![]() In early June, the mother and daughter were only charged with a single felony for removing, concealing or abandoning a body, and two misdemeanors: concealing the death of another person and false reporting. Law enforcement authorities obtained the messages with a search warrant, and detailed some of them in court documents. “I will finally be able to wear jeans,” she says in one of the messages. The daughter, meanwhile, “talks about how she can’t wait to get the ‘thing’ out of her body," a detective wrote in court documents. In one of the Facebook messages, Jessica Burgess, 41, tells her then 17-year-old daughter that she has obtained abortion pills for her and gives her instructions on how to take them to end the pregnancy. Wade in June, states weren’t allowed to enforce abortion bans until the point at which a fetus is considered viable outside the womb, at roughly 24 weeks. The prosecutor handling the case said it's the first time he has charged anyone for illegally performing an abortion after 20 weeks, a restriction that was passed in 2010. (AP) - A Nebraska woman has been charged with helping her teenage daughter end her pregnancy at about 24 weeks after investigators obtained Facebook messages in which the two discussed using medication to induce an abortion and plans to burn the fetus afterward. But after Trump took advantage of that pause with comments that prosecutors said were meant to sway his former chief of staff against giving unfavorable testimony, Chutkan put it back in place.OMAHA, Neb. The judge lifted it days after entering it, giving Trump’s lawyers time to prove why his words should not be restricted. The order has had a whirlwind trajectory through the courts since Chutkan imposed it in response to a request from prosecutors, who cited among other comments Trump’s repeated disparagement of Smith as “deranged.” “He has to speak Miss Manners while everyone else is throwing targets at him?” she asked. Millett at one point expressed incredulity at the idea that Trump would not be able to respond to criticism by rival candidates in a debate. “Labeling it core political speech begs the question if it’s political speech or speech aimed at derailing the criminal process,” she said.īut the judges also repeatedly wondered where to strike a balance, raising the prospect that the gag order could ultimately be narrowed. Judge Millett recoiled at Sauer’s argument that Trump was merely engaged in core political speech. Though Sauer contended that prosecutors had not drawn a direct line between Trump’s rhetoric and actual harm, VanDevender pointed out that a Texas woman stands charged with making a death threat against the judge in the Trump case, Tanya Chutkan, just one day after Trump in August posted on social media: “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” Prosecutors cited that episode in its original gag order request, saying Trump’s posts had “already influenced the public.”Īnother judge hearing the arguments, Cornelia Pillard, sharply questioned Sauer over whether he believed any restrictions on Trump’s speech were allowed, telling him: “I don’t hear you giving any weight at all to the interest in a fair trial.” ![]() “This is predictably going to intensify as well as the threats, so why isn’t the district court justified in taking a more proactive measure and not waiting for more and more threats to occur and stepping in to protect the integrity of the trial?” Garcia said. Judge Brad Garcia pressed Sauer to explain why the court shouldn’t take preventive steps before violence materializes against potential witnesses or others.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |