US Supreme Court To Hear Trump’s Claims Of Immunity from Criminal Prosecution; Republican US Supreme Court Trump Disciples Hand Trump “Gift Of Delay”

Posted on March 7, 2024 by

On August 1, 2023 former President Donald Trump was charged by federal Special Counsel Jack Smith with the following 4 crimes:

Conspiracy to Defraud the U.S.
Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
Conspiracy Against Rights

All 4 federal charges relate to Trumps efforts to obstruct or stop the January 6, 2021 congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory. The indictment describes how Trump repeatedly told supporters and others that he had won the election, despite knowing that it was false, and how he tried to persuade state officials, then-Vice President Mike Pence and finally Congress to overturn the legitimate results.

After a weekslong campaign of lies about the election results, prosecutors allege that Trump sought to exploit the violent rampage at the Capitol by pointing to it as a reason to further delay the counting of votes that sealed his defeat. In their charging documents, prosecutors referenced a half-dozen unindicted co-conspirators, including lawyers inside and outside of government who they said had worked with Trump to undo the election results and advanced legally dubious schemes to enlist slates of fake electors in battleground states won by Biden.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to the 4 charges and has defended against them by saying he has Presidential Immunity for his action of January 6, 2021 and his efforts to stop the certification of election results were within his powers and authority as president. The Trump campaign has called the charges “fake” and asked why it took 2 1/2 years to bring them.

CHRONOLOGY OF APPEAL

On December 12, 2023 Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the US Supreme Court to immediately step in to decide whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for his actions seeking to overturn the 2020 election. Smith wrote in his petition to the US Supreme Court:

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office. … [it is] of imperative public importance … that the high court decide the question … [so that the trial, currently scheduled for March, can move forward as quickly as possible.]”

Earlier, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the election interference case, denied Trump’s motion to dismiss his indictment on presidential immunity and constitutional grounds, prompting Trump to appeal and ask for the case to be put on hold. In order to prevent a delay, Smith sought to circumvent the appeals process by asking the Supreme Court to take up the case and decide the issue on an expedited basis.

On December 22, the Supreme Court denied special counsel Jack Smith’s bid to fast-track a dispute about whether former President Donald Trump should enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for misconduct during his time in the White House. The court did not offer a reason for its decision. The action reverted to the federal appeals court in Washington on the question of immunity.

On February 6, 2023, the federal appeals court ruled that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency, flatly rejecting Trump’s arguments that he shouldn’t have to go on trial on federal election subversion charges. The judges made it clear that Trump’s actions could be prosecuted in a court of law.

The judges cited the public interest in accountability for potential crimes committed by a former president, and how that overcame Trump’s argument that immunity was necessary to protect the institution of the presidency. They flatly rejected Trump’s claim that his criminal indictment would have a “chilling effect” on future administrations.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221334637/supreme-court-trump-immunity

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/special-counsel-trump-jack-smith/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-court-ruling-immunity-election-subversion-prosecution/index.html#:~:text=A%20federal%20appeals%20court%20on,on%20federal%20election%20subversion%20charges.

US SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR IMMUNITY CLAIM

Trump appealed the to the United States Supreme Court the Court of Appeals decision that he is not immune from prosecution and seeking a “stay of the criminal case” by the Supreme Court until they render a decision. A key part of Trump’s legal strategy has been to delay his criminal cases until after the 2024 election. In response to the Trump appeal and the request to place a hold on the proceedings, Special Council Jack Smith filed a request to treat the Trump stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari and to treat the case in an expedited manner.

On Wednesday, February 28, the US Supreme Court granted CERTIORARI and agreed to hear the case and issued an expedited scheduling order for briefing. Following is the order:

“The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question:

Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.

The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before

Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 8, 2024.

The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2024.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022824zr3_febh.pdf

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

Much discussion has occurred by legal analysts on the timing of the Supreme Court’s intervention and whether its involvement means that a trial might not be able to take place before the election. It took the Supreme Court almost two weeks to decide how to act on Trump’s request that it hear his appeal.

A GIFT OF DELAY

It’s a time frame that prompted criticism that the court was playing into Trump’s desire to drag out the process until after the election. Trump’s legal tactics in all his criminal cases has been to try and delay, delay and delay all the trials until after the November election. That would mean in the Federal cases if he were to go to trial and convicted after being elected president, he could simply pardon himself.

Simply put, the Supreme Court has given Trump the “gift of delay” when they agreed to hear Trump’s claim of immunity. The net effect is that the court suspended the proceedings in Judge Tanya Chutkan’s U.S. District Court for at least two to five months, leaving serious doubt as to whether the case can be tried before the election.

If the polls are to be believed, a criminal conviction will persuade a significant number of voters to abandon Trump. The Supreme Court could have let stand the D.C. Circuit’s thorough, bipartisan opinion stand. Instead, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case delaying the proceedings almost a full 2 months and who knows how long it will take the court to issue an opinion.

There’s plenty of room for debate as to why the court acted as it did by first refusing to expedite the case when Smith originally pushed to have it heard before the Court of Appeals ruled and now after the appellate court ruled. But there’s no doubt about the impact. Should the country awaken on November 6 to a second Trump presidency, history will reflect that the Supreme Court played a critical role with its rulings.

ONE PRECISE LEGAL QUESTION

It is extremely critical to note that the United States Supreme Court in its one-page order agreeing to hear the case said it will hear oral arguments the week of April 22 and consider and decide only one precise legal question:

“Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

What is also critical to note is the Supreme Court narrowed the case even further by refusing to consider Trump’s secondary argument that presidents cannot be prosecuted if they were previously subject to impeachment but then acquitted by the Senate as what happened the second time Trump was impeached.

The language of the Supreme Court order does not reflect how either Special Counsel Jack Smith or Trump’s defense attorneys have framed the case.

Trump’s Defense lawyers ask the justices in court appellate briefs to decide “whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a president’s official acts,” notably making no distinction between whether that person is a current or a former president. Former President Donald Trump argues his efforts in 2020 to overturn the election results were a core part of his presidential duties and protected free speech meaning he should have absolute immunity from any criminal prosecution.

The lower courts in the case have rejected Trump’s immunity claim. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will preside over the eventual trial, ruled categorically that former presidents can be prosecuted for “any criminal acts undertaken while in office.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled along similar lines, although it assumed for the basis of the decision that Trump’s conduct constituted official acts.

Special Counsel Smith meanwhile argues that the court should decide “whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office.” It makes no reference to whether the alleged conduct involves official acts. Special Counsel Jack Smith argued that there is no precedent for such a broad claim of immunity for actions taken while in office.

Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at George Washington University Law School, had this to say about the court’s order and narrowing it down to one issue:

“My best guess is that they don’t want to leave the impression that there’s never any presidential immunity under any circumstances and they want to write something more nuanced.”

Norm Eisen, who worked for House Democrats during the first unsuccessful effort to impeach Trump, described the court’s language as “extremely carefully crafted” in part to narrow the issue. Eisen said it signals the court will reject Trump’s “crazy absolute immunity idea.”

The Supreme Court’s framing makes it clear that it is considering only immunity for a former president and conduct that may be an official act. Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School who served in the administration of President George W. Bush said the Supreme Court’s framing of the issue suggest the court might conclude that presidents cannot be prosecuted for acts central to their role, such as ordering military actions, issuing pardons or firing officials. Goldsmith said such a ruling would be a rejection of Trump’s broad immunity claims while protecting some core presidential functions that would “not unduly chill a president in office from exercising key powers”.

In weighing the official acts issue, the Supreme Court may also take into account a separate case involving civil claims against Trump for his role on January 6, 2021. In that case, a different panel of judges on the same appeals court in Washington rejected his immunity claim, ruling that he was not engaged in official acts because he was acting in his capacity as a candidate for office. Trump opted against appealing that case to the Supreme Court.

UNCHARTERED TERRITORY

The Supreme Court has now entered into uncharted territory. It was never required to weigh in when former President Richard Nixon potentially faced prosecution after the Watergate scandal because President Gerald Ford issued a pardon.

Trump puts much weight on a 1982 ruling in a case called Nixon v. Fitzgerald, also involving Nixon, which addressed presidential immunity in a civil case. Then, the court ruled that presidents have immunity when the conduct in question was within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties.

Special Counsel Smith counters saying that was not a criminal case, meaning its application may be limited.

The link to relied upon and quoted news source material is here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-narrows-lens-takes-trumps-immunity-claim-rcna141155

LEGITMACY OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT QUESTIONED

No President is above the law, and when they break it, they should be prosecuted. There should be no Trump exception. It’s downright disgusting that the United State Supreme Court has even agreed to hear Trump’s Immunity claim in his federal criminal prosecution. It was a no brainer for the Judge Tanya Chutkan as well as the Court of Appeals. Not so much for a court packed with 4 Trump disciples.

Conservative Republican Associate Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were all appointed to the United States Supreme Court by former President Donald Trump and for that reason they have a conflict of interest, they cannot be fair and impartial and should disqualify themselves from hearing and ruling on the case. Republican Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas as well should disqualify himself from deciding the case given that his wife Ginni Thomas supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended a rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

Conservative Republican Associate Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are clearly indebted to Trump for their lifetime appointments. They will likely do whatever they can to find that Trump did nothing wrong on January 6 nor with any of his efforts to overturn the election results in other states as they agree with Trump’s assertion of immunity. All 3 will likely bend over backwards to find that former President Trump had presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct on January 6 proclaiming it was protected free speech. Watch as the 3 justices do whatever they can to delay any ruling until after the election.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have joined Conservative Republican Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to marginalize Progressive Democratic Progressive Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The 6 appointed Republican Justices have already made a profound difference with their judicial activism over the last 2 years. At the end of June, 2023, the United State Supreme Court issued 4 major decisions that were highly anticipated and with great concern confirming it has become a far right wing activist court. The first was the court’s rejecting an attempt to empower legislatures with exclusive authority to redraw congressional districts without court intervention. The second struct down decades of affirmative action in college admissions. The third ruled that a Christian business owners can discriminate and withhold services to the LGBTQ+ community based on religious grounds. The fourth invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan. Then there is the matter of the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade and 50 years of precedent and denying a woman’s right to choose an abortion and leaving it up to the state’s.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The 2024 presidential election is again shaping up to be one of the most consequential elections in our history where Supreme Court decisions will be on the ballot as well as the control of congress, not to mention our basic right to vote in an election.

A story has been told and retold about founding father Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin supposedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

What we have now is a Republican “politcal judicial monarchy” consisting of 6 conservative Republican Justices all dressed up in their black ropes with gavels replacing scepters and a courtroom replacing a royal thrown room as they render their decrees of justice to carry out the will of Der Führer Trump and his Trump Republican Party.

The link to a related blog article is here:

Trump Sweeps March 5 Super Tuesday Republican Primaries; Supreme Court Rules State’s Can Not Disqualify Trump From Ballot; Update On Trump’s Criminal Charges And Civil Cases; Criminal Convictions Will Likely Not Make Any Difference As Trump Becomes Presumptive Republican Nominee

Trump Sweeps March 5 Super Tuesday Republican Primaries; Supreme Court Rules State’s Can Not Disqualify Trump From Ballot; Update On Trump’s Criminal Charges And Civil Cases; Criminal Convictions Will Likely Not Make Any Difference As Trump Becomes Presumptive Republican Nominee

Posted on March 6, 2024 by

On March 5, referred to in national politics as Super Tuesday, fifteen states and American Samoa held their Republican and Democratic Presidential Primaries. Both Biden and Trump crossed the halfway point in the race to become their parties’ nominees. Biden has 994 delegates, with 1,968 needed for the Democratic nomination. Trump has 715 delegates, with 1,215 needed for the Republican nomination.

President Joe Biden secured solid wins in Texas, Virginia and North Carolina. He was also projected to be the winner of Minnesota, the home state of his main primary challenger, Rep. Dean Phillips.

Former President Donald Trump swept the Republican primaries in the red states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, the blue states of California, Massachusetts, Colorado and in the historic and potentially emerging or reemerging battleground states of Virginia, North Carolina and Minnesota. Trump had already won the Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, the US Virgin Island, South Carolina and Michigan caucuses and primaries with all Republican opponents dropping out except for former Ambassador Niki Haley. Trump has essentially secured the support he needs to become the Republican presumptive nominee.

On March 6, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley dropped out of the race. She came nowhere near the Republican nomination. She could not prevent Super Tuesday from becoming a blowout and in the end, she won only Washington, D.C. and Vermont.

SUPREME COURT RULES TRUMP STAYS ON STATE BALLOTS

On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Donald Trump in a historic Colorado case challenging his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado that would kick Trump off the ballot under the provision after a state trial court found he participated in “insurrection” on Jan. 6 through incitement.

The unsigned Supreme Court opinion reads in part as follows”

“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. …The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”

In holding that only Congress has the power to enforce the provisions under Section 5 of the amendment, the Supreme Court said its decision would apply to federal offices nationwide. The decision reads in part as follows:

“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. … We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

The justices further said the idea that individual states can decide how the section is used with respect to federal offices is “simply implausible” and could result in an unworkable “patchwork” where a candidate could be ineligible in one state but not another.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-supreme-court-rules-trump-historic-14th-amendment/story?id=107158454

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS LOOM LARGE OVER TRUMP

Donald J. Trump is the first American President to be impeached twice and the first former president in American history to be charged with both state and federal crimes in four separate criminal indictments in 4 separate states. This blog article is an in depth overview of the key players and allegations in each of his four criminal cases and the one civil lawsuit alleging fraud and reporting on the status of where the cases now stand.

FEDERAL INDICTMENT IN 2020 ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

Of all the cases, this is the one that is considered the most serious. Trump is accused of participating in a scheme to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election to now-President Joe Biden. The indictment accuses Trump and six unindicted, unnamed co-conspirators of knowingly spreading lies that there was widespread “fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” ultimately leading to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. Trump denies all wrongdoing.

Where: U.S. district court, Washington, D.C.

Judge: U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan

Lead prosecutor: Special counsel Jack Smith

Lead defense attorneys: John Lauro, Todd Blanche

Co-defendants: None

Unindicted co-conspirators: Not named in the indictment, but most have been identified.

Indicted: Aug. 1, 2023

Indictment Text: Read here

Charges: 4 counts total:

Conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
Conspiracy against rights

Arraigned: Aug. 3, 2023

Plea: Not guilty

Scheduled trial: The March 4, 2024 trial date has been vacated and a new trial date has yet to be announced by the federal court pending all the appeals.

STATUS Of CASE: Smith’s second case against Trump was unveiled in August 2023 when the former president was indicted on felony charges for working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the violent riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The four-count indictment includes charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory. It describes how Trump repeatedly told supporters and others that he had won the election, despite knowing that was false, and how he tried to persuade state officials, and then-Vice President Mike Pence and finally Congress to overturn the legitimate election results.

After a weekslong campaign of lies about the election results, prosecutors allege that Trump sought to exploit the violence at the Capitol by pointing to it as a reason to further delay the counting of votes that sealed his defeat.

In their charging documents, prosecutors referenced a half-dozen unindicted co-conspirators, including lawyers inside and outside of government who they said had worked with Trump to undo the election results and advanced legally dubious schemes to enlist slates of fake electors in battleground states won by Biden.

The Trump campaign has called the charges “fake” and asked why it took 2 1/2 years to bring them. He has pleaded not guilty.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-investigations-election-fraud-documents-1d8d88542e6257ad957cf2fc03e190ae

SUPREME COURT DENIES SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO FAST TRACK RULING ON IMMUNITY

On December 12, 2023 Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the US Supreme Court to immediately step in and decide if former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for his actions seeking to overturn the 2020 election. Smith wrote in his petition to the US Supreme Court:

The action reverted to the federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C, on the question of immunity.

COURT OF APPEALS RULES ON IMMUNITY

On February 6, the federal appeals court ruled that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency, flatly rejecting Trump’s arguments that he shouldn’t have to go on trial on federal election subversion charges. The judges made it clear that Trump’s actions could be prosecuted in a court of law.

A key part of Trump’s legal strategy has been to delay his criminal cases until after the 2024 election. Now, the trial’s timing will be in the hands of the Supreme Court. If Trump is successful with getting the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, the criminal trial would not resume until after the high court decides what to do with his request for a pause.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221334637/supreme-court-trump-immunity

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/special-counsel-trump-jack-smith/index.html

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR IMMUNITY CLAIM

Trump appealed the to the United States Supreme Court the Court of Appeals decision that he is not immune from prosecution and sought a “stay of the criminal case” by the Supreme Court until they render a decision. In response to the Trump appeal and the request to place a hold on the proceedings, Special Council Jack Smith filed a request to treat the Trump stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari and to treat the case in an expedited manner.

On February 28 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, issued an order expediting hearing the case, order briefings and scheduled oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. The Supreme Court limited the case to one single question:

“Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022824zr3_febh.pdf

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-agrees-hear-trumps-case-presidential-immunity/story?id=107373438

FEDERAL INDICTMENT ON CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CHARGES IN FLORIDA

Trump is accused of keeping classified documents after leaving the White House and storing them “in various locations at The Mar-a-Lago Club including in a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room” according to the indictment. He is also accused of a “scheme to conceal” that he had kept those documents. Trump denies all wrongdoing.

Where: U.S. district court, Fort Pierce, Florida

Judge: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon

Lead prosecutor: Special counsel Jack Smith

Lead defense attorneys: Todd Blanche, Christopher Kise

Co-defendants: Walt Nauta, an aide to Trump, and Carlos De Oliveira, a property manager at Mar-a-Lago

Indicted: June 8, 2023; superseding indictment returned July 27, 2023

Indictment Text: Read here

Charges: 40 counts in all, including:

32 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information;
One count of conspiracy to obstruct justice;
One count of withholding a document or record;
One count of corruptly concealing a document or record
One count of concealing a document in a federal investigation
One count of scheme to conceal
One count of false statements and representations
One count of altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing an object
One count of corruptly altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing a document, record or other object

Arraigned: June 13, 2023; Aug. 10, 2023

Plea: Not guilty

Scheduled trial: May, 2024

Case Status: Special counsel Jack Smith has been leading two federal probes related to Trump, both of which have resulted in charges against the former president. The first charges to result from those investigations came in June when Trump was indicted on charges he mishandled top secret documents at his Florida estate. The indictment alleged that Trump repeatedly enlisted aides and lawyers to help him hide records demanded by investigators and cavalierly showed off a Pentagon “plan of attack” and classified map. Top of Form

NEW YORK STATE INDICTMENT ON BUSINESS FRAUD CHARGES

This case is considered the weakest of the criminal cases and it will be the first to go to trial. Trump is accused of violating New York State law by allegedly agreeing to obscure a series of reimbursements to his former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who is the key witness against Trump in the case. Cohen made a $130,000 alleged “hush money” payment to adult film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, days before the 2016 election, in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump. Trump denies the allegations and says there was no affair.

Prosecutors accuse Trump of illegally portraying the reimbursements to Cohen as legal expenses.

Where: Supreme Court of the State of New York

Judge: Judge Juan Merchan

Lead prosecutor: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg

Defense attorneys: Todd Blanche, Susan Necheles, Joe Tacopina

Co-defendants: None

Indicted: March 30, 2023

Indictment Text: Read here

Charges: 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree

Arraigned: April 4, 2023

Plea: Not guilty

Scheduled trial: March 25, 2024

FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA STATE INDICTMENT IN 2020 ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

Trump and 18 others are accused under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations or RICO law of coordinating an effort to thwart proper certification of the state’s 2020 presidential election, which Biden won. The investigation was launched after an infamous recorded phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021, in which Trump pressed him “to find 11,780 votes.” Trump denies the allegations.

Where: Superior Court of Fulton County

Judge: Judge Scott McAfee

Lead prosecutor: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis

Lead defense attorneys: Steven Sadow, Jennifer Little

Co-defendants: Rudy Giuliani; John Eastman; Mark Meadows; Kenneth Chesebro; Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis; Ray Smith; Robert Cheeley; Michael Roman; David Shafer; Shawn Still; Stephen Lee; Willie Floyd; Trevian Kutti; Sidney Powell; Cathleen Latham; Scott Hall; Misty Hampton

Unindicted co-conspirators: 30 unnamed

Indicted: Aug. 14, 2023

Indictment Text: Read here

Charges: 13 counts total:

3 counts of solicitation of violation of oath by public officer
2 counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree
2 counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings
2 counts of false statements and writings
Violation of Georgia RICO Act
Conspiracy to Commit Impersonating a public officer
Conspiracy to commit filing false documents
Filing false documents

Booked: Aug. 24, 2023

Plea: Originally, Trump and all 18 co-defendants pleaded not guilty.

TRIAL DATE: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is requesting a start date of Aug. 5, 2024.

Status of Case:

Trump is charged alongside 18 other people including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows with violating the state’s anti-racketeering law by scheming to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss.

The indictment, handed up in August, accuses Trump or his allies of suggesting Georgia’s Republican secretary of state could find enough votes for him to win the battleground state; harassing an election worker who faced false claims of fraud; and attempting to persuade Georgia lawmakers to ignore the will of voters and appoint a new slate of Electoral College electors favorable to Trump.

GUILTY PLEAS On September 29, defendant bail bondsman Scott Graham Hall, pleaded guilty in a plea deal with prosecutors and agreed to testify in further proceedings.

https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-clark-georgia-federal-court-64183e3dc09d1f2e03fc4b4dab1c2bdb

In October, 2023 co-defendants Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Jenna Ellis pled guilty to conspiracy charges just prior to jury selection. Powell was sentenced on Oct. 19 to six years of probation for conspiring to interfere with the performance of election duties while orchestrating a Coffee County elections system breach following the 2020 presidential election. A day later, Chesebro’s plea deal was approved just of hours after several hundred prospective jurors completed a questionnaire for his trial. Chesebro admitted planning the alternate GOP elector scheme in order to prevent Biden from taking office in January 2021.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis became embroiled in controversy when she was accused of having a romantic relationship with a top prosecutor she appointed in the case. Trump attorneys sought to disqualify Willis from the case. After several days of extraordinary testimony, Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee heard arguments over whether Willis’ relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade amounts to a conflict of interest that should force them off the case.

Attorneys for Trump and some of his co-defendants accused Willis and Wade of lying on the witness stand about when their relationship began, and told McAfee that keeping the district attorney on the case threatens to undermine the public’s confidence in the hugely consequential prosecution.

The court is expected to rule on disqualification within a few weeks, but no matter the decision the prosecution of Trump will proceed.

The link to a quoted news source is here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictments-details-guide-charges-trial-dates-people-case/

https://apnews.com/article/fani-willis-trump-legal-arguments-georgia-0ede9d18ae072efd6d71f38ea4705beb

NEW YORK STATE VS. TRUMP ORGANIZATION

The civil lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat sought $370 million from Trump and the other defendants including his two sons. The figure was originally $250 million. James alleged that Trump filed fraudulent financial statements that allowed him to obtain loans and insurance at more favorable rates. The trial lasted over 11 weeks.

On February 17, Judge Arthur Engoron hit Donald Trump with the biggest punishment against him to date. Judge Enogron fined the former president $355 million for fraudulently inflating the values of his properties. Engoron found Trump liable for fraud, conspiracy and issuing false financial statements and false business records, and he barred him from serving as director of a company in New York for three years. But while he stopped short of dissolving the Trump Organization altogether, Engoron issued a blistering 93-page opinion that painted the former president as unremorseful and highly likely to commit fraud again.

Here are key takeaways from the decision:

The biggest fines yet against Trump: Engoron found that the defendants’ fraud saved them about $168 million in interest, fining Trump and his companies that amount. He also ruled that Trump and his companies were liable for $126 million in ill-gotten profits from the sale of the Old Post Office in Washington, DC, and that Trump and his companies were liable for $60 million in profits from the sale of Ferry Point in the Bronx. Engoron also wrote that Trump would be required to pay for interest.
The judge gets the last word: Trump repeatedly attacked Engoron and the case throughout the 11-week trial on social media, outside the courtroom – and even to the judge’s face while he testified. Engoron got the last word, painting Trump as a “pathological” fraudster who would not stop unless forced. The judge acknowledged that the sins Trump committed, which his lawyers frequently argued had no victim because banks were repaid and often eager to do business with Trump’s company, were not as serious as some crimes. But he faulted Trump and his co-defendants for a complete lack of contrition.
No corporate death penalty: The judge banned Trump from serving as an officer or director of a New York corporation for three years, but did not issue the so-called corporate death penalty. Engoron pulled back from a decision he issued a summary judgment in September dissolving Trump’s business certificates in finding that Trump and his co-defendants were liable for persistent and repeated fraud. The independent monitor installed last fall will stay in place for at least three years and an independent director of compliance should be put in place at the Trump Org. at the company’s expense, the ruling said.
Judge says Cohen told the truth: Engoron recapped Michael Cohen’s theatrical trial testimony, acknowledging the credibility issues with Trump’s former lawyer and fixer. But ultimately, Engoron said, he believed Cohen.
Trump’s adult sons banned for 2 years: Trump’s eldest sons, who have run the Trump Organization since 2017, are barred from serving as executives in New York for two years. The Trumps will have to navigate the two-year penalty as they sort out the future of the family-run real estate company.

On Febraury 25 Trump appealed the New York judge’s order requiring the former president to pay $355 million plus interest in the civil-fraud case that has put the future of his real-estate business at risk. Not withstanding the appeal, Trump must post the full $355 million as bond for the appeal which will likely force Trump to sell off signature properties.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-civil-fraud-trial-decision-02-16-24/index.html

$83 Million Civil Verdict Against Trump For Defamation

A longtime advice columnist, E. Jean Carroll wrote a story in New York magazine in 2019 accusing Trump of sexually assaulting her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump, who was president at the time, immediately denied the allegations, calling Carroll a “whack job” and claiming he had never met her. He would go on to repeat similar denials in public appearances, social media posts and even in court, a pattern cited by Carroll’s attorneys during the trial.

Carroll filed 2 defamation lawsuits over comments Trump made in 2019 and 2022, arguing his disparagements ruined her reputation and subjected her to endless streams of threats. In the trial to resolve Carroll’s first suit in May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse and awarded Carroll $5 million.

Before the second trial got underway, the judge ruled that Carroll was telling the truth about the assault, and that Trump’s statements denying her claims were defamatory. The jury was tasked only with deciding what damages Carroll was entitled to receive.

The jurors’ $83 million decision came just days after Trump won the New Hampshire primary, solidifying his status as the front-runner to become the Republican presidential nominee.

On January 26, a jury awarded a judgment in the amount of $83.3 million against Former President Donald Trump in damages for defamatory statements he made denying he sexually assaulted the writer E. Jean Carroll, handing down a stunning verdict after less than three hours of deliberation.

The jury awarded Carroll $18.3 million in compensatory damages, and $65 million in punitive damages. The compensatory amount included $11 million for repairing her reputation, and $7.3 million for emotional harm.

Carroll’s attorneys asked the jury to award $24 million in compensatory damages. The punitive amount, lawyer Roberta Kaplan said, should be enough to “make him stop” defaming her client.

After the verdict was read aloud in federal court in lower Manhattan, Carroll emerged from the courthouse smiling and flanked by her legal team. She declined to speak to a crush of cameras and reporters assembled outside, but issued a statement later, saying, “This is a great victory for every woman who stands up when she’s been knocked down, and a huge defeat for every bully who has tried to keep a woman down.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-e-jean-carroll-trial-closing-arguments-courtroom/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

After the Super Tuesday primaries, there is very little doubt that the 2024 Presidential election is a rematch of the 2020 Presidential election between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. The big difference is what effect will all the criminal trials have on the election.

The four criminal indictments will proceed through the Republican primary season, an overlap of legal and political calendars with no precedent in American politics. Even if he were to be convicted in the federal criminal cases, which are the strongest cases, top Republican party leaders and many Republican voters have indicated they will stand by Trump. Trump and his allies have always pushed to dismiss and delay the trials and have worked with state parties to craft rules favorable to him.

The Republican National Convention rules do not include any provisions specific to the unprecedented scenario unfolding. Bound delegates must vote for a particular presidential candidate at the convention based on the results of the primary or caucus in their state. As in past years, every state party must bind its delegates to vote for their assigned candidates during at least the first round of voting at the national convention, with limited exceptions for a small number of delegates. A candidate wins the nomination if they clinch a majority, which is 1,215 delegates.

https://www.abqjournal.com/ap/what-if-donald-trump-is-convicted-the-2024-republican-convention-rules-dont-address-the-issue/article_df3e52da-f70e-5e71-b231-bf749eceddfb.html

Trump is already acting like his nomination is a done deal by virtue of all of his wins in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and on Super Tuesday as he tried to force Niki Haley out of the race. Trump is already acting like he will be elected and beat President Joe Biden come the general election and no doubt embolden by the recent polls showing that he is leading President Biden by 4% to 5% in national polls.

CONFIRMED HISTORY OF RETALIATION

Trump has a confirmed history of retaliation. Trump’s former chief of staff John F. Kelly in a sworn statement said his Trump had discussed having the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies harass two of the FBI officials who had investigated ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia. Separately, Kelly told the New York Times that Trump wanted to have other perceived enemies audited or investigated as well, including former CIA director John Brennan, Hillary Clinton, and Amazon founder and Post owner Jeff Bezos. Kelly said he did not cooperate. The Post recently reported Trump has told advisers of plans to have the Justice Department investigate Kelly himself.

On November 13, opinion columnist Catherine Rampell with the Washington Post offered insight as to what voters can expect in a Trump second term and it’s not pretty. It will be 4 years of retaliation and misuse of government agencies and the courts full of Trump appointees will to do his bidding without question.

Blaming judges and the “deep state” for thwarting him, Trump boasts of the hundreds of federal judges who he nominated and who were confirmed. Trump has also begun amassing a government-in-waiting that will execute his ambitions more effectively next time. The link to the column is here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/13/trump-threaten-punish-enemies-president/

With all of Trump’s legal problems and the 4 criminal cases looming large, the most baffling question is whether any conviction will make any difference, especially to Republicans? Trump himself has said that even if convicted, he intends to press on with his campaign. If in fact convicted of any of the charges and elected, the country will be dealing with the first sitting President of the United States who be sitting behind bars in either a state or federal prison.

https://www.abqjournal.com/ap/what-if-donald-trump-is-convicted-the-2024-republican-convention-rules-dont-address-the-issue/article_df3e52da-f70e-5e71-b231-bf749eceddfb.html

Gov. MLG Signs 4 Public Safety Measures; Special Session Still Under Consideration; Convene Special Session To Enact “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing Act” And Expand Existing Mental Health Court Statewide

Posted on March 5, 2024 by

On Monday afternoon March 4, before a large audience at West Mesa High School and with great fanfare, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law four major pieces of public safety legislation enacted by the 2024 New Mexico legislature. The Governor signed into law bills she personally advocated and made a part of her agenda during the 30 legislative session that ended February 15. like a seven-day waiting period on firearm purchases and a pretrial detention bill.

Lujan Grisham signed two gun control bills and two bills focused on the judicial system. The bills the Governor signed into law are:

House Bill 129: Firearm Sale Waiting Period Crimes

This law establishes a statewide 7-day waiting period for the purchase of firearms, double the current waiting period required by the federal government. The law includes exemptions for concealed carry permit holders, Federal Firearms Licensees, and transactions between law enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies, and immediate family members. Proponents say the law closes a loophole allowing guns to be sold before a buyer’s federal background check has been returned. Bill sponsor Rep. Andrea Romero, D-Santa Fe had this to say about the waiting period:

“That means a lot to those who have been affected by those who committed suicide.”

The bill was sponsored by Representative Andrea Romero, Dayan Hochman-Vigil and Cristina Parajon, and Senators. Linda M. Lopez and Joseph Cervantes.

Senate Bill 5 Firearms Near Polling Places

This law prohibits carrying firearms within 100 feet of polling places and ballot receptacles, preventing intimidation and violence as New Mexicans exercise their right to vote. Exemptions are granted to law enforcement personnel, and concealed carry permit holders. Senator Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, one of the bill’s sponsors, called the bill a “very important step as we head into this election cycle. … Guns and voting just don’t mix.” The bill was sponsored by Senators Peter Wirth, Reena Szczepanski, Brenda McKenna, and Joseph Cervantes.

Senate Bill 96: Increase Attempted Murder Penalty

This law strengthens penalties for second-degree murder-related offenses, which make up the vast majority of homicide cases in our state. New Mexico currently has the lowest penalties for second-degree of neighboring states of Arizona, Colorado, and Texas. The maximum sentence for second-degree murder has increased from 15 years to 18 years. The sentence for the crime of attempted second-degree murder has increased from three years to nine years. The bill was sponsored by Senator . Antonio Maestas and Representative Cynthia Borrego.

Bill sponsor Sen. Antonio “Moe” Maestas, D-Albuquerque, said this:

“Murder does not just affect the decedent, but it affects the family for three generations … There’s a fine line between first- and second-degree murder – now, in our criminal code in New Mexico, first-degree murder and second-degree murder are the two worst penalties.”

Senate Bill 271 Repeat Felony Offender No Bond Hold

This law mandates judges to hold certain violent defendants without bond if a court determines that they are alleged to have committed another felony offense while out on bond for a previous violent offense. The bill was sponsored by Senator . Daniel A. Ivey-Soto and Senatore Joseph Cervantes.

Governor Lujan Grisham had this to say about Senate Bill 271 she signed into law:

“This legislation strikes at the heart of issues that are keeping New Mexicans up at night. … We are losing far too many lives when guns get into the wrong hands and violent criminals are allowed to recommit again and again. This legislation addresses both.”

When asked about a 2021 University of New Mexico report that found 95% of defendants in Bernalillo County released before trial did not pick up additional violent crime charges, Lujan Grisham had this to say:

“I don’t want to be one of those 5% where … my business has been robbed, my car has been stolen. … We have to end the cycle.”

SPECIAL SESSION STILL POSSIBLE

The Governor revealed that she has not yet made up her mind about calling legislators back for a special session focused on reducing crime. The Governor disclosed she has been speaking with leadership at the Roundhouse about convening a Special Session but cautioned that calling a session for the wrong reasons could have consequences. Lujan Grisham said this:

“You likely get nothing in return. … That’s not fair to New Mexicans.”

CIVIL COMPETENCY LEGISLATION

One measure Lujan Grisham said she would pursue during a special session should she call one would be a “civil competency” bill. The bill would require someone to seek behavioral health treatment, regardless of whether a crime was committed. Lujan Grisham said the state already has “mandatory outpatient treatment,” but said it currently only applies to a narrow set of circumstances. Lujan Grisham said this:

“There are individuals you see go through the ERs who we think are dangerous to themselves and others. … A bill like that, I think, needs to be expanded with new definitions.”

The Governor said she believes the state’s behavioral health care system would be able to handle the changes.

The links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/gov-lujan-grisham-signs-public-safety-legislation-in-albuquerque/?utm_source=zetaglobal&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=thumbnails

https://www.krqe.com/news/newsfeed/krqe-newsfeed-attorney-speaks-out-public-safety-bills-mild-temperatures-pickleball-courts-ski-season-extended/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/gov-signs-four-bills-aimed-at-reducing-gun-violence/article_d9d1e706-da91-11ee-b814-13e2b5d5e444.html

SENATE BILL 16 RECALLED

It was on January 26 that Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced the introduction of Senate Bill 16 that was aimed at addressing concerns about a defendant’s competency, establishing competency restoration programs, and ensuring the provision of state-funded mental health examinations. The bill failed to be enacted. The bill was sponsored by State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Piño.

At the time the bill was introduced, Gov. Lujan Grisham said this:

“This bill reflects our commitment to a justice system that is fair, compassionate, and responsive to the mental health needs of individuals involved in the legal process. … I urge the Legislature to support this important measure for the well-being of our communities.”

Sen. Ortiz y Piño said this:

“This measure gives our judges an additional option to get people the immediate help they need and is a proven mechanism for stopping the cycle of repeat offenses. We should be able to provide compassionate care and keep our streets safer at the same time, and this bill will do just that”

KEY PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL 16

The 4 key provisions of Sente Bill 16 included the following:

A judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney would be given the ability to refer a defendant for a mental health evaluation.
Individuals that are found competent to stand trial will proceed through the normal channels of the criminal justice system. Individuals that are found incompetent to stand trial will be provided the least-restrictive means to receive mental health treatment. Such treatment would have also included drug and/or alcohol treatment.
After completion of the competency restoration program charges would be a dismissed for misdemeanors and non-violent felonies.
The courts would conduct a hearing in conjunction with the defendant’s mental health providers to determine whether the defendant is a danger to himself, others, or the community. When such a finding of dangerousness is made, a defendant may be admitted to in-patient, residential treatment until such time as he is restored to competence, but in no event for longer than 18 months.

Senate Bill 16 would have ensured that the state bears the cost of mental examinations for defendants, recognizing the importance of providing equitable access to mental health evaluations.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It should come as absolutely no surprise that Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is still considering a special session to deal with public safety. It was on January 12, 2024, that Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced her public safety agenda and her support of 21 bills she wanted lawmakers to consider during the 2024 legislative session to address public safety. The bills included raising the age to purchase a gun, regulating assault weapons, and increasing penalties for a range of crimes.

RECALLING GOVERNOR’S PUBLIC SAFETY AGENDA

The governor’s public safety priorities for the 2024 legislative season included the following 21 bills dealing with firearms and cracking down on crime with the sponsors identified:

The Firearm Industry Accountability Act amends the state statue to allow gun manufacturers to be held liable for deceptive trade practices. (Sponsored by Rep. Christine Chandler)
Assault weapons ban lawfully regulates the manufacture, possession and sale of weapons of war, most often the gun used in mass casualty events. (Sponsored by Rep. Andrea Romero)
Raising the age to purchase automatic firearms to 21 from the current minimum of 18 years of age. (Sponsored by Rep. Reena Szczepanski)
Firearms purchase waiting period creates a protracted waiting period of 14 days between the initiation of a federal background check and a buyer taking possession of a firearm, thereby reducing the opportunity for gun violence and suicide. (Sponsored by Rep. Andrea Romero)
Prohibiting guns in polling places makes it illegal to carry firearms within 100 feet of polling places during an election. (Sponsored by Sen. Peter Wirth)
Prohibiting guns in parks and playgrounds will make it illegal to carry a firearm in county or municipal parks, playgrounds, and their accompanying parking lots.
Increased criminal penalty of the crime of second-degree murder raises the maximum penalty from 15 to 18 years. (Sponsored by Sen. Antonio Maestas)
Felons in possession of firearms increases the criminal penalty for felons found to be in possession of guns making it a second-degree felony. (Sponsored by Rep. Dayan Hochman-Vigil)
Amending the human trafficking statute increases the statute of limitations, criminal penalties, and victim protections under New Mexico’s current human trafficking statute. (Sponsored by Rep. Marian Matthews)
Changes to commercial burglary statute will strengthen law enforcement’s ability to respond to businesses who have revoked a person’s right to enter or remain on their property due to a prior theft. It will allow police to charge offenders with the crime of commercial burglary, a 4^th-degree felony.
Pretrial detention is legislation designed to create a rebuttable presumption for persons charged with serious, largely violent offenses. Unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, a defendant that poses a threat to the safety of community members can be held in custody pending trial. (Sponsored by Sen. Craig Brandt)
Mandated treatment will give judges a more robust avenue to civilly commit individuals who are a danger to themselves or society.
RICO amendments will update the existing Racketeering Act by adding additional crimes to include human trafficking, rape, exploitation of children, escape from penitentiary, and tampering with public records.
ERPO amendments are designed to amend the Extreme Risk Firearms Protection Order Act. Specifically, it will provide an expedited process where orders are issued 24-7 via an on-call judge, a requirement of immediate relinquishment of firearms upon service of an order. This legislation also changes reporting parties to include law enforcement and health care professionals. (Sponsored by Reps. Christine Chandler, Joy Garratt)
Return to work for public safety personnel is designed to provide a mechanism to allow for public safety personnel who previously retired from PERA to be able to return to work and continue to serve their communities. The goal of the bill is to be able to shore up significant public safety personnel vacancy rates in state, county and municipal public safety agencies.
Panhandling ban will prohibit the unlawful use of public spaces, streets, sidewalks, curbs, with the primary goal of increasing public safety and vehicular efficiency.
Misdemeanor DWI search warrant requirement amendment will update the requirements for testing the blood of a suspected intoxicated driver to include both drugs and alcohol for misdemeanor crimes when the arrested person refuses testing.
Hazing penalties will criminalize hazing and aggravated hazing, protecting students or prospective students in New Mexico. Hazing is a misdemeanor and aggravated hazing a fourth-degree felony. This bill provides for criminal penalties for teachers, coaches or other reporting parties who knew, or should have known about hazing and failed to report it.
Data sharing requirements for law enforcement agencies will require the regular reporting of crime data from law enforcement agencies to the state as a condition of state funding.
Firefighter, law enforcement, corrections officer recruitment fund is designed to provide financial support to recruit candidates to these critical public safety fields.
Compensation increases for State Police, corrections/parole officers provides for a 14% funding increase ($11.5 million) for State Police and an 8% increase ($7.2 million) for corrections, probation & parole officers.

On February 15, Governor Lujan Grisham held a press conference immediately after the 30-day session that ended and she expressed frustration over the legislature’s failure in passing public safety measures. Lujan Grisham said this:

“Both houses are well aware that I’m frustrated that not enough, or certainly more public safety measures got up. … I want to just say to New Mexicans, I don’t think it’s safe out there and I don’t think they think it’s safe out there because it plays out horrifically every single day.”

Simply put, when it comes to all the public safety measure and gun control legislation Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham wanted to be enacted during the 30-day 2024 legislative session, much of it was is dead on arrival and very little even made it through House and Senate committees. It was way too much for a 30-day session that was supposed to deal with budgetary and financial matters. It’s surprising that the 4 bills she signed into law even made it through the session.

SPECIAL SESSION

If Governor Lujan Grisham is really serious about the State’s crime crisis and wants to do something about it, she should call a special session and ask the New Mexico Legislature to enact an “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing Act. The message that must be sent out loud and clear to violent criminals by our elected officials is that New Mexico has a zero tolerance of violent crimes committed with firearms. The only way to do that is with responsible gun control measures to reduce the availability of guns and to enhance criminal sentencings.

The convening of a special session of NM Legislator for public safety should also include civil mental competency measures. This would include expanding the state’s existing Mental Health Court with the creation of a new 14th Judicial District Court with 3 Regional Divisions for Mental Health Commitment Hearings and the building of regional treatment facilities and hospitals for mandatory treatment orders. The postscript to this article contains a link to a blog article on the subject.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT MEASURES

The following crime and sentencing provisions should be included in the “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing Act”:

Allow firearm offenses used in a drug crime to be charged separately with enhance sentences.
Making possession of a handgun by someone who commits a crime of drug trafficking an aggravated third-degree felony mandating a 10-year minimum sentence.
Increase the firearm enhancement penalties provided for the brandishing a firearm in the commission of a felony from 3 years to 10 years for a first offense and for a second or subsequent felony in which a firearm is brandished 12 years.
Create a new category of enhanced sentencing for use of a lethal weapon or deadly weapon other than a firearm where there is blandishment of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony with enhanced sentences of 5 years for a first offense and for second or subsequent felony in which a lethal weapon other than a firearm is brandished 8 years
Increase the penalty of shooting randomly into a crowded area a second-degree felony mandating a 9-year sentence.
Increase the penalty and mandatory sentencing for the conviction of the use of a fire arm during a road rage incident to a first degree felony mandating a life sentence.
Change bail bond to statutorily empower judges with far more discretionary authority to hold and jail those pending trial who have prior violent crime reported incidents without shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

GUN CONTROL MEASURES

Gun control measures that should be included the “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing Act” would include legislation that failed in the 2023 legislative session and other measures and would include the following:

Call for the repeal the New Mexico Constitutional provision that allows the “open carry” of firearms. This would require a public vote and no doubt generate heated discussion given New Mexico’s high percentage of gun ownership for hunting, sport or hobby, but what is the real rational for allowing side arms and rifles to be carried down the street other than to intimidate others.
Restrict the sale, manufacture and possession of AR-15-style rifles along with semiautomatic firearms and make it a fourth-degree felony to purchase, possess, manufacture, import, sell or transfer assault weapons in the state.
Prohibited magazines with more than 10 rounds.
Prohibited the possession of semiautomatic firearm converter that allows the weapon to fire more rapidly.
Established a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm and requires a prospective seller who doesn’t already hold a valid federal firearms license to arrange for someone who does to conduct a federal background check prior to selling a firearm.
Institute a Federal and State background check system with a mental health component that would disqualify a person with a history of mental health violent outbursts or a history of threats to others from making a gun purchase.
Established a minimum age of 21 for anyone seeking to purchase or possess an automatic firearm, semiautomatic firearm or firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.
Ban the manufacture, sale, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of semiautomatic pistols that have two or more defined characteristics.
Revised the state’s Unfair Practices Act to target the sale of illegal firearms and parts, allowing the filing of lawsuits to enforce the act.
Prohibit in New Mexico the sale of “ghost guns” parts. Ghost guns are guns that are manufactured and sold in parts without any serial numbers to be assembled by the purchaser and that can be sold to anyone.
Require in New Mexico the mandatory purchase of “liability insurance” with each gun sold as is required for all operable vehicles bought and driven in New Mexico.
Mandate the school systems and higher education institutions “harden” their facilities with more security doors, security windows, and security measures and alarm systems and security cameras tied directly to law enforcement 911 emergency operations centers.
Require a permit to purchase all rifles and handguns. There are 15 other states require a permit to purchase or licensing. The best predictor of future performance is past performance. Firearm licensing has past performance. A John Hopkins University study in a comparative analysis, describes licensing as the most effective firearm policy. Connecticut notes a 28% decrease in homicides, 33% decrease in suicides 10 years post licensing. When you compare states with and without licensing, there is a 56% decrease in mass shootings. Studies reveal a decrease of gun trafficking of more than 60% after licensing. Missouri found similar increases in homicides and suicides when removing their purchase restrictions. Licensing is constitutional it has broad public support. Licensing brings in revenue to the state vs simply cost the state money.

The Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing Act Omnibus Gun Violence And Sentencing Act must include funding for the criminal justice system. This would include funding District Attorney’s Offices, the Public Defender’s Office, the Courts and the Corrections Department and law enforcement departments across New Mexico.

Until the New Mexico legislature get serious about New Mexico’s gun violence crisis and enacts reasonable gun control measures in conjunction with crime and punishment measures, we can expect our violent crime rates to continue to increase, and God forbid, yet another killing of a child which is what prompted the Governor to issue her executive orders banning guns and declaring gun violence a public health crisis.

POSTSCRIPT

Convening Special Session Of NM Legislator For Public Safety Must Include Expanding Existing Mental Health Court; Create New 14th Judicial District Court With 3 Regional Divisions For Mental Health Commitment Hearings; Build Regional Treatment Facilities And Hospitals For Mandatory Treatment Ordered

APD Releases 2023 Crime Statistics Reflecting 19% Decline In Homicides; Reflects National Trend Not Success Of Mayor Tim Keller’s Programs To Bring Down Crime

Posted on March 4, 2024 by

On February 29, the Albuquerque Police Department released the city’s crime statistics for 2023 compiled using the FBI’s National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The postscript to this blog article provides a short synopsis of NIBRS.

STATISTICS RELEASED

The overall statistics released by APD showed a very small decrease in overall property crime and a small increase in violent crime. The statistics showed APD officers made more felony arrests and wrote more traffic citations last year.

The statistics showed property crime has leveled off in the city since measuring large decreases from 2018 to 2020. Property crime saw its largest increase, 43%, in shoplifting, with about 2,100 more offenses reported. Auto theft, burglary and robbery saw decreases of 13%, 16% and 41%, respectively.

The data showed that, from 2022 to 2023, there was a 0.18% decrease in Crime Against Property and a 3% increase in Crime Against Person.

Violent crime has ebbed and flowed from 2022 to 2023 rising and falling marginally. Violent crime saw 5% increases in both aggravated and simple assault. There was and a 9% drop in sex crimes. Homicides, which hit a record-high of 121 cases in 2022, decreased 19%, and nonfatal shootings dropped 6%.

The city also saw a 6% drop in nonfatal shootings, according to Albuquerque police data, from 353 in 2022 to 332 in 2023. Last year’s total still remained well above the 265 and 285 shootings recorded in 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Crimes Against Society include gambling, prostitution, and drug violations, and represent society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types of activity and are typically victimless crimes. Crime Against Society had a 49% spike, driven mainly by increases of 69%, 42% and 15% in drug offenses, trespassing and weapons violations, respectively. Since 2018, the Crime Against Society category has skyrocketed by 136%. According to APD Spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos, the spike in drug offenses is due to more trafficking investigations, but also “much more aggressive” enforcement on “low-level fentanyl possession.”

APD Spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos said some of the largest crime increases, such as the increases in drug offenses and shoplifting, go hand in hand. Gallegos said this:

“Obviously, we know that a lot of these offenses … those are people who go into jail (and) come right back out. …To actually make a difference … it’s going to take a concerted effort to address the addiction and those [issues] that’s driving this crime.”

Statistics also showed large jumps in APD’s felony arrests, cleared felony warrants and traffic citations with 14%, 26% and 28% increases, respectively. According to the data released, crimes reported over the phone and online were 64% and 159% higher last year than in 2018 and 2019, respectively, when the technology was in its infancy.

The link to quoted news source materials is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-police-release-data-showing-overall-crime-hasnt-budged-much/article_1f3acfb2-d757-11ee-a31f-b3f0da812de9.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.cabq.gov/police/news/apd-releases-2023-crime-stats-1#:~:text=Crimes%20against%20property%20remained%20the,National%20Incident%2DBased%20Reporting%20System.&text=In%20the%20Crimes%20against%20Person,19%25%20between%202022%20and%202023.

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/crime-stats-2023-presentation.pdf

HOMICIDES DROP BY 19%

The most significant statistic reported is that the city’s homicides are down 19% from last year going from 121 in 2022 to 98 in 2023. It marked Albuquerque’s largest annual decrease since 2010, when homicide totals hovered in the 30s.

According to APD, the downward trend in homicides is a result of better staffing, making more arrests in violent crime and solving cases. Police Chief Harold Medina attributed an improving solve rate to boosting the homicide unit to 16 detectives and training them better. He said he believed the sheer number of homicide suspects arrested — 117 in 2023 alone has driven down new cases.

APD detectives solved 53 of the 84 homicide cases from 2023 for a 63% clearance rate. Some involved multiple victims, and several suspects have since died or are on the loose.

Medina said getting thousands of stolen and pandemic-purchased guns off the streets is a major hurdle in reducing violent crime and homicides. Medina said the surplus of guns means more people are armed when a “simple conflict” arises. The “simple conflict” defined by APD as “individual disrespect” accounted for 57% of 2023’s killings.

The Albuquerque Police Department also solved 31 homicide cases from previous years, including a case that had long gone cold, a 2014 killing of a local homeless advocate.

The city also saw a 6% drop in nonfatal shootings from 353 in 2022 to 332 in 2023. Last year’s total still remained well above the 265 and 285 shootings recorded in 2021 and 2020, respectively.

HISTORICAL TREND

The city’s recorded 19% drop in homicides last year marked Albuquerque’s largest annual decrease since 2010, when homicide totals hovered in the 30s. Following are the numbers from the 7 years:

2017: 70 homicides
2018: 69 homicides
2019: 80 homicides
2020: 78 homicides
2021: 110 homicides
2022: 120 homicides
2023: 93 homicides

Following are the Aggravated Assaults numbers for the past 7 years also reflect a slight decline:

2017: 4,213
2018: 5,156
2019: 5,337
2020: 5,592
2021: 5,669
2022: 5,399
2023: 4,961

The trend downward mirrored those seen nationally, even in the most violent cities. Across the country, the decrease has been attributed to an easing of the societal impacts of the pandemic. Locally, authorities say it is a result of better staffing and making more arrests in violent crime.

APD CHIEF HAROLD MEDINA REACTS TO NUMBERS

APD Chief Harold Medina in announcing the statistics said he hopes to see two trends continue: decreasing crime and increasing enforcement. He said some of the issues, like the underlying causes of crime, are not going to be solved by APD.

Medina said this:

“I know the critics will stick to the numbers that benefit them the most, but I think most everyday citizens are going to look at the individual number categories and recognize that there was a lot of hard work put in last year by officers. … And there’s a lot of success … inside of those numbers. … While we’re making a lot of improvement on the enforcement side, we still have a ways to go to actually curb the problem. So that’s a huge thing that’s on our minds. And I think it was going to take the entire criminal justice system.”

HOMICIDES DECREASE IN BERNALILLO COUNTY

The decrease in homicides also occurred in Bernalillo County. The Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office investigated 17 homicides in 2023 compared with 21 in 2022.

BCSO Sheriff John Allen said being more proactive and singling out the drivers of crime, such as auto theft, will hopefully keep the numbers going down. Allen said the community also needs to address the root causes of crime, using education and outreach to divert young people from “that path.” Allen said there needs to be a better balance between punishment and rehabilitation for youths. He said easy access to guns over social media and the cultural notion that guns are “cool” need to be addressed.

Sheriff John Allen said this:

“A lot of homicides are an argument over a $25 laptop or small amount of money that you’ve misplaced for drugs. … So it’s over pretty dumb stuff, honestly. … One life to me is huge. Everybody wants the masses, I see why, because they’re in panic mode and want a quick-fix solution. … It’s a long-term solution … and we have to be multifaceted. … We see the news all the time of crime, crime, crime. I get it. But we’re going in a positive direction. …There will always be crime, but our city will grow and it’ll flourish and it’ll be back to what it used to be like when I grew up and went to West Mesa High School. That’s my end goal for when I leave office, or at least provide a footprint or something to get to that goal.”

DATA DOWNLOAD

The statistics APD released for the city in last two years are:

HOMICIDES

2022: 121
2023: 98

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

2022: 4,746
2023: 4,961

WEAPONS LAW VIOLATIONS

2022: 2,964
2023: 3,398

BURGLARY

2022: 4,548
2023: 3,824

ROBBERY

2022: 1,669
2023: 984

DRUG OFFENSES

2022: 1,491
2023: 2,516

AUTO THEFT

2022: 6,036
2023: 5,280

SHOPLIFTING

2022: 5,092
2023: 7,252

TRESPASSING

2022: 1,356
2023: 1,928

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-police-release-data-showing-overall-crime-hasnt-budged-much/article_1f3acfb2-d757-11ee-a31f-b3f0da812de9.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

INTERTPRETING THE DATA

Paul Guerin, director of the University of New Mexico’s Center for Applied Research and Analysis was asked by the Albuquerque Journal to review the APD-provided data on the city’s 2023 homicides. The statistics detailed motive (“individual disrespect,” drug-related and domestic violence took the top three categories), victims’ ages (most were between 36 and 45), suspects’ ages (most were between 18 and 25), weapons used (80% involved a gun) and victim and suspect race/ethnicity (the majority involved Hispanics, but Black people were disproportionately represented).

Guerin said the data lacked case-by-case specifics to “paint a better picture of murders in Albuquerque. ” He said such information could be used to bring the death toll down but also solve more cases. He said nationally and locally, the previous increase in homicides and violence is often blamed on what he called “the degrading of the social contract.” Guerin said this:

“There’s this general idea of this change in behavior that the pandemic kind of accelerated … [such as more] reckless driving, suicides, drug use and overdoses. … Homicides could just be another example.”

Guerin said that whatever the causes, the upside is that the trend reverted last year in many cities, including Albuquerque. Guerin said:

“Things always just revert to the norm. …The problem is, our norm is always higher than everyone else’s.”

FBI data shows that when homicides and violent crime decreased in the United States in the 1990s, Albuquerque and New Mexico never caught up. The homicide rate, save for in three distinct years, never fell as low as the national rate over three decades.

Even in comparison to violent locales like Baltimore and Chicago, which were high but steady, the homicide rate in New Mexico, driven largely by Albuquerque as the biggest city, vacillated greatly from year to year. Guerin said this:

“There’s something unique about Albuquerque. What is it about our location? … Why do we always have more murders? … [Is the nexus of Interstate 25 and Interstate 40 invited crime, or if violence is somehow ingrained in the state’s culture.”

In his 32 years conducting studies at UNM for government agencies and policymakers, Guerin said nobody has studied those particulars.

“Right now, all we can do is we can say, ‘Here’s our (homicide) count, here’s what they look like, they kind of follow trends.’ But to get down to the nuances of this, like, ‘why?’ we’ve never done it,” he said. “It’s not like math, where something equals something. We’re taking our best understanding of these things with the information that was available.”

Guerin said crime, in general, is always underreported but there’s no indication the data available doesn’t give an accurate picture.

A 2023 Gallup survey found that 77% of those polled think crime was higher than the previous year. The national poll found 63% believed “the crime situation in the U.S. is extremely or very serious.” Guerin said of the poll “That’s not true, but they perceive it to be true. …It’s always been a problem, and the problem goes both directions. People telescope either way … exaggerate either way.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-sees-shootings-decrease-in-2023-even-as-gun-violence-tears-families-apart/article_46cfaa60-c60a-11ee-9c68-530f06c95c43.html

On April 26, 2023, the Major Cities Chiefs Association released its Violent Crime Survey and national totals for the crimes of homicides, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults. According to the report, Albuquerque was ranked 17th among 70 of the largest cities in the nation looking at trends in the 4 categories. The single most troubling statistic was Albuquerque’s increase in homicides.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association report shows in 2022, there was a 5% drop in homicides nationwide. According to the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Albuquerque had one of the worst homicide rates in the nation and is one of 27 cities across the nation that saw an increase in homicides. The report shows in 2021, there were 106 homicides. In 2022, there were 115, an 8% increase. Other nearby cities like Phoenix saw a 13% increase in homicides. Meanwhile, to the north, the Denver Police Department reported an 8% decrease in homicides. Just four hours south, the city of El Paso saw a 28% decrease in homicides, one of the highest drops in the report.

Click to access MCCA-Violent-Crime-Report-2022-and-2021-Midyear.pdf

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-homicide-rate-increase/43702586

Mayor Tim Keller reacting to the April 26, 2023 Major Cities Chiefs Association report had this to say:

“We have two challenges working against us. One is national trends that are all getting worse so we have to do what we can in our city, but when there’s a tidal wave of crime across America, it’s going to affect us.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There has been a decrease in homicides in big cities including Los Angeles and Detroit, but also in those long besieged by gun violence, like Chicago. Baltimore, with a similar population and reputation as Albuquerque for years has been known as one of the most violent American cities. Last year, Baltimore recorded a 22.5% drop in homicides, its largest single-year decrease, and a 7% drop in nonfatal shootings.

Albuquerque’s trend downward in homicides reflects an identical downward trend nationally, even in the most violent cities. Across the country, the decrease has been attributed to an easing of the societal impacts of the pandemic.

KELLER’S FAILED VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PROGRAMS

One thing that is very certain is that the downward trend in Albuquerque’s homicides has nothing to do with the Mayor Tim Keller’s failed Violent Crime reduction programs.

In 2017 when the New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller ran for Mayor, he ran on the platform of reducing the city’s high crime rates, implementing the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree reforms, increasing the size of the Albuquerque Police Department from the then 950 to 1,200 and returning to “community-based policing”. In August, 2017, Keller went so far as to say about the city’s high crime rates:

“It’s unfortunate, but crime is absolutely out of control. It’s the mayor’s job to actually address crime in Albuquerque, and that’s what I want to do as the next mayor.”

Fast forward to October 4, 2021 when Keller was running for a second term and confronted by the Albuquerque Journal about the city’s spiking crime rates during his first term. Keller said this:

“I think we have honored the commitment to fight crime in a real way. That’s not just about talking tough or doing roundups or something like that, we’re actually trying to address crime from all sides. … And we have done that. Had we not done that our city would be in a much, much worse place. … It’s either naive or disingenuous for anyone to think that our crime and drug problems are so surface level that they can just be fixed by being tougher, or by arresting people. … I don’t think it’s fair to say that there’s something we could have done that would have prevented an increase in homicide … I think all around the country, it’s just shown that that’s just not true right now. … I think I’ve provided the right kind leadership at the right time and in a difficult time …”

KELLER’S FAILED VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PROGRAMS

It was in 2019 that Mayor Tim Keller reacting to the spiking violent crime rates, announced 4 programs in 9 months to deal with and bring down the city’s high violent crime rates. Keller also launched his “Community Safety Department” and his “Metro Crime Initiative” which he claimed will fix the “broken criminal justice” system.

All 5 initiatives involve early intervention and partnership with other agencies and are summarized as follows:

THE SHIELD UNIT

In February 2018 the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) created the “Shield Unit”. The Shield Unit assists APD Police Officers to prepare cases for trial and prosecution by the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1325167/apd-expands-unit-that-preps-cases-for-prosecution.html

DECLARING VIOLENT CRIME A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS

On April 8, 2019, Mayor Keller and APD announced efforts that will deal with “violent crime” in the context of it being a “public health crisis” and dealing with crimes involving guns in an effort to bring down violent crime in Albuquerque.

THE “VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PLAN” The “Violence Intervention PLAN (VIP program)

On November 22, 2019 Mayor Tim Keller announced what he called a “new initiative” to target violent offenders called “Violence Intervention Plan” (VIP). Mayor Keller proclaimed the VIP is a “partnership system” that includes law enforcement, prosecutors and social service and community provides to reduce violent crime. Mayor Keller stated:

“… This is about trying to get these people not to shoot each other. …This is about understanding who they are and why they are engaged in violent crime. … And so, this actually in some ways, in that respect, this is the opposite of data. This is action. This is actually doing something with people. …”

The “Violence Intervention Plan” can be described as a “fantasy land” experiment especially when there is little that can be done to prevent the violent crime of murder by “trying to get these people not to shoot each other” and “understanding who they are and why they are engaged in violent crime.”

THE METRO 15 OPERATION PROGRAM

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference to announce a 4th program within 9 months to deal with the city’s violent crime and murder rates. At the time of the press conference, the city’s homicide count was at 72, matching the city’s record in 2017.

METRO CRIME INITIATIVE

On September 23, 2021 Mayor Keller concluded a conference he dubbed he the “Metro Crime Initiative”. Participants included APD, the DA’s Office, the Courts and many other stakeholders to address what all participants labelled the “broken criminal justice” system.

The entire “Metro Crime Initiative” started with the phony proposition declared by Mayor Keller and all the participants that our criminal justice system is broken. During the September 23 concluding press conference, local leaders admitted they have not been providing enough protection and resources to keep people safe.

A list of 40 action items were revealed by Keller with the hope that once implemented they will lower Albuquerque’s crime efficiently and quickly. All the participants patted each other on the back for doing such a good job and asserting they have found the solution.

When you examine the “check list” of the 40 different proposals that were the result of the Metro Crime Initiative, the proposals are essentially what all the participants have been working on over the past 3 years and include many programs already announced. The list contains nothing new. The items listed are ones that the participants should have been doing in the first place

Simply put, all 5 of Keller’s programs can be described simply as failures and not having any real statistical impact on reducing crime. The truth is that for a good 3 years before the COVID pandemic hit the city hard in 2020 under Keller’s watch, violent crime rates were spiking, so much so that 6 years ago then candidate for Mayor Tim Keller made reducing the city’s crime rates a cornerstone of his campaign.

Notwithstanding the 19% reduction in homicides in 2023, the sure spike in homicides during Keller’s 6 year tenure as Mayor is an obscene reflection that the city is one of the most violent cities in the country under his tenure. This is our new norm as the city follows national trends. Keller’s promised 1,200 sworn police never materialized and currently the city has less than 900 sworn police. The city and APD never once in his 6 years as Mayor even has had 1,000 sworn police. Keller’s community base policing has yet to fully materialize and APD is still struggling to fully implement the Department of Justice reforms and come into compliance with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

Mayor Tim Keller’s is expected to run for a third term in 2025 and has already made it know to his executive staff he is running. There is no doubt Mayor Tim Keller will try and take credit for the City’s declining crime rates when in fact all of his efforts have been a failure. Albuquerque is worse off today with Tim Keller as Mayor than when he was elected the first time 6 years ago. Hope springs eternal that he will move on and not seek another 4 years. A full 8 years of Tim Keller as Mayor is enough.

________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

THE NIBRS SYSTEM

Starting in January 2021, the FBI requires crimes to be counted and reported by law enforcement through the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and not the “most serious incident-based” reporting system known as SRS.

In NIBRS, there are 3 major reporting broad categories:

Crimes Against Persons include murder, rape, and assault, and are those in which the victims are always individuals.

Crimes Against Property include robbery, bribery, and burglary, or to obtain money, property, or some other benefit.

The 3 major categories are then broken down into 52 sub-categories. NIBRS counts virtually all crimes committed during an incident. The NIMRS is far more sophisticated than the “most serious incident-based” reporting system (SRS) which was used by law enforcement for decades.

SRS has only 8 broad categories of crime:

Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter,
Forcible Rape,
Robbery,
Aggravated Assault,
Burglary,
Larceny-theft,
Motor Vehicle Theft and
Arson

A link to a complete guide to the NIBRS crime reporting system is here:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/nibrs_dcguide.pdf

NEWS AND COMMENTARY

Monthly Archives: March 2024

US Supreme Court To Hear Trump’s Claims Of Immunity from Criminal Prosecution; Republican US Supreme Court Trump Disciples Hand Trump “Gift Of Delay”

Trump Sweeps March 5 Super Tuesday Republican Primaries; Supreme Court Rules State’s Can Not Disqualify Trump From Ballot; Update On Trump’s Criminal Charges And Civil Cases; Criminal Convictions Will Likely Not Make Any Difference As Trump Becomes Presumptive Republican Nominee

Gov. MLG Signs 4 Public Safety Measures; Special Session Still Under Consideration; Convene Special Session To Enact “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing Act” And Expand Existing Mental Health Court Statewide

APD Releases 2023 Crime Statistics Reflecting 19% Decline In Homicides; Reflects National Trend Not Success Of Mayor Tim Keller’s Programs To Bring Down Crime