications of such a sentence.

Regardless of the punishment, experts broadly agreed that Trump’s sentence will most likely be stayed pending his appeal — a process that could take anywhere from months to a year — meaning the former president would likely avoid serving any part of a sentence until after the 2024 election.

Ahead of the July 11 sentencing, Judge Juan Merchan faces the unprecedented question of how to punish the former president for crimes that prosecutors framed in the sharpest terms — a “subversion of democracy” and “election fraud, pure and simple” — but that were charged using the least severe class of felonies in New York.

“There is no more serious falsification of business records case that I can remember in the history of supervising and prosecuting many of these cases,” said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who previously served as the chief assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Compared to judges in federal court — whose sentences are normally guided by a point system created by the United States Sentencing Commission — Merchan has fewer reference points when sentencing Trump. New York’s penal law limits prison sentences for Class-E felonies to four years, and probation officials will prepare a report with a recommendation for Trump’s sentence, which Merchan can consider when weighing the nature and circumstances of the crime along with Trump’s history and character.

“On behalf of New Yorkers — that’s who Judge Merchan is speaking up for — how big a breach of the social trust was this compared to all the other crimes that he and other judges sentence every day?” said Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School. “There is literally no case that has been remotely similar to the criminal prosecution conviction of a former chief executive of the country.”

Here are six questions that will likely shape how the judge forms his decision:

How have similar defendants been sentenced?

While the Manhattan district attorney frequently charges defendants with falsifying business records — there were 437 such charges by the office in the decade before Trump’s indictment, according to a court filing last year — Merchan might struggle to find relevant precedent in those cases, experts said.

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg brought his case using a novel legal theory that Trump falsified business records to conceal a violation of a New York election law that prohibits conspiracies to influence an election using unlawful means.

“This isn’t a run-of-the-mill falsifying business records case,” former Manhattan assistant district attorney Jeremy Saland told ABC News.

While first-time offenders convicted of falsifying business records normally avoid prison time, similar cases related to campaign contributions or public officials suggest incarceration is a possibility.

Richard Brega, a New York bus mogul who pleaded guilty to one count of falsifying business records related to illegal campaign contributions, received a one-year prison sentence in 2018. Former New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who pleaded guilty to receiving a reward for official misconduct — a class-E felony — related to a pay-to-play scheme involving New York’s pension fund, was sentenced in 2011 to one-to-four years in prison.

“Ultimately, this is a case that stands alone, and that is going to be extremely difficult for the judge to come up with a sentence that is fair and appropriate,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor.

What factors could lessen Trump’s sentence?

Trump’s status as a first-time offender, the nonviolent nature of his crime, his advanced age, and a lack of a flight risk are mitigating factors that could lighten his sentence, according to Pace University School of Law professor Bennett L. Gershman.

However, Gershman cautioned that while Trump might be 78 years old at the time of his sentencing, many white-collar defendants receive prison time in spite of their advanced age.

“I would be shocked if he didn’t impose some time in jail,” Gershman said. “Merchan imposes tough sentences. He’s a tough judge from his history on the bench.”

Has Trump shown remorse?

Trump’s lack of remorse or admission of wrongdoing could work against the former president at sentencing, where Merchan can consider Trump’s overall history and character. Trump has also frequently targeted Merchan with personal attacks related to his daughter’s political work and compared the judge to a “tyrant” and “devil.”

Merchan also held Trump in criminal contempt ten times during the trial for knowingly making comments about witnesses and jurors in violation of the case’s limited gag order.

“I think that most judges would feel that some kind of jail time is needed to basically affirm the need for a defendant to have respect for the court,” said George Washington University professor Stephen Saltzburg.

Would a prison sentence be a deterrent?

In addition to any purported rehabilitative or retributive purpose, prison sentences are often used by judges to deter the defendant or the broader public from committing similar crimes in the future.

Some experts ABC News spoke with were skeptical that Merchan could justify a prison sentence based on individual deterrence — i.e., discouraging Trump himself from committing a similar crime again.

“It’s not necessarily clear to me that this is a situation that will arise again that could be specifically deterred,” said former federal prosecutor Jarrod Schaeffer. “Looking at Trump’s behavior and his track record, I’m not sure that the judge will hold out hope that his sentence in this case will have a strong deterrent effect on him.”

Yet the sentencing could provide an opportunity for general deterrence for the public, including other public officials, according to Jeffrey Cohen, a Boston College Law Associate professor.

“When you have a high-profile defendant, you want your punishment to discourage other people from doing this sort of thing,” Cohen noted.

What other options does Merchan have for Trump’s sentence?

Merchan could opt to sentence Trump to a period of probation or a conditional discharge.

If sentenced to probation, Trump would have to report to a probation officer and meet certain conditions, including potential travel restrictions or curfews that could be enforced with the use of an ankle monitor, according to former federal prosecutor Michael Zweiback. However, enforcing the terms of Trump’s probation in the middle of his presidential campaign could be challenging, according to New York Law School professor Anna Cominsky.

“The more restrictions on someone’s movement sometimes makes it more difficult for them to live their lives and do their jobs,” Cominsky said. “So when it comes to Trump, part of his job is right now campaigning and traveling around the country. He has to be able to do that.”

Trump alternatively could be sentenced to a conditional discharge where Judge Merchan himself would oversee that Trump meets the conditions of his release, rather than a probation officer.

The conditions of Trump’s release could include paying a fine, performing community service, and avoiding future arrests.

“He could be creative here, and I think that’s sort of the wildcard, is that the judge does have a lot of discretion in fashioning a sentence,” said former federal prosecutor Joshua Naftalis.

How would the sentence impact the election — and does it matter?

Trump’s sentencing comes just four days before the Republican National Convention, and the former president faces the possibility of serving part of his sentence while running for the presidency.

The political undercurrent adds another layer of complexity to the already thorny sentencing, as the former president continues to allege without evidence that the prosecution against him was politically motivated.

While Merchan could opt to disregard the political implications of the sentencing entirely, the broader ramifications of the sentence could play into Merchan’s decision about the most effective punishment for the former president.

“There are political issues around sentencing him to a term of incarceration just before the convention, and that’s feeding into a narrative that this prosecution was really to keep him from campaigning and keep him from regaining the office of president,” said Bader.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Trump returning to Washington to plot second term strategy with Republican lawmakers

Trump returning to Washington to plot second term strategy with Republican lawmakers
Trump returning to Washington to plot second term strategy with Republican lawmakers
Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson hold a press conference at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, April 12, 2024, in Palm Beach, Fla. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump is set to make a rare appearance in Washington on Thursday to lay out his second-term agenda to Republican lawmakers as he continues to stress party unity in the wake of his historic felony conviction and a month from becoming the party’s official nominee.

The former president will be just blocks away from the U.S. Capitol to attend a slate of meetings with GOP allies.

First, he is expected to huddle with House Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club, campaign and House leadership aides confirmed to ABC News. He will then meet with Senate Republicans at the National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters, where he will hold a news conference afterward.

During the meetings, campaign officials say Trump will lay out his policy plans on immigration, entitlement programs and the economy.

“Looking ahead at the policies that will save the nation such as Trump’s commitment to no impact on seniors with any cuts to Social Security or Medicare, policies that actually secure our borders and make our communities safe again, and an America first foreign policy that reclaims peace through strength and world leadership, and economic policies of lower taxes that reignite the vibrant trump economy we had just a few years ago,” a campaign official said.

Trump’s last visit with Republicans happened while he was president in September 2020, when he gave remarks at the same members-only Republican club.

Trump has stayed off the U.S. Capitol campus entirely since he left office shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. The closest he’s come is when he met the executive board of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters near the Capitol building on Jan. 31.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are both expected to attend the Thursday meetings between their caucuses and Trump.

While Johnson and Trump have worked together on key issues since Johnson’s rise to the speakership last fall, it will be the first time since 2020 that McConnell and Trump meet face-to-face.

McConnell and Trump have a rocky relationship, heightened after McConnell recognized President Joe Biden’s victory in the wake of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

McConnell, asked on Wednesday if he plans to “confront” Trump about their disagreements, dodged the question and repeated his usual support for the Republican “nominee.”

“I said three years ago, right after the Capitol was attacked, that I would support our nominee regardless of who it was — including him,” McConnell told reporters. “I’ve said earlier this year, I support him — he’s earned the nomination by the voters all across the country. And of course, I’ll be at the meeting tomorrow.”

Johnson has openly embraced Trump, who was crucial in supporting him when he faced the threat of being ousted threat by conservative GOP House hard-liners, saying coordination with Trump is important heading into November’s election and a potential second Trump presidency.

“I think it’s important for the country, to have us, to have close coordination,” Johnson said at a news conference on Wednesday. “I believe he’ll have, can be, the most consequential president of the modern era, because we have to fix effectively every area of public policy.”

At that news conference, Johnson also told ABC News he supports a bill that would allow current or former presidents to move state charges against them into federal court — a measure aimed at showing support for Trump after being found guilty in his hush money trial in a New York state court.

“I think that’s an idea that makes sense. It makes sense to most Republicans, and I think almost everyone will be in favor of that. And that’s what we’re talking about and trying to move some of this forward,” Johnson told ABC Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott.

However, not every Republican is set to fully welcome back Trump when he comes to the nation’s capital.

Sens. Susan Collins, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, who have been vocal Trump critics, have blamed previous conflicts as a reason for why they couldn’t attend the meeting with Trump.

All three voted with Republicans to impeach Trump for his actions related to Jan. 6.

The group of political meetings comes as Trump is scheduled to be in Washington D.C. to participate in a moderated discussion at a quarterly meeting of the Business Roundtable, a group consisting of more than 200 CEOs. Business Roundtable spokesman Michael Steel said the group invited both presumptive presidential nominees, but with Biden overseas to attend the G7 summit, White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients is slated to appear.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Trump, McConnell to meet face-to-face for first time in nearly four years

Trump, McConnell to meet face-to-face for first time in nearly four years
Trump, McConnell to meet face-to-face for first time in nearly four years
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speaks during a news conference following a Senate Republican party policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol Building on May 08, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

(WASHINGTON) — When Donald Trump meets with Republican senators Thursday in Washington, he will come face-to-face with Mitch McConnell for the first time in three-and-a-half years.

In fact, the former president and Senate Minority Leader have not spoken to each other since Dec. 15, 2020.

That was the day that McConnell gave a speech on the Senate floor congratulating Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on their 2020 election victory.

As ABC News chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl described in his book, Betrayal, Trump was so enraged by McConnell’s speech that he called his office minutes after it was over.

McConnell later told Karl that Trump yelled at him in an expletive-ridden rant, insisting he had not lost the election.

When Trump finally stopped yelling, McConnell said to him, “Well, the Electoral College is the final word.”

Trump then hung up — and that was the last time the two men spoke to each other.

Two months later, McConnell voted “not guilty” in Trump’s impeachment trial, but in a speech immediately following the vote, he offered a searing condemnation of Trump’s actions on and before the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump’s supporters — and suggested the former president should be prosecuted.

“Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty,” McConnell said. “The House accused the former president of, quote, ‘incitement.’ That is a specific term from the criminal law.

“Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” he continued.

“The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth,” McConnell said.

Asked on Wednesday about his meeting with Trump on Thursday, McConnell said he would support the Republican “nominee.”

“I said three years ago, right after the Capitol was attacked, that I would support our nominee regardless of who it was — including him,” McConnell told reporters. “I’ve said earlier this year, I support him — he’s earned the nomination by the voters all across the country. And of course, I’ll be at the meeting tomorrow.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Families of Marines killed in V-22 Osprey crash demand answers as Pentagon officials testify before Congress

Families of Marines killed in V-22 Osprey crash demand answers as Pentagon officials testify before Congress
Families of Marines killed in V-22 Osprey crash demand answers as Pentagon officials testify before Congress
An MV-22 Osprey aircraft is used during the annual Steel Knight training exercise, Dec. 5, 2022 at Camp Pendleton, Calif. (Mindy Schauer/MediaNewsGroup/Orange County Register via Getty Images, FILE)

(WASHINGTON) — After a congressional hearing on Wednesday on safety concerns over the V-22 Osprey, during which a military leader said the aircraft will remain under safety restrictions until 2025, grieving families of fallen service members voiced frustration over unanswered questions and demanded accountability in an interview with ABC News.

Lawmakers on the House Oversight subcommittee on national security pressed Pentagon witnesses on the deadly history of the aircraft throughout the hearing.

“The total number of fatalities that I’m tracking is 54 fatalities … and 93 injuries,” said Vice Adm. Carl Chebi, head of U.S. Naval Air Systems Command, which oversees the Osprey for the entire U.S. military.

After a string of fatal V-22 crashes between 2022 and 2023, Chebi decided to ground Osprey flights to give time for investigators to identify potential problems and come up with safety recommendations. The military lifted the flight ban in early 2024, after instituting several new protocols and restrictions.

In June 2022, five Marines were killed after a clutch problem caused a failure in the right engine of their V-22 during a training flight over Glamis, California, a military investigation found. Some of the changes that came out of Chebi’s safety stand-down were designed to address this problem, both by giving flight crews updated protocols on how to handle clutch problems and by preventatively replacing key parts before they could become too worn.

But on Wednesday, Chebi said that the risk posed by the clutch problem will not be eliminated until a redesign is completed, which could take more than a year, and he will not lift the restrictions on Osprey flights until then.

“I will not certify the V-22 to return to unrestricted flight operations until I am satisfied that we have sufficiently addressed the issues that may affect the safety of the aircraft. Based on the data that I have today, I’m expecting that this will not occur before mid 2025,” he said.

Chebi said he has also ordered a comprehensive review of the Pentagon’s Osprey program, which will take another six to nine months to be completed.

Several family members of Marines killed in the 2022 tragedy traveled to attend Wednesday’s hearing, and could be seen holding photos of their deceased loved ones in their seats directly behind the witnesses.

“The families submitted some questions that we had hoped to be answered,” Amber Sax, wife of Capt. John Sax, told ABC News after the hearing. “Not all of them were answered. I would say the majority actually were not, unfortunately.”

Sax would also like answers from the companies that make the Osprey. And she’s not alone.

Last month, she and family members of the other Marines killed in the 2022 catastrophe filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit against Boeing, Rolls Royce and Bell Textron, which are each involved in producing the aircraft.

The companies have said they can’t comment on pending litigation.

“We have many questions for them that we hope that they will answer and that will come to light,” Sax said. “And I believe that they’re the people that should be sitting in those seats next time.”

“We don’t want someone else to have to go through what we’ve been going through for the last two years now. Something has got to change. Something definitely has to change,” said Michelle Strickland, mother of Lance Cpl. Evan Strickland, who was 19 when he was killed in the crash.

Evan’s father agreed.

“We stand together as families to hold accountable those that owe us answers,” said Brett Strickland. “We have to be their voice, because they no longer have one.”

While the military has other aircraft that could possibly take on the missions currently carried out by the V-22, the Osprey stands out for its ability to take off and land vertically like a helicopter, but also fly fast like a conventional airplane by changing the angle of its propellers.

Timothy Loranger, an attorney at Wisner Baum representing the families, echoed lawmakers who advocated the military prioritize safety by using helicopters to replace Ospreys, until more problems have been worked out.

“They should, as they were asked, consider grounding the aircraft, using some alternative platform like the CH-53 [helicopter] or something else that they know is reliable,” Loranger said.

The Gold Star families who spoke to ABC News after the hearing opened up about the strong character of their lost loved ones.

“He was kind, he was so genuine … he had such a zest for life. Everything was like an adventure to him … He was just so genuine and just a pure spirit,” said Michelle Strickland of her son.

His father spoke about with the lengths to which the young Marine would go to for his friends, from walking miles in the dark to be there for someone after a breakup, to “just lightening the mood a little bit with this goofiness.”

Amber Sax said of her late husband, “John grew up with a love for flight. He loved his family very deeply. He loved his country very dearly.”

The family members are not trying to get rid of the Osprey their loved ones flew; they just want it to fly at its best.

“A few short months before losing John, we celebrated our fifth wedding anniversary by getting an ultrasound to see our youngest daughter, who went on to arrive three months after his passing,” Sax said in written testimony submitted to the House Oversight subcommittee ahead of Wednesday’s hearing.

Just after the hearing, she told ABC News, “I want to be able to take my daughters to an air show someday — John loved going to air shows, and he would have taken them if he were here — and I want them to be able to see an Osprey flying and say ‘That’s flying because my daddy and other brave people made it safer for them to fly.'”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Cal State Los Angeles protesters enter administration building, staff told to shelter in place

Cal State Los Angeles protesters enter administration building, staff told to shelter in place
Cal State Los Angeles protesters enter administration building, staff told to shelter in place
KABC-TV

(LOS ANGELES) — Pro-Palestinian protesters at Cal State Los Angeles entered a campus building on Wednesday, taking over the ground floor, as “a small number” of administrators still inside were asked to shelter in place, campus officials said.

“I can confirm that there are still a small number of administrators in the building,” said Erik Frost Hollins, a school spokesperson. “We are working through options to bring this fluid situation to the best resolution possible.”

The offices in the Student Services Building include much of the campus administration, along with the eighth-floor office of President Berenecea Johnson Eanes. It was not immediately clear which staff members were sheltering in place in the building’s upper floors.

“We have asked building employees to shelter in place and other employees have been asked to leave the campus,” Frost Hollins said.

Protesters had moved chairs and other objects in front of the doors at the building, barricading the entrance, according to video from ABC News’ Los Angeles station KABC-TV. The building appeared to have been marked with pro-Palestinian graffiti.

All classes and operations on the main campus were to be held remotely until further notice, the university said in an alert on its website.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Eight climate protesters arrested during Congressional Baseball Game: Police

Eight climate protesters arrested during Congressional Baseball Game: Police
Eight climate protesters arrested during Congressional Baseball Game: Police
ABC News

(WASHINGTON) — Eight climate protesters were arrested on Wednesday after being tackled on the field during the Congressional Baseball Game, U.S. Capitol Police said in a statement.

The self-described “youth-led group,” Climate Defiance, took credit for the protest and shared videos on X of protesters rushing the field, calling the “Chevron-sponsored” game “unconscionable.”

During the second inning, over half a dozen protesters hopped the fence to the field, wearing shirts stating, “END FOSSIL FUELS.”

Chants from the crowd of “USA!” drowned out the protesters.

“The eight people are being charged with federal charges – Interference with a Member of the U.S. Capitol Police,” authorities said in a statement.

The group was protesting outside of the stadium prior to the game’s start and had been vocal for days leading up to the game about the planned protest.

“Before the charity game, we were aware that some people planned to possibly protest. This was discussed during our planning meetings and put in our comprehensive action plan to ensure we had plenty of resources to swiftly respond,” Capitol police said in a statement on X.

Before the first pitch of the game had even been thrown, shouts rang out in the stands as roughly a dozen pro-Palestinian protesters began a demonstration opposing the U.S. government’s support of Israel, which is more than eight months into the war with Hamas in Gaza.

The demonstration, which began during the colors presentation, continued into the singing of the national anthem, prompting loud counter-chants of “USA” that originated in the Republican fan section before spreading throughout the stadium.

As they unfurled posters and Palestinian flags, security promptly removed the protesters, several of whom were clad in keffiyehs, the traditional Palestinian scarves that have become icons of the movement.

In an interview given through an exterior fence of the stadium, one of the protesters spoke with ABC News, stating, “We’re here to shame Congress for participating and sponsoring and funding a genocide.”

The Congressional Baseball Game is a bipartisan tradition dating back to 1909, with proceeds supporting D.C.-area charities. The annual game has been under threat before. In 2017, at a practice for Republican lawmakers, then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., and Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner were shot.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

New video shows interrogation of Florida woman accused of fatally shooting neighbor

New video shows interrogation of Florida woman accused of fatally shooting neighbor
New video shows interrogation of Florida woman accused of fatally shooting neighbor
Getty Images – STOCK

(OCALA, Fla.) — The Marion County Sheriff’s Office released video of detectives questioning Susan Lorincz, the Florida woman charged in the fatal shooting of Ajike “AJ” Owens, a Black mother of four who lived across the street from Lorincz.

The video, released on Monday, showed the moment Lorincz, who is white, was arrested after an almost two-hour long interrogation four days after the fatal incident. Following the shooting, Lorincz told detectives she was acting in self-defense when she shot Owens, who was with her 10-year-old son, through the closed door of Lorincz’s home on June 2, 2023, according to the video.

“She was saying ‘I’m going to kill you,'” Lorincz told detectives about Owens during the interrogation.

“There was banging. There was yelling. I thought she was going to just break down the door,” she said. “My heart was pounding and I thought, ‘she’s really going to kill me.'”

According to detectives, no other witnesses heard Owens shouting threats during the dispute. “No one that we’ve interviewed so far has made any statements about her saying that she wanted to kill you,” one of the detectives told Lorincz.

Lorincz was charged with first-degree manslaughter in Owens’ death and a trial is expected to begin on August 12. She pleaded not guilty and remains in custody.

On the night of the incident, Lorincz called 911 at 8:54 pm to report Owens’ kids trespassing on her property in Ocala, Florida, according to records obtained by detectives. After approximately five minutes on the phone, the 911 dispatcher informed Lorincz that deputies were on their way.

At 9:01 pm, less than two minutes after hanging up with 911 dispatchers, Lorincz called again to say she had shot Owens, according to police records.

Police said Owens had gone to Lorincz’s home to speak with her about the dispute involving Owens’ children playing near her home.

Detectives later questioned Lorincz about her online search history, according to the video of the interrogation, asking her if she’d looked up self-defense laws in Florida. She told detectives she’d done so earlier that day after seeing an article on Facebook.

“I know what you’re thinking. Did I look up the law so that I could do something? No,” Lorincz told detectives in the video.

During the interrogation, Lorincz told detectives she’d only communicated with Owens about two or three times since the mother of four moved across the street and repeatedly denied ever using racial slurs towards Owens and her children on the night of the shooting.

Body camera footage released last July by the Marion County Sheriff’s Office showed seven incidents between Feb. 25, 2022, and April 25, 2023, in which Lorincz called sheriff’s deputies to complain about neighborhood children, including Owens’ children, playing near her home.

The body camera videos show a child alleging in comments to sheriff’s deputies that Lorincz called the children in the neighborhood racial slurs and another who accused Lorincz of being “racist.” Lorincz admitted to calling children in the neighborhood racial slurs and other derogatory terms in the past, according to a police report.

“I feel that there was a level of fear,” one of the detectives told Lorincz about the night of the shooting. “But from everything I’ve seen, it doesn’t rise to the level for you to justify shooting through a closed door with a firearm, and I think you know that wasn’t reasonable.”

“But there were times I called and deputies never showed up,” Lorincz responded. The detective responded by saying, “it was two minutes” and she said, “to me, it wasn’t two minutes.”

“I’m not taking away how you were treated,” the detective told Lorincz. “But those are children nonetheless, and now they don’t have a mother to go home to and I think you know what you did was wrong and I think you know there were already deputies on the way.”

Lorincz initially refused arrest after detectives brought in a Marion County deputy to transport her to jail, the video showed. After repeated attempts to persuade her to cooperate, she told detectives, “I don’t care. Kill me,” the video shows.

Before Lorincz was arrested, detectives gave her an opportunity to write a letter to Owens’ children, according to the video.

“I am so sorry for your loss. I never meant to kill your mother. I was terrified your mom was going to kill me. I shot out of fear,” Lorincz wrote, according to detectives in the video.

Attorneys for Lorincz and Owens’ family did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Gov. DeSantis declares state of emergency in South Florida as heavy rain leads to ‘major flooding’

Gov. DeSantis declares state of emergency in South Florida as heavy rain leads to ‘major flooding’
Gov. DeSantis declares state of emergency in South Florida as heavy rain leads to ‘major flooding’
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

(FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.) — Parts of southern Florida continued to get inundated with heavy rainfall Wednesday, with Gov. Ron DeSantis declaring a state of emergency tonight for several counties, including Broward, Collier, Lee, Miami-Dade and Sarasota.

The National Weather Service in Miami said Wednesday evening that portions of Broward and Miami-Dade counties — including Hallandale and Hollywood — are continuing to see “life-threatening flooding” impacting homes, businesses and roads.

Fort Lauderdale Mayor Dean Trantalis had previously declared a state of emergency due to “ongoing heavy rainfall” that has flooded major roadways.

“Our emergency management staff is actively monitoring the situation and mobilizing resources across the City,” Trantalis said on social media.

Trantalis said high-water vehicles have been deployed throughout the city to respond as needed, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission will be sending boats and buggies, but urged people to stay off the roads if possible.

Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava had also declared a state of emergency due to the weather.

“As our departments work to keep residents and business[es] safe, this is a necessary step to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our entire community,” she said.

Up to seven inches of rain had already fallen across Broward and Miami-Dade counties by Wednesday afternoon, with several more inches expected to fall.

Rainfall rates in the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood area reached four inches per hour Wednesday afternoon. Sarasota also saw a rainfall rate of nearly four inches per hour.

More than 10 inches of rain had already fallen across Broward and Miami-Dade counties on Wednesday, with several more inches expected to fall.

Rainfall rates in the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood area reached six inches per hour Wednesday afternoon. Sarasota also saw a rainfall rate of nearly four inches per hour.

A widespread six to 10 inches of rain had already fallen from Sarasota to Miami over the past few days as the region continued to get drenched on Wednesday. Sarasota saw record rainfall Tuesday; more than half a foot fell, most in just a few hours, causing significant flash flooding on streets.

The flood watch continues for southern Florida through Friday evening, with rain totals potentially reaching potentially 15 to 20 inches.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

White House doesn’t rule out potential commutation for Hunter Biden

White House doesn’t rule out potential commutation for Hunter Biden
White House doesn’t rule out potential commutation for Hunter Biden
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Wednesday declined to rule out a presidential commutation for Hunter Biden following his conviction earlier this week on federal gun charges.

When asked specifically by a reporter on Air Force One as President Joe Biden traveled to the G7 summit in Italy — about whether a commutation of Hunter Biden’s eventual sentence was on the table — White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said she hadn’t spoken to the president about the matter since Tuesday’s verdict.

“As we all know, the sentencing hasn’t even been scheduled yet,” Jean-Pierre said. “I don’t have anything beyond what the president said,” she answered, referring to his comment to ABC “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir in an interview last week when he ruled out a pardon. “He’s been very clear about this.”

“He was asked about a pardon, he was asked about the trial specifically and he answered it very clearly, very forthright,” Jean-Pierre said.

“You have his words … I just don’t have anything beyond [that],” she added.

She repeatedly referred reporters to the statement President Biden made right after the verdict, in which he said, “I am the President, but I am also a Dad. Jill and I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today.”

“He’s very clear, very clear. You know, he loves his son. And he and the first lady love their son and they support their son. I just don’t have anything … beyond that,” Jean-Pierre added.

While a pardon is an executive forgiveness of a crime, a commutation is an executive lowering of a sentence or punishment.

Last September, Jean-Pierre answered more directly when confronted with a similar question.

Asked by a reporter if Biden would “pardon or commute his son” if he were convicted, she responded that she had answered that question before, “and I was very clear, and I said no.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

ACLU files federal complaint against new Biden asylum rule

ACLU files federal complaint against new Biden asylum rule
ACLU files federal complaint against new Biden asylum rule
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Texas Civil Rights Project and other civil rights organizations have filed a federal complaint challenging a recent executive order from President Joe Biden, which limits access to asylum.

On Tuesday, June 4, Biden issued a proclamation that restricts access to asylum for migrants who cross into the United States in between ports of entry. Under a new interim rule, the administration can bar asylum access when migrant encounters at the border reach a seven-day average of 2,500 or more. The rule is lifted two weeks after encounters drop to less than 1,500 for a week straight.

Two Texas-based civil rights organizations, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), are listed as plaintiffs in the complaint. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, among others, are listed as defendants.

Under current immigration law, migrants who reach U.S. soil “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” are eligible to apply for asylum. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who will be leading this lawsuit, claims, in part, that the executive action violates a migrant’s right to seek asylum.

“This ban egregiously flouts the nation’s asylum laws. An asylum ban is flatly illegal, just as it was when the Trump administration tried it,” Gelernt told ABC News in a statement. “This law will not deter desperate migrants from seeking protection here and will just put lives at risk.”

Gelernt said the Biden administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act, in part, because it did not go through the procedural requirement of giving the public a chance to comment before the rule took effect.

“President Biden’s recent executive order flies in the face of our entire asylum system and has no cognizable basis to support it. By doing this, the president has managed to further penalize vulnerable individuals and families seeking protection and violated our laws. We are taking legal action to demonstrate that this flagrant disregard for human safety is illegal, unsustainable, and must be stopped. Asylum is not a loophole but rather a life-saving measure. Access to asylum is a human and legally protected right in the United States,” said Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.

ABC has reached out to DHS and the White House for comment about the complaint.

Senior officials told reporters on Wednesday that while the rule is in place, migrants will be considered ineligible for asylum except for “exceptionally compelling circumstances” like facing a medical emergency or imminent threat to their safety if they’re denied entry. The proclamation also sets a higher standard for migrants to ensure they’re eligible for admission into the U.S.

Immigration officials would be able to allow a migrant into the country if they presented a “reasonable probability” of persecution or torture, higher than the current “reasonable possibility” standard. The rule includes an exception for unaccompanied minors, leading some advocates to worry it will incentivize migrants to send their children to make the dangerous journey into the United States alone.

Gelernt said he plans to add individual plaintiffs as his team finds migrants who may have been subjected to the rule. The complaint does not immediately request a temporary restraining order to pause the rule while court challenge plays out, but the ACLU continues to consider doing so, he said.

On Friday, administration officials said the number of migrants being processed for expedited removal had more than doubled since the proclamation went into effect.

On Sunday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz the new rule would push migrants to opt for legal ways of seeking asylum, like making an appointment through the CBP One app.

“Our intent is to really change the risk calculus of individuals before they leave their countries of origin and incentivize them to use lawful pathways that we have made available to them and keep them out of the hands of exploitative smugglers,” he said.

He also pushed back on the ACLU’s claim that the policy “will put thousands of people at risk.”

“I respectfully disagree with the ACLU. I anticipate they will sue us. We stand by the legality of what we have done. We stand by the value proposition,” Mayorkas said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.