One day after Michael Thomas Lewis was charged with felony stalking of Indiana Fever star and WNBA rookie of the year Caitlin Clark, the 55-year-old Texas man shouted “guilty as charged” as soon as he sat down in a courtroom Tuesday.
Lewis is accused of repeated and continued harassment of the 22-year-old Clark beginning on Dec. 16, the Marion County prosecutor’s office wrote in a court filing.
WISH-TV of Indianapolis reported that Lewis behaved “very erratically” in his first court appearance and, at times, appeared to be laughing and joking while noting he had not been taking his medication while jailed or while living out of his car.
Prosecutors said they were seeking a higher than standard bond because Lewis traveled from his home in Texas to Indianapolis “with the intent to be in close proximity to the victim.” Lewis was ordered held on a $50,000 bond, and if the bond is posted, he will be required to wear an ankle monitor and remain in Indiana.
The court also filed a not guilty plea on Lewis’ behalf, and Judge Angela Davis suggested Lewis “remain silent” in jail and only speak with his attorney.
Lewis received a no-contact order and the stay-away order sought by prosecutors that bars him from being within 500 feet of either of the two arenas where the Fever play their home games.
His pretrial hearing will be held remotely on March 31.
In one post on X, Lewis said he had been repeatedly been driving by Gainbridge Fieldhouse, the Indiana Pacers’ home arena where the Fever also play. In another, he said he had “one foot on a banana peel and the other on a stalking charge.” Other messages directed at Clark were sexually explicit.
The social media posts “actually caused Caitlin Clark to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened” and an implicit or explicit threat also was made “with the intent to place Caitlin Clark in reasonable fear of sexual battery,” prosecutors wrote in the Marion County Superior Court filing.
Five Massachusetts college students made their first appearances in court Thursday, accused of plotting to lure a man to their campus through a dating app and then seizing him as part of a “Catch a Predator” trend on TikTok.
The students, all teens at Assumption University, a private, Roman Catholic school in Worcester, were arraigned on conspiracy and kidnapping charges in Worcester District Court. Automatic not guilty pleas were entered for all of them, and they are due back in court March 28 for a pre-trial conference.
The defendants in the case are Kelsy Brainard, 18; Easton Randall, 19; Kevin Carroll, 18; Isabella Trudeau, 18; and Joaquin Smith, 18. There is a sixth defendant who is a juvenile who was expected to be arraigned separately.
Police said Brainard’s Tinder account was used to correspond with the man. She faces an additional charge of witness intimidation. A male student in the group also faces a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
The target — a 22-year-old active-duty military service member — told police that he was in town for his grandmother’s funeral in October and “just wanted to be around people that were happy,” according to a campus police report. He said a student whose Tinder profile said she was 18 invited him over and led him into a basement lounge.
A few minutes later, “a group of people came out of nowhere and started calling him a pedophile,” accusing him of wanting sex with 17-year-old girls, according to the report.
The man told police that he broke free and was chased by at least 25 people to his car, where he was punched in the head and his car door was slammed on him. He fled and called city police.
Campus surveillance video shows a large group of students, including the woman, “all with their cellphones out in what seems to be a recording of the whole episode,” the police statement said. They are seen “laughing and high fiving with each other” in what appeared to be “a deliberately staged event,” and there was no evidence to indicate the man was seeking sexual relations with underage girls, the police report said.
After the assault, Brainard reported the man to police as a sexual predator and said she was frightened by him. She said he had come to campus uninvited and that she texted a male friend who chased him away. All of this was false, campus police concluded after reviewing surveillance recordings and finding that “first person perspective videos” were being circulated among students.
The teens were ordered in court to have no contact with the targeted man. A lawyer for Brainard, Christopher Todd, said, “We’re just looking forward to having the process play out.” The lawyer for Trudeau, Robert Iacovelli, said afterward his client is innocent and he filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges against her. Other attorneys were not immediately reached for comment about their pleas.
Faced with the never-before-seen dilemma of how, when or even whether to sentence a former and future U.S. president, the judge in President-elect Donald Trump ‘s hush money case made a dramatic decision that could nevertheless bring the case to a muted end.
In a ruling Friday, Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan scheduled the sentencing for 10 days before Trump’s inauguration — but the judge indicated that he’s leaning toward a sentence that would amount to just closing the case without any real punishment. He said Trump could attend the Jan. 10 proceeding remotely because of his transition duties.
Still, that would leave Trump headed back to the White House with a felony conviction.
Will it come to that? Trump wants the conviction thrown out and the case dismissed, and communications director Steven Cheung said the president-elect will “keep fighting.” But it’s tough to predict just what will unfold in this unprecedented, unpredictable case. Here are some key questions and what we know about the answers:
Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts of falsifying his business’ records. They pertained to a $130,000 payment, made through his former personal lawyer in 2016, to keep porn actor Stormy Daniels from publicizing her story of having had sex with Trump a decade earlier. He denies her claim and says he’s done nothing wrong.
Trump’s sentencing was initially set for July 11. But at his lawyers’ request, the proceeding was postponed twice, eventually landing on a date in late November, after the presidential election. Then Trump won, and Merchan put everything on hold to consider what to do.
That won’t be final until the judge pronounces it, and he noted that by law, he has to give prosecutors and Trump an opportunity to weigh in. The charges carry potential penalties ranging from a fine or probation to up to four years in prison.
But the judge wrote that “the most viable option” appears to be what’s called an unconditional discharge. It wraps up a case without imprisonment, a fine or probation. But an unconditional discharge leaves a defendant’s conviction on the books.
And by law, every person convicted of a felony in New York must provide a DNA sample for the state’s crime databank, even in cases of an unconditional discharge.
Can Trump appeal to stop the sentencing from happening?
It’s murky. Appealing a conviction or sentence is one thing, but the ins and outs of challenging other types of decisions during a case are complicated.
Former Manhattan Judge Diane Kiesel said that under New York law, Friday’s ruling can’t be appealed, but that “doesn’t mean he’s not going to try.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers have been trying to get a federal court to take control of the case. Prosecutors are due to file a response with the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals by Jan. 13, three days after Trump now is to be sentenced.
The defense also has suggested it would seek the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention if Merchan didn’t throw out the case. In a Nov. 25 letter to the judge, Trump’s attorneys contended that the U.S. Constitution permits an appeal to the high court because the defense is making arguments about presidential immunity.
Much of their argument concerns the Supreme Court’s July ruling on that topic, which afforded considerable legal protections to presidents. Trump’s attorneys might try to convince the Supreme Court that it needs to follow up by getting involved now in the hush money case.
A Trump spokesperson said no decision had been made on whether to challenge Merchan’s ruling.
Attorneys for Adnan Syed, whose complex legal case was chronicled in the hit podcast “Serial,” are seeking to have his prison sentence reduced as he awaits further court decisions. Syed was released from prison in 2022 and has remained free ever since, though his court case is ongoing. His lawyers are seeking to reduce his sentence under a Maryland law that allows people who have been imprisoned for at least 20 years for crimes committed when they were minors to seek a change in sentence.
Syed was released when a Baltimore judge overturned his conviction in response to a request from prosecutors who said they found flaws in the evidence. But in August, Maryland’s Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that reinstated Syed’s conviction while allowing him to remain free pending a new hearing about whether he should have been released.
The court said the victim’s family didn’t receive adequate notice to allow them to attend the original hearing in person.
The defense attorneys’ filing on Friday seeks to maintain Syed’s freedom until the new hearing.
“This filing is a small step toward ensuring that Adnan’s custody status is stabilized and his freedom is safeguarded,” said Erica Suter, Syed’s attorney and an assistant public defender who directs the Innocence Project Clinic at University of Baltimore Law School.
“We maintain his innocence and our mission of proving that hasn’t changed,” Suter said in a statement.
She also said Syed’s accomplishments and good conduct, both during his incarceration and since release, support reducing his sentence. Since his release, Syed has been working at Georgetown University’s Prisons and Justice Initiative. His lawyers, including Brian Zavin, who is chief attorney of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender’s Appellate Division, also noted in Friday’s filing in Baltimore City Circuit Court that Syed has been caring for his elderly parents since his release and that his father recently died.
The filing also said Syed has cared for his spouse’s aging parents.
The Maryland Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling in August came about 11 months after it heard arguments in a case that has been fraught with legal twists and divided court rulings since Syed was convicted in 2000 of killing his high school ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee.
She was found strangled to death and buried in an unmarked grave in 1999. Syed was 17 at the time and was sentenced to life in prison, plus 30 years.
David Sanford, an attorney who represents Lee’s family, said in a statement Monday that “if there is new and compelling evidence to support vacating the conviction of Adnan Syed, we will be the first to call for Mr. Syed’s freedom.”
However, he said the state has not “presented a shred of new, let alone compelling, evidence which would warrant overturning a murder conviction that has withstood appeals for over two decades.”
“The State of Maryland engaged in a charade in 2022: it recycled old evidence and, in the process, bamboozled the trial court and the public into believing that Mr. Syed was likely innocent,” Sanford said, adding that attorneys will confer with the family and present their position in court in the days ahead.
Syed, who is now 43, has maintained his innocence.
Baltimore State’s Attorney Ivan Bates is weighing how to proceed given the Maryland Supreme Court’s decision.
Syed’s case was chronicled in the “Serial” podcast, which debuted in 2014 and drew millions of listeners who became armchair detectives. The show, hosted by veteran radio producer Sarah Koenig, transformed the true-crime genre as it shattered podcast-streaming and downloading records, revealing little-known evidence and raising new questions about the case.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear arguments next month over the constitutionality of the federal law that could ban TikTok in the United States if its Chinese parent company doesn’t sell it.
The justices will hear arguments Jan. 10 about whether the law impermissibly restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment.
The law, enacted in April, set a Jan. 19 deadline for TikTok to be sold or else face a ban in the United States. The popular social media platform has more than 170 million users in the U.S.
It’s unclear how quickly a decision might come. But the high court still could act after the arguments to keep the law from taking effect pending a final ruling, if at least five of the nine justices think it’s unconstitutional.
Lawyers for the company and China-based ByteDance had urged the justices to step in before Jan. 19. The high court also will hear arguments from content creators who rely on the platform for income and some TikTok users.
The timing of the arguments means that the outgoing Biden administration’s Justice Department will make the case in defense of the law that passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed by Democratic President Joe Biden in April.
The incoming Republican administration might not have the same view of the law.
President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported a ban but then pledged during the campaign to “save TikTok,” has said his administration would take a look at the situation. Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida on Monday.
The companies have said that a shutdown lasting just a month would cause TikTok to lose about one-third of its daily users in the U.S. and significant advertising revenue.
The case pits free speech rights against the government’s stated aims of protecting national security, while raising novel issues about social media platforms.
“We believe the Court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their free speech rights,” TikTok spokesman Michael Hughes said in a statement.
Free-speech advocates also praised the court’s decision to step in.
The government should not be able to restrict speech “without proving with evidence that the tools are presently seriously harmful. But in this case, Congress has required and the DC Circuit approved TikTok’s forced divestiture based only upon fears of future potential harm. This greatly lowers well-established standards for restricting freedom of speech in the U.S.,” David Greene, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement.
A panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the law on Dec. 6, then denied an emergency plea to delay the law’s implementation.
Without court action, the law would take effect Jan. 19 and expose app stores that offer TikTok and internet hosting services that support it to potential fines.
A federal appeals court scrutinized the impact of Idaho’s strict abortion ban on emergency medical care on Tuesday, weighing whether the ban criminalizing abortions should be enforceable in life- and health-threatening situations.
John Bursch, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom representing Idaho, asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel of 11 judges to urgently lift the injunction preventing the state from enforcing its abortion ban in emergency room settings, saying it “harms Idaho sovereignty, harms women, (and) harms unborn children.”
“It’s here before you now, you should decide it,” he said.
Idaho’s law makes it a felony to perform an abortion unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the death of the patient.
President Joe Biden’s administration sued Idaho two years ago, contending the law violates a federal rule called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, because it prevents doctors from performing abortions that save their patients from serious infections, organ loss or other major medical issues.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case earlier this year but bounced it back to the lower court on a procedural issue, leaving unanswered questions about the legality of the state abortion ban. That will be determined at a later date, but the 9th Circuit’s ruling could decide whether the law can be enforced while the lawsuit is still working its way through court.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the judges raised a number of hypothetical situations as they tried to determine whether the ban can coexist with EMTALA.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke raised the hypothetical of a doctor presented with an organ that would save a patient’s life but which was unethically harvested under state law. If a state has outlawed the use of questionably harvested donor organs, he asked, can the federal government require that treatment?
“Do you think a state’s ethical concerns … have any role to play?” asked VanDyke.
Catherine Carroll, an attorney for the U.S. government, said it was difficult to grapple with the hypothetical since organ transplants do not occur in emergency rooms, but said state ethical concerns about medical treatments could come into play only if the treatments did not violate EMTALA.
Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. said that he lives in eastern Washington, not far from the Idaho border. The only obstetrics department in the nearby city of Sandpoint, Idaho, shut down after the abortion ban was passed, he noted, leaving no available medical services for women who are “bleeding out” from pregnancy complications, he said.
“That’s the very thing that Congress was trying to avoid” by establishing EMTALA, Mendoza said. “They were trying to set a baseline of medical care for the country.”
But Taylor Meehan, an attorney for the Idaho Legislature, said EMTALA is “not the statute to solve that particular circumstance.” She said an Idaho Supreme Court ruling in another lawsuit over the state’s abortion law made clear that abortion is allowed when patients are experiencing catastrophic bleeding.
Harvey Weinstein was hospitalized Monday following an “alarming blood test,” his attorney said, less than a week after the disgraced movie mogul filed a legal claim alleging substandard medical care at New York City’s notorious jail complex.
Weinstein, 72, was sent to Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan for an “emergent treatment due to an alarming blood test result that requires immediate medical attention,” his attorney, Imran Ansari, said in a statement.
“It is expected that he will remain there until his condition stabilizes,” the statement continues. “His deprivation of care is not only medical malpractice, but a violation of his constitutional rights.”
A spokesperson for New York City’s Department of Correction did not immediately respond to an email. The agency’s inmate database confirmed that Weinstein had been transferred from Rikers Island to the Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward in Manhattan.
Weinstein has been in city custody since earlier this year after the New York Court of Appeals overturned his 2020 rape conviction in the state. The case is set to be retried in 2025. Weinstein has denied any wrongdoing.
In a legal filing last week, Weinstein’s attorneys accused the city of providing him with substandard medical care for a litany of medical afflictions, which include chronic myeloid leukemia and diabetes.
“When I last visited him, I found him with blood spatter on his prison garb, possibly from IV’s, clothes that had not been washed for weeks, and he had not even been provided clean underwear — hardly sanitary conditions for someone with severe medical conditions,” Ansari said in a statement that likened Rikers Island to a “gulag.”
The troubled jail complex, located on an island in New York City’s East River, has faced growing scrutiny for its mistreatment of detainees and dangerous conditions. Last week, a federal judge cleared the way for a possible federal takeover of the jail system, finding the city had placed its incarcerated population in “unconstitutional danger.”
A publicist for Weinstein, Juda Engelmayer, echoed the allegation in a statement Monday.
“Mr. Weinstein, who is suffering from a number of illnesses, including leukemia, has been deprived the medical attention that someone in his medical state deserves, prisoner or not,” he said. “In many ways, this mistreatment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.”
Court Watch - POSTED: 2025/01/19 18:49
