Sometimes dubbed “the most hated man in America,” Martin Shkreli has officially been found guilty of fraud. Specifically he was found guilty of two counts of securities fraud, and one count of conspiring to commit securities fraud. But he was also acquitted on a number of other charges. He now faces up to 20 years in prison, although his lawyers plan to appeal.

He doesn’t appear particularly bothered by the “guilty” verdict though. In a press conference he held right after the announcement, he claimed:

This was a witch hunt of epic proportions. Maybe they found one or two broomsticks, but at the end of the day we’ve been acquitted of the most important charges in this case, and I’m delighted to report that.

He also streamed a 10 minute, combative interview with a Boston Herald reporter on Saturday, in which he claimed he wasn’t scared of prison because he was in New York City during 9/11. He said:

I grew up on the mean streets of Brooklyn. I was across the street from 9/11; I’ve built businesses from zero to hero, many times over. A few months in jail does not scare me.

Shkreli vaulted into national infamy when his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, jacked up the price of a drug used for treating HIV and cancer. His callous attitude garnered significant amounts of criticism.

Then, he made the news again when he purchased the only copy of a Wu-Tang Clan album for $2 million, and claimed he had no plans to release it.

Shkreli’s disgusting behavior doesn’t stop there, though. He was also suspended from Twitter for harassing journalist Lauren Duca–the same writer who is a consistent focus of Tucker Carlson’s ire. Recently, when asked by a journalist about what he would do if he was acquitted, he listed “f*cking” Lauren Duca as one of his top priorities. She responded, and pointed out the human price of his consistent harassment:

Here’s my statement on Martin Shkreli: I would (still) rather eat my own organs. So much as touch me, and I’ll gladly chop off one of yours. pic.twitter.com/4jHNWGWanQ

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) July 28, 2017

On a serious note, the most suffocating part of this experience has been people acting as if I have no right to respond to this harassment.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 4, 2017

I’m not looking for sympathy, but all of you petty motherfuckers would do well to remember this: Hatred is empowered by silence.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 4, 2017

Shkreli’s status as a permanent troll may need to take a little break, depending on how his sentence shakes out. And for many, that will be a welcome silence.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli Found Guilty of Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

Michelle Carter, the Massachusetts woman who urged her boyfriend to commit suicide through text messages, was sentenced to two and half years in prison on Thursday. However, the now 20-year-old Carter won’t serve any time until her appeals are finished. If Carter still has to serve prison time after those appeals, she will only serve 15 months in prison at first, with the balance of that sentence suspended until August 1, 2022.

In June, Bristol County Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz found Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, 18-year-old Conrad Roy III. Carter, who was 17 at the time, repeatedly texted her boyfriend as he contemplated suicide. Initially, she urged Roy to seek medical help for his suicidal thoughts and discouraged him from harming himself. However, a couple weeks later, Carter began urging Roy to kill himself and actually discussed how to use carbon monoxide.

On the day of his suicide, when Roy expressed that he was scared to go through with it, Carter “told him to get back in” the truck. Roy was found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning in July 2014 after he filled his truck with the toxic gas. When delivering his verdict back in June, Moniz said that “instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct,” ABC News reported.

According to Buzzfeed, Moniz ordered Carter to abstain from any contact with Roy’s family and her friends who testified against her. He also ordered Carter not to try to profit off of the case, such as through movie or book deals, as part of her sentence.

Roy’s family members read statements in court before Moniz delivered his sentence.

“She exploited my son’s weaknesses and used him as a pawn in her own well-being,” Roy’s father said, according to Buzzfeed.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michelle Carter Sentenced to 2.5 Years in Prison in Texting Suicide Case appeared first on Law Street.

Orenthal James “OJ” Simpson, the Hall of Fame NFL running back who was once lauded for his speed and ability to escape defenders on the field is now equally as recognizable for his ability to escape lengthy prison sentences.

On Thursday, a Nevada Parole Board unanimously voted 4-0 in favor of granting OJ Simpson an early release on his 33-year sentence for a bizarre incident that took place in a Las Vegas hotel in 2007. Simpson, along with other armed men, attempted to reclaim sports memorabilia items that he claimed were stolen from him. Simpson was convicted of armed robbery, attempted kidnapping, and assault in 2008 and is set to be released as early as October 1.

But Simpson is far more notorious for his involvement in what was known as “the trial of the century. ” He was accused and eventually acquitted of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in Nicole’s home in Brentwood, California in June of 1994.

Tony Corda, one of the parole commissioners on the hearing, cited as his reasoning that Simpson was at “low risk to re-offend” and the board felt that he had served enough time based on his criminal actions as well as his good behavior in prison.

During his hearing Simpson expressed remorse for his actions, saying: “I am sorry the things turned out the way they did…I had no intention to commit a crime.” But Simpson also expressed that he felt that he had served his time and that he deserved to become a free man.

So what are the legal ramifications for Simpson’s parole? His parole will likely be set to expire on September 29, 2022. Based on Nevada law he must submit written reports to his parole officer every month, and he will be subjected to random drug and alcohol screenings. If he violates the terms of his parole in any way he can be sent back to prison.

He did indicate to the parole board during his hearing that if granted parole he wished to return to his home state of Florida, saying: “I can easily stay in Nevada, but I don’t think you guys want me here,”

Whether this request will be granted or not depends on a couple of factors. Florida has to first confirm that Simpson is eligible to complete parole in the state, and he needs to have an approved place to live. The home that he bought in Miami in 2000 was foreclosed upon in 2012, so that seems like an unlikely destination for now.

But money shouldn’t be a big problem for Simpson, despite the fact that he is still responsible for paying damages from a multi-million dollar lawsuit to Ron Goldman’s family. He is still receiving his NFL pension. Based on his time in the NFL, ESPN estimated that OJ could have made up to $600,000 while in prison.

Simpson had managed to live a relatively media-free life since his conviction, but after the release of two enormously successful television series based on his life, he has been thrust back into the pop culture news scene. So when word broke that Simpson will be getting out of prison, social media exploded:

OJ Granted Parole! @RealDonaldTrump, You got a position for OJ in your Administration. This Murderer is gonna need a job! #OJSimpsonParole pic.twitter.com/7nF6si1Izx

— stacey roberts (@1sroberts) July 20, 2017

OJ Simpson has been granted parole. As awful as it is, the board had to follow the law + not consider past behavior he wasn’t convicted for

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) July 20, 2017

POLL: Should OJ Simpson be granted parole? 888-788-9910 #ToddStarnesShow #OJSimpsonParole

— toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) July 20, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post OJ Will Be Free: Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Martin Shkreli, a.k.a. “pharma bro,” definitely lived up to his reputation as the “most hated man in America” on the first day of his fraud trial. More than 120 prospective jurors were dismissed Monday, with some calling him “evil” and a “snake.”

Unsurprisingly, many of the jurors were quickly disqualified for criticizing Shkreli’s price gouging of AIDS drugs, even though the trial actually has nothing to do with him increasing the price of Daraprim overnight by more than 5,000 percent.

“I think he’s a very evil man,” said one young woman as she was questioned by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.

One woman even mimicked strangling Shkreli as she referenced him raising the price of “the AIDS drug,” according to the New York Times.

“Who does that?” she said. “A person that puts profit over everything else?”

“I looked right at him, and in my head, I said, ‘That’s a snake’–not knowing who he was,” said another woman upon seeing Shkreli in the courtroom. To which Shkreli’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman replied, “So much for the presumption of innocence.”

A male prospective juror said, “I have total disdain for the man.”

Another man told the judge, “This is the price gouger of drugs.” He added: “My kids are on some of these drugs. This impacts my kids.”

A third man said, “He kind of looks like a d*ck.”

The 34-year-old baby-faced former pharmaceutical exec is on trial in the Federal District Court in Brooklyn for allegedly running an elaborate Ponzi-like scheme at his former hedge fund and a drug company he once headed up.

Prosecutors have accused Shkreli of lying to investors at the hedge fund MSMB Capital Management and siphoning off more than $11 million in assets from his biopharmaceutical company Retrophin to repay them between 2009 and 2014.

In total, Shkreli faces eight counts of securities and wire fraud and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. He has pleaded not guilty.

Since first drawing widespread criticism in 2015, Shkreli has appeared to relish in making the world hate him. He spent $2 million on a rare Wu-Tang Clan album, and then subsequently threatened to destroy it. He harassed journalist Lauren Duca until he was banned from Twitter. He even auctioned off the chance to punch him in the face for charity–although one lucky protester managed to pelt him in the face with dog poop for free.

On Wednesday, the judge denied requests to start the selection process over and ban reporters from listening in on sidebars after the defense accused news coverage of tainting the New York jury pool.

She did, however, agree to re-question about 40 people who qualified for the pool to see if they were influenced by the latest wave of publicity for Shkreli. Judge Matsumoto also requested another pool of 60 to 100 potential jurors to be brought to the courtroom on Tuesday, but there’s no guarantee they’ll hate him any less than the first batch.

The trial is expected to last six weeks, but it’s already shaping up to be a rough ride for Shkreli.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Finding a Jury for Martin Shkreli, the “Most Hated Man in America” appeared first on Law Street.

It was billed as the trial of the century–Bill Cosby, a national treasure and pioneer for black Americans, on trial for sexual assault. Most people expected a guilty verdict, convinced that Cosby was overwhelmingly guilty of sexually assaulting former Temple University basketball staffer Andrea Constand. But in the end, there was no verdict at all.

After a week of deliberations, the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict and the judge was forced to declare a mistrial. Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele immediately vowed to retry Cosby, but the lack of verdict still left some legal experts surprised. Here are several key factors that could have led to a hung jury.

Andrea Constand’s Credibility

Cosby’s defense team, led by Brian J. McMonagle, argued that Constand was not a viable witness due to several inconsistencies in her statements made to police. Philadelphia defense lawyer Alan J. Tauber analyzed the case and noted several highly contradictory statements in Constand’s 2005 police statement. At the time, Constand claimed that she had never been alone with Cosby before the assault, she denied having contact afterwards, and she said the assault occurred in March of 2004. Tauber called those statements “demonstrably false“–the alleged assault actually occurred in January of 2004 and she called him over 50 times afterwards–and said they likely swayed the jury.

While Constand’s conflicting testimony doesn’t mean that she is a liar, it did allow for the defense to poke holes in her credibility. Therefore, a handful of jurors may not have felt comfortable convicting Cosby based off her testimony.

Trouble With Defining Consent

This case was never about whether or not the two ever had sexual relations with one another. Cosby’s defense was that he’d had consensual sex with Constand in January 2004. He also admitted to giving her pills before they had sex, but said they were Benadryl, not Quaaludes. However, no forensics, no toxicology report, and no physical evidence of any kind were presented in the trial to corroborate either story. But since many of the key facts in the case are undisputed, Above the Law argues that it’s not a case of “he said, she said.” The real question, it contends, is “what defines consent?”

Jurors in the case clearly grappled with determining whether or not Constand consented to the sexual interaction. They even asked the court to define “reasonable doubt” and clarify what “without her knowledge” means in reference to one of the counts. Some jurors may have believed that the encounter was consensual since Constand took the pills voluntarily. The defense also argued that Cosby assumed that he had achieved “mutually informed consent.”

Lack of Other Accusers

A total of 60 women have accused Cosby of sexually assaulting them, but jurors were only allowed to hear from one other accuser during the trial. The prosecution wanted 13 accusers to testify at trial, but the judge granted only one, a woman who accused Cosby of drugging and assaulting her in 1996.

It could be more advantageous for prosecutors to appeal to the judge to allow the thirteen women to testify, rather than go straight to a retrial. The additional testimony could potentially help erase reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury and trigger a different strategy from the defense.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Bill Cosby Mistrial: What Kept the Jury Deadlocked? appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that a law banning the registration of offensive trademarks was unconstitutional. The decision was a victory for the Asian-American dance rock band The Slants–and potentially the Washington Redskins.

Simon Tam, the band’s frontman, filed a lawsuit after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied his application for a trademark for the name “The Slants.” The agency cited the Lanham Act, which prohibits trademarks “which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The court ruled in an 8-0 decision that the “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Justice Samuel Alito, who delivered the majority opinion of the court, said Tam chose the name of the band “to ‘reclaim’ the term and drain its denigrating force.” According to Alito, the ban on offensive trademarks “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

The federal government had argued that trademarks are government speech, but Alito wrote to the contrary, saying “trademarks are private, not government speech.” Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer were in agreement on the majority opinion.

While the justices reached a unanimous judgement, they were split on why they believed it violated the first amendment. In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, wrote that the measure in question constitutes “viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not contribute because he had not yet been confirmed as a justice in January when the court heard the case.

The Slants celebrated the victory with a lengthy statement following the ruling. “The Supreme Court has vindicated First Amendment rights not only for our The Slants, but all Americans who are fighting against paternal government policies that ultimately lead to viewpoint discrimination,” wrote Tam.

Tam said the band never considered itself a political group, but that “the establishment of an Asian American band was a political act in of itself.” As a result, the band has integrated activism into their work by raising awareness and funds for issues affecting Asian Americans.

“Music is the best way we know how to drive social change: it overcomes social barriers in  a way that mob-mentality and fear-based political rhetoric never can,” Tam said.

The Slants’ trademark case could also impact other controversially named groups like the Washington Redskins, which has been in jeopardy of losing its team name for being racially offensive.

In 2014, the Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team’s trademark because the team’s name is a derogatory term for Native Americans. The Redskins appealed the case, but the federal appeals court had delayed hearing it until the Supreme Court ruled in Tam’s case.

Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said the Supreme Court’s decision “resolves the Redskins’ long-standing dispute with the government.”

“The Supreme Court vindicated the team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion,” said Blatt.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Says Offensive Trademarks are Protected by Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Spectators let out audible gasps as Judge Lawrence Moniz announced the verdict for 20-year-old Michelle Carter, who was accused of encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself in 2014. On Friday, she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and could face up to 20 years in prison. The sentencing phase of her trial will begin on August 3.

It may have been the first trial of its kind–dealing with the question of whether someone can be guilty of another person’s suicide. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Robert Cordy said at the beginning of the trial that it was the first case where words alone were the evidence, at least in that court.

Audible gasps come from the gallery when Judge Moniz finds #MichelleCarter guilty.

— Bob McGovern (@BobMcGovernJr) June 16, 2017

Carter was 18 when she encouraged her 17-year-old boyfriend Conrad Roy III to kill himself. Reportedly she wanted attention as the “grieving girlfriend.” But their conversations all happened via text messages–they lived many miles apart–and Roy had been depressed and suicidal for some time. Roy took his own life by pumping carbon monoxide into his truck.

Despite many legal experts who expected Carter to be acquitted, the judge said that Carter’s behavior was both immoral and illegal. He pointed to the fact that Roy previously had tried to commit suicide, but reached out to his family for help. His family responded by getting him treatment.

The messages I’m getting from attorneys are ranging from “Holy crap” to “Told you so.” #MichelleCarter

— Bob McGovern (@BobMcGovernJr) June 16, 2017

On the day that Roy committed suicide, he texted Carter, explaining that he was having second thoughts. He called her, but she told him to get back in the truck. “He breaks that chain of self-causation by exiting the vehicle,” Moniz said. He added that by telling Roy to get back in, despite “his ambiguities, his fears, his concerns,” Carter created a situation that would most likely cause severe harm to Roy.

“She admits in subsequent texts that she did nothing, she did not call the police or Mr. Roy’s family. And finally, she did not issue a simple additional instruction: ‘Get out of the truck,’” Moniz said. According to legal experts, this case could encourage Massachusetts lawmakers to write laws that will hold people accountable for what they say to each other online.

The ACLU of Massachusetts issued a statement disagreeing with the verdict, saying it is a violation of free speech. Basically the organization said that it could lead to the criminalization of other conversations, like end-of-life care between family members.

Just in: @ACLU_Mass criticizes Michelle Carter guilty verdict as violation of First Amendment. pic.twitter.com/mgm14A5Yte

— Dan Glaun (@dglaun) June 16, 2017

Another facet of the case is that Carter has also struggled with mental illness herself. At the time of Roy’s suicide, she was on antidepressants that might have affected her actions. According to psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who testified in court on Monday, the medication Carter was taking could have affected her frontal lobe, impacting her ability to empathize with other people and make sound decisions.

“Someone who wouldn’t do anything outlandish or dangerous might when the frontal lobe is injured in some way,” Breggin said. He also claimed that Carter appeared supportive of Roy. He recounted that she tried to talk him out of committing suicide. But, when Roy claimed he didn’t want help, she supported him. “She’s not thinking she’s doing something criminal, she found a way to help her boyfriend,” he said.

No matter what, this is a tragic and complicated case. One young man lost his life, and one young woman could be facing a lengthy prison sentence. In the end, there is no winner.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michelle Carter Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter in Texting Trial appeared first on Law Street.

A Texas sheriff’s deputy and her husband have been indicted on murder charges after choking a man to death outside of a Denny’s restaurant in the Houston area last month.

John Hernandez was confronted by the couple just after 11 p.m. on May 28 for urinating outside of a Denny’s restaurant in Northeast Harris County after a dinner with his family.

Terry Thompson, 41, put Hernandez in a chokehold and pushed him to the ground. His 45-year-old wife, Chauna Thompson, an off-duty Harris County sheriff’s deputy, helped pin him down.

When the couple noticed Hernandez wasn’t breathing, they finally let go and he was rushed to the hospital–but it was too late. The 24-year-old father of one was put on life support and died the following week.

The choking took place in front of Hernandez’s shocked wife and young daughter, who reportedly was screaming, “Quit hitting my daddy.”

On Thursday, the Thompsons were indicted on murder charges and they face life in prison if convicted. The charges came a day after protesters held a rally and a march in support of Hernandez’s family to demand justice. One group organized a sit-in at the sheriff’s office.

Tensions were high the entire week leading up to the indictments after a cellphone video of the altercation was circulated on social media.

John Hernandez was clearly attacked by the husband of a Harris County Deputy. This man needs to be held accountable. pic.twitter.com/QNf6I3TVip

— Alexis Isabel (@lexi4prez) June 5, 2017

According to Terry Thompson’s lawyer, Scott Courtney, the indictment was rushed due to public pressure. Courtney said Hernandez attacked Thompson first, and that the chokehold was self-defense.

“It’s disappointing that citizens can simply march on the courthouse and demand somebody be indicted for murder,” he said.

But District Attorney Kim Ogg didn’t buy it. In a statement, she said:

We grieve with the Hernandez family. We believe that this grand jury true-bill is a reflection of our community’s belief that a crime occurred and that crime was murder–and that it was participated in by Terry Thompson and his wife, Deputy Chauna Thompson.

Family of #JohnHernandez says their “faith has been restored” after indictments of Chauna and Terry Thompson. #abc13 pic.twitter.com/ySIxIZ2uNp

— Pooja Lodhia (@PoojaOnTV) June 8, 2017

Randall Kallinen, an attorney for the Hernandez family, said Hernandez’s wife was put in a police car for four hours after the incident, as if she were a suspect. She also had her cellphone taken away by deputies at the scene.

Melissa Trammell, a Denny’s employee testified that she had witnessed the incident. “The man was turning purple,”said Trammell. “We begged him to get off the man and he wouldn’t.”

Trammell testified that she tried to reason with Thompson, but instead he looked her in the face and said, “I’m not getting off him.”

Chauna Thompson and her husband were both offered the opportunity to testify, but declined.

Even with the indictments, the Hernandez family worries that the Thompsons may receive a more lenient treatment because of the wife’s position. Prosecutors, however, say they will show no favoritism in the case and will “let the chips fall as they may with the grand jury.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Deputy and Husband Indicted in Denny’s Chokehold Death appeared first on Law Street.

A federal government contractor was charged with removing and mailing classified materials about Russian interference in the 2016 election to a news outlet, the Justice Department announced June 5.

Reality Leigh Winner, a 25-year-old intelligence contractor, printed and retained classified intelligence reporting from the National Security Agency, containing classified national defense information, on or about May 9, according to the Justice Department.

A few days later, Winner allegedly mailed that intelligence report to The Intercept, which subsequently published the NSA report on its site on June 5.

The report identified two cyber attacks by Russian intelligence actors: one in August 2016, the other in November 2016. In the August cyber attack, the intelligence actors executed a spear-phishing campaign against a company that sells voter registration-related software. As part of that campaign, the actors sent emails to members of the company to entice employees to click on a “link within a spoofed Google Alert email, which would redirect the user to the malicious domain.” The report said the campaign “appeared to be designed to obtain the end users’ email credentials.”

During the November cyber attack, the actors also contacted the email addresses of 122 local election officials about a week before the 2016 election. The report said it is possible that those officials’ email addresses were obtained from the compromised accounts of members of the company from the August attack.

The Intercept isn’t new to publishing leaked classified information, having released 166 documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden in May 2016.

In its statement, the Justice Department announced that the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested Winner at her home, on June 3. Winner appeared in federal court on June 5 where she was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e), a provision of the Espionage Act which deals with gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.

If convicted, Winner could face up to ten years in prison.

“Releasing classified material without authorization threatens our nation’s security and undermines public faith in government,” said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein as part of the Justice Department’s statement. “People who are trusted with classified information and pledge to protect it must be held accountable when they violate that obligation.

FBI Special Agent Justin C. Garrick said in an affidavit that the U.S. government agency conducted an audit of six individuals who had printed the intelligence reporting. It revealed that Winner had been in email contact with the news outlet. The audit did not reveal that the other five individuals had been in contact with the news outlet.

According to The Intercept, the NSA document was provided to the outlet anonymously.

Garrick also said Winner confessed that she had intentionally identified and printed the classified intelligence reporting, removed it from her office space, retained it, and mailed it to the news outlet.

In a series of tweets on June 5, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange showed his support for Winner. He said sources like Winner, who does not have “elite immunity,” should be “strongly encouraged” to communicate knowledge.

Alleged NSA whistleblower Reality Leigh Winner must be supported. She is a young women accused of courage in trying to help us know. pic.twitter.com/B4aIdt7qz6

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) June 6, 2017

Reality Leight Winner is no Clapper or Petraeus with “elite immunity”. She’s a young woman against the wall for talking to the press.

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) June 6, 2017

It doesn’t matter why she did it or the quality the report. Acts of non-elite sources communicating knowledge should be strongly encouraged.

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) June 6, 2017

NY Daily News writer Shaun King also voiced his support for Winner, calling her a “courageous young woman” and “a brilliant Air Force veteran disturbed by what she saw.”

I stand w/ this courageous young woman, Reality Winner, who leaked NSA docs.

She’s a brilliant Air Force veteran disturbed by what she saw. pic.twitter.com/1U7MqsOPxS

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) June 6, 2017

Still, others on social media remained staunchly opposed to Winner’s actions.

Reality Winner is going to prison for her “snowflake” espionage acts.. who names their child Reality?#potus #maga #@CNNPolitics

— Cindi Turchik (@CindiTurchik) June 6, 2017

The more I learn about #RealityWinner, the more I think we need to be prosecuting whoever gave her a security clearance. Is there no line?

— Adam Goldstein (@AdGo) June 6, 2017

For now, however, Winner awaits her trial.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reality Winner: NSA Contractor Charged With Leaking Classified Materials appeared first on Law Street.

The trial of Michelle Carter, the 20-year-old Massachusetts woman who urged her boyfriend to kill himself through text messages, is about to begin. Back in 2014, she sent dozens of text messages to her boyfriend Conrad Roy III, telling him that the time was right, and to just “do it.” He subsequently killed himself through carbon monoxide poisoning in his truck.

But Carter’s lawyer has argued that text messages are protected free speech. She also argued that Roy had been depressed for some time and that Carter couldn’t be responsible for his death. Jury selection was set to begin Monday, but Carter opted for a bench trial, which means her fate will be decided by the judge and not by a jury.

She is facing charges of involuntary manslaughter in Bristol County Juvenile Court. Although it’s difficult to convict someone for what they wrote in a text message, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court–which ruled that Carter must stand trial in an appeal of a lower court’s decision not to dismiss the case–said in a 2016 ruling, “But for the defendant’s admonishments, pressure, and instructions, the victim would not have gotten back into the truck and poisoned himself to death.”

NEW: Michelle Carter arrives at court for trial

Carter is accused of sending her friend texts encouraging him to kill himself@Boston25 pic.twitter.com/rQPqrDD8cQ

— Peter Wilson (@PetesWire) June 5, 2017

The police investigation after Roy’s suicide concluded that Carter had “strongly influenced” his decision to take his own life using carbon monoxide. The couple reportedly met online and mainly kept in touch over the internet, only meeting in person twice. They had apparently not seen each other for a year at the time of Roy’s death.

According to a court filing, Roy had a history of mental illness and had previously tried to kill himself. Later, after he expressed a wish to kill himself, Carter tried to persuade him to do it. “You already made this decision and if you don’t do it tonight you’re gonna be thinking abut it all the time and stuff all the rest of your life and be miserable,” she wrote to him.

Carter also wrote, “You have to just do it. You have everything you need. There is no way you can fail. Tonight is the night. It’s now or never.” She added that he always seemed to have an excuse to not do it and scolded him for not going through with it. It’s unclear why she urged him to kill himself rather than getting help. At one point Roy said he was scared and got out of his car to call her. But she convinced him to go back in and finish what he started.

It’s hard to say what the outcome of this trial will be, but the disturbing content and detail of the text message conversations have made it one that many will follow. Opening statements begin on Tuesday morning.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Look at the Upcoming Trial for Woman Who Urged Boyfriend to Kill Himself appeared first on Law Street.

Remember the outrage over the supposed “pink slime” in our meat a few years ago? While the outrage seemingly died down quickly, a South Dakota-based meat producer is suing ABC, senior national correspondent Jim Avila, and news anchor Diane Sawyer for those reports, claiming that they were defamatory.

The company, Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), was the focus of a series of reports Avila did in 2012. In the reports, Avila described a practice BPI uses, where it supplements its ground beef with meat from trimmings of the cow, including muscle and connective tissue. According to BPI, this is a common procedure, and it’s totally fine to eat. Additionally it lessens the fat content of ground beef. BPI called this addition “finely textured beef product” but ABC and Avila called it “pink slime.” The name “pink slime” was first dubbed by a former USDA microbiologist in an email around the agency. Here’s an example of Avila talking about the “pink slime.”

BPI is now suing for defamation, claiming that the news reports seriously damaged its business. It claims that ABC either knew it was providing false information, or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. In terms of proving harm, the company says that its business seriously suffered because of these highly-publicized reports. It argues that it had to lay off approximately 700 workers and close three plants as a result. BPI says that its weekly sales were cut in more than half–from five million pounds a week to less than two million pounds a week.

ABC is arguing that it disseminated the information responsibly. After all, it never claimed that “pink slime” was unsafe to eat, just that consumers had the right to know what was in the food they were purchasing.

The trial is currently underway–jury selection just finished up today. Given the sheer amount that BPI is asking for–the company is claiming damages as high as $1.9 billion, but Eriq Gardner of the Hollywood Reporter explains that the potential verdict could get as high as $5.7 billion–the case is one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beef Company Sues ABC for Calling its Meat “Pink Slime” appeared first on Law Street.

Alanis Morissette’s former business manager was sentenced Wednesday to six years in prison for embezzlement after stealing $4.8 million from the singer-songwriter. He will also have to pay $8.6 million–nearly twice the amount of money he stole from her–in restitution.

Jonathan Todd Schwartz worked for the firm GSO Business Management that handled the private finances of artists like Katy Perry, 50 Cent, and Tom Petty. He admitted to having stolen the money from Morissette between 2010 and 2014, as well as $2 million more from five other unnamed clients.

The theft was discovered when Morissette hired a new manager to look over her finances. According to USA Today, Schwartz accused Morissette of having drug problems and being mentally unstable when first confronted about the missing money. He also falsely claimed he invested the money in an illegal marijuana growing business. Later he admitted to lying, placing the blame on a gambling addiction.

In January, Schwartz agreed to plead guilty on charges of wire fraud and tax crimes. He could have received more than 20 years in prison, but the plea deal resulted in a shorter sentence. Morissette previously sued Schwartz, but dropped the suit after he was arrested.

Isn’t it moronic: @Alanis Morissette manager sad over ‘stupid’ theft https://t.co/4139PxxzSI pic.twitter.com/jY7h0q558K

— Star-Advertiser (@StarAdvertiser) May 4, 2017

In April, Schwartz penned a guest column for the Hollywood Reporter to tell his side of the story. While trying to explain why he made the choices he made, he said that his father was a gambling addict who abandoned the family.

“At first, I ‘borrowed’ a little from clients, with the hopes that I would pay them back if I won that night’s bet,” he wrote. “That snowballed, and as I kept losing, I kept stealing.”

But prosecutors didn’t buy it. They said he used the money to finance his extravagant lifestyle and hadn’t showed any true regret, despite crying in court and saying that he will spend the rest of his life asking for forgiveness.

“Every expression of remorse he has made and every purported act of self-improvement he has taken occurred only after he realized he had no ‘choice’ to do otherwise,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Ranee Katzenstein said.

For Morissette, the worst part about the embezzlement was not the money, but the betrayal by someone she trusted. In her court testimony, Morissette said her ability to trust has been “shaken to the core.”

“He did this in a long, systematic, drawn-out and sinister manner,” she said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alanis Morissette’s Ex-Manager Sentenced to Prison for Embezzlement appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Slager, the former North Charleston police officer who shot and killed Walter Scott in April 2015, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to charges that he violated Scott’s civil rights by using excessive force. As part of the plea agreement, federal prosecutors will drop the murder charges against Slager. The murder was one of a spate of instances in which a white officer was filmed killing an unarmed black man, and added fuel to the Black Lives Matter movement.

“The defendant willfully used deadly force even though it was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances,” the plea agreement says, according to the Associated Press. “The defendant acknowledges that during the time he used deadly force, he knew that the use of deadly force was unnecessary and excessive, and therefore unreasonable under the circumstances.”

Scott’s death was a galvanizing moment for the Black Lives Matter movement during a year in which, according to a Washington Post database, at least 38 unarmed black men and women were shot and killed by police. The bloody April 4, 2015 episode began as a routine traffic stop. After Slager pulled over Scott’s Mercedes Benz because of a broken taillight, the 50-year-old Scott ran away.

A video, filmed by a local barber, captured the rest of the scene: the two men began to tussle over Slager’s Taser. Scott once again fled from Slager, who fired eight shots at his back; five hit their mark, killing Scott, and igniting national outrage. Slager was immediately fired and, a few days later, charged with murder. Last December, the murder trial ended in a hung jury.

Slager was facing two life sentences: one for the murder charge, and one for the civil rights charge. Because he entered a plea deal, it is unlikely Slager will face life in prison. Slager appeared in federal court for a hearing on Tuesday. Local journalists captured the scene:

The family of Walter Scott entering the courthouse #walterscott #MichaelSlager @postandcourier pic.twitter.com/EurZ42ZtTM

— Michael Pronzato (@MichaelPronz) May 2, 2017

The hearing lasted less than 30 minutes. #WalterScott‘s family wiped away tears as the details of their loved one’s death were retold.

— Janae Frazier (@JanaeFrazier) May 2, 2017

Plea deal does not state possible sentence. Charge carries between no prison time and life behind bars. #WalterScott #chsnews

— Andrew Knapp (@offlede) May 2, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Officer Who Killed Walter Scott Pleads Guilty to Civil Rights Charge appeared first on Law Street.

The trial in the Bundy brothers’ Oregon standoff case–when armed activists led an occupation of a wildlife refuge for 41 days–is getting closer. On Wednesday jury selection started and the first statements are scheduled to begin on September 13. The case already has plenty of attention online.

They’ve been charged with conspiracy to impede federal officers and possession of firearms in a federal facility. In total 26 people were charged but only seven are going to trial now. Seven more are going to trial early next year and the rest have already pled guilty.

The Shoes

Journalists were live-tweeting from court on Wednesday, fascinated with the nature of the case. The Bundy brothers’ lawyer had argued that his clients need to be allowed to wear cowboy boots, because they are cowboys.

2a. Mumford first giggled a bunch about the jail issued shoes, calling them “urban loafers.” Jdg Brown: “I do not find it comical at all”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

2c. Ammon Bundy: “I prefer to be wearing boots.”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

The Background

It all started when two farmers, a father and son, were convicted for arson on government land in 2001. Dwight and Steven Hammond claimed they started a controlled fire on their land to get rid of weeds and brushwood that could cause wildfires, but that they lost control over the fire. They turned themselves in in January of this year and were given the minimum sentence of five years, but this caused some local supporters to start protesting. The leaders of the protests were the sons of Cliven Bundy, who had a separate previous standoff with federal authorities in Nevada. Bundy claimed the government was just trying to punish the Hammonds for not selling their land. The government, on their hand, said the Hammonds tried to cover up poaching activity with the fire.

Currently on trial (and pictured below) are Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta and Neil Wampler. Kenneth Medenbach is missing from the picture below.

Jury selection begins for #OregonStandoff trial #LiveOnK2 https://t.co/9swhvvHq6o pic.twitter.com/tLzyfXXsAR

— KATU News (@KATUNews) September 7, 2016

The protesters didn’t give up, and instead occupied a federal building until they got what they wanted. The group, led by the Bundys, started calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and one of their viewpoints was that the government owns too much land and misuses that land. The fact that the group was opposed to the government and was armed led some to call them domestic terrorists. But they continue to paint themselves as cowboys and freedom fighters.

A picture from the courtroom illustrates the jury selection.

NOW: 31 potential jurors vetted by Judge Brown. Asked how much media exposure they had to the case. #Oregonstandoff pic.twitter.com/V1kEyyP4LN

— Eileen Park (@EileenParkTV) September 7, 2016

Most of the arrests were made during a traffic stop on January 26, in which the spokesperson for the new movement, LaVoy Finicum, was fatally shot.

What’s Next?

The trial is expected to take even longer than the occupation did. The protesters claim they were just using their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest, and their Second Amendment rights to carry licensed guns. The brothers’ father, Cliven Bundy, is also facing trial in Nevada, because of another standoff near his cattle ranch in 2014. That trial will take place in February in Nevada.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Bundy Brothers’ Trial is About to Start: Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 podcast that captivated millions of listeners now gets its real life sequel–Adnan Syed from “Serial” has been granted a new trial after 16 years in prison. The judge in the case, Martin Welch, vacated the murder conviction on Thursday.

Adnan Syed, now 36, became a famous name when the podcast “Serial” aired two years ago. The podcast told the story of his conviction in the murder of his high school girlfriend Hae Min Lee. Prosecutors claimed he strangled and buried Lee in a park in Baltimore. Listeners were divided over whether he was guilty or not, and the journalist Sarah Koenig set out to find out the truth.

The main evidence that led to Syed’s conviction in 2000 was information from cell towers that showed where he was (or rather where his phone was) at the time of the murder. However, many people have questioned the reliability of that information. Syed’s former attorney Christina Gutierrez, who passed away in 2004, failed to cross-examine the state’s cell tower expert.

She also failed to contact and question an important witness who claimed she had been with Adnan Syed in the school library at the time of Lee’s murder. Asia McClain, the witness, recently gave birth to a baby and told ABC that she was shocked but excited to hear the news. This was her reaction on Twitter:

Wow…I'm speechless. New Baby, New Trial

— Asia McClain Chapman (@AsiaRChapman) June 30, 2016

As a result of the podcast’s success–millions of listeners tuned in, easily breaking previous podcast subscription records–and interviews with McClain, the case received new attention. Syed’s new attorney Justin Brown tried to get a new trial in place because of the potential alibi McClain’s testimony could provide. Judge Welch denied the trial request, but vacated the sentence because of the cell tower issue.

Syed’s friend Rabia Chaudry was the first to bring his case to Koenig’s attention.

People keep asking, no one has spoken to him. He did not have phone privileges yesterday! We expect him to call us today.#AdnanSyed

— rabia chaudry (@rabiasquared) July 1, 2016

Brown was happy about the news and said he will look into the possibilities for bail. But as of now, the conviction is gone. He told Washington Post:

“Think of it as the conviction is erased. It’s gone. So if the state were to retry him, essentially, we would be starting from scratch. The whole trial could potentially start again.”

Check out this clip from a press conference with Brown:

@CJBrownLaw shares more information about #AdnanSyed being granted a new trial during press conference!https://t.co/zs6uejEBEQ

— Undisclosed Podcast (@Undisclosedpod) June 30, 2016

Lee’s family has not spoken publicly about the case, but released a statement in February during a new hearing of Syed, reports the Baltimore Sun.

“It remains hard to see so many run to defend someone who committed a horrible crime, who destroyed our family, who refuses to accept responsibility, when so few are willing to speak up for Have,” the statement read.

People are still divided over Syed’s guilt in the killing of Lee. But the question remains—if he didn’t do it, then who did?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Adnan Syed of “Serial” Fame Granted Another Trial appeared first on Law Street.

The trial of the first officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray has officially ended in indecision–a hung jury caused the judge to declare it a mistrial. The prosecutors have said they plan on retrying Officer William G. Porter, and given that there are five more officers to be tried after Porter, this saga is far from over.

Freddie Gray died while in police custody last April. He was arrested for possessing an illegal switchblade, and then while being transported via police van, fell into a coma and later passed away. It was later determined that his neck was broken while riding in the police van–while his ankles and wrists were restrained, he wasn’t strapped in. An autopsy determined his neck broke when he slammed into part of the van at some point during the ride. After Gray’s death, protests erupted in Baltimore, as well as in solidarity in other American cities.

Porter was the first of six officers to be tried for Gray’s death; according to the New York Times, he:

Was charged with manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment and misconduct in office; the state accused him of ‘callous indifference’ to Mr. Gray’s life for failing to call a medic after Mr. Gray asked for one, and for not buckling Mr. Gray into a police transport van, where he suffered a fatal injury to his spinal cord.

The jury deliberated three days, on a trial that began on December 2, but couldn’t come to a unanimous decision on any of the charges, which is required for conviction. According to Kalani Gordon, of the Baltimore Sun, there were multiple points of contention for the jury that kept them from coming to a final decision. Those included:

• Disagreements from expert witnesses about when Gray’s injury occurred;
• The rule that arrestees being transported must be seat-belted had recently been changed and the officers may not have known about the change;
• Disagreements in witness testimony over whether Porter knew Gray was badly hurt;
• Conflicting arguments from the Prosecution and Defense over the responsibilities of police officers;
• Maryland laws about manslaughter and depraved-heart murder are vague.

So, while Porter wasn’t found guilty, he wasn’t found not guilty either. The prosecutors will have to try again–we’ll have to see if this time they are successful.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Freddie Gray: First Officer’s Case Ends in Mistrial appeared first on Law Street.