Arizona
Prosecutors lose appeal in fake elector case, vow to present it again to a grand jury
PHOENIX (AP) — One of the three remaining criminal cases stemming from efforts by President Donald Trump’s supporters to overturn the 2020 election results appears headed back to a grand jury in Arizona.
The case began in April 2024 when an indictment sought by Arizona’s Democratic attorney general charged 18 Republicans with forgery, fraud and conspiracy, accusing them of trying to undo former President Joe Biden’s victory in the state by 10,457 votes.
In a decision released Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected Attorney General Kris Mayes’ request to avoid sending the case back to the grand jury. Mayes had hoped to continue pushing forward through the courts without having to start over at the grand jury level.
An appeal sent the case to the state’s highest court after defense attorneys argued successfully that the original grand jury hadn’t been shown the relevant parts of a law that governs how presidential contests are certified.
The most recent ruling marked another setback for Mayes, whose case has been stalled for over a year. The attorney general’s office said it will again present the case in its entirety to a grand jury rather than end the prosecution. It declined to comment further on the decision.
The ruling came after similar cases in Michigan and Georgia were dismissed by the courts and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. All three cases ended after Trump defeated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. Cases related to the fake elector scheme are ongoing in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.
In Arizona, defense lawyers have argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed. Federal law was amended in 2022 to specify that any given state could put forward only one slate of electors and that state governors are responsible for signing off.
Mark L. Williams, an attorney representing Giuliani, applauded the state Supreme Court’s latest decision and questioned whether Mayes’ office will carry through on its promise to bring the case back to the grand jury. “In my mind, the whole thing is meritless,” Williams said. “Mr. Giuliani has done nothing wrong.”
The state attorney general has faced steep challenges in making her case.
It was filed nearly three and a half years after the 2020 election and levels complicated conspiracy charges against the 18 defendants. A dozen dismissal requests filed by defense attorneys have slowed progress in court.
The first judge on the case recused himself in late 2024 after an email surfaced in which he told fellow judges to speak out against attacks on Harris’ campaign for the presidency. The next judge ordered the case to be sent back to a grand jury.
Of the 18 Arizona defendants, two were former Trump aides, five were lawyers working for Trump and 11 were Republicans who submitted a document falsely claiming Trump won Arizona.
Three defendants have resolved their cases, including one who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.
The rest have pleaded not guilty. Some said they signed the certificate in case Trump won court challenges and a new slate of electors was needed urgently before Congress’ Jan. 6 deadline to tally votes.
Washington
Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on federal regulation of telecom companies
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Thursday in upholding the power of federal regulators to enforce data privacy laws on telecommunications companies.
The 8-1 decision preserved one of the Federal Communications Commission’s key tools, though the companies also won a concession from the Republican administration that could shift the regulatory landscape.
The appeal from telecommunications giants Verizon and AT&T challenged a combined $100 million in penalties imposed after the agency determined that the companies had failed to safeguard customer location data.
The companies argued that the FCC’s process was unconstitutional because it gave them little opportunity to tell their side of the story in front of a jury.
The administration defended the fines as an essential regulatory tool. But the government also said companies did not have to pay the penalties right away, a regulatory shift in the companies’ favor.
The Supreme Court agreed, affirming the FCC’s power to order fines when challenges are still available.
“The orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said he would have given the two telecom companies a clearer path to recouping the fines they already paid.
Other agencies use similar enforcement methods, so a sweeping victory for AT&T and Verizon could have had widespread effects, advocates said.
The environmental group Earthjustice applauded the ruling, saying it has direct implications for other agencies and a key energy-efficiency case.
“By rejecting this unsupported attack on agency authority, the Court’s decision safeguards the government’s ability to enforce laws that protect people, communities, and the environment,” said Caroline Flynn, the group’s Supreme Court counsel.
The libertarian-leaning New Civil Liberties Alliance was disappointed by the decision, but expected it to help other companies in the future. “In fact, it may even buttress their willingness to challenge future agency orders in federal court before paying any penalties,” said the alliance’s president, Mark Chenoweth.
A few more carriers may decide to litigate, but the decision leaves the FCC with the power to “publicly announce large fines with much fanfare,” said Doug Orvis, a veteran telecom attorney. “It will be interesting to see what happens going forward.”
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has sided against federal agencies and limited their power before. That includes overturning a decades-old decision that had given regulators an advantage in court and stripping another agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud.
California
Jury awards $176M for wrongful deaths of brothers struck by socialite’s car
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Los Angeles jury has awarded $176 million to the parents of two young brothers killed in a hit-and-run collision when a California socialite’s car struck them in a crosswalk nearly six years ago.
The jury found both Rebecca Grossman and Scott Erickson, a former Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher, negligent in the deaths of 11-year-old Mark Iskander and 8-year-old Jacob Iskander. The damages awarded Wednesday were for wrongful death and emotional distress.
Court was scheduled to resume Friday as jurors must still decide whether to award punitive damages to the boys’ parents, Nancy and Karim Iskander.
Grossman was sentenced in 2024 to serve 15 years to life in prison after being convicted of second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter and hit-and-run driving in a separate criminal trial. She is a co-founder of the Grossman Burn Foundation and the wife of a prominent burn doctor.
The boys’ parents also filed lawsuits in civil court against both Grossman and Erickson, who was driving ahead of her when the Iskander brothers were killed. That trial began in April.
The deadly crash occurred on the evening of Sept. 29, 2020, in Westlake Village, a city on the western edge of Los Angeles County.
Brian Panish, the Iskander family’s attorney, argued that Grossman and Erickson were both driving recklessly after drinking margaritas together. The two were dating at a time when Grossman and her husband were separated.
Panish said Grossman was driving 73 mph (117 kph) when her car struck the boys in a crosswalk on a road where the posted speed limit was 45 mph (72 kph).
He said Grossman was following Erickson, who was also speeding and narrowly missed the family.
“This was a totally preventable collision,” Panish told the jury in closing arguments Wednesday. “They went out for a walk and they never came home.”
Grossman’s attorney, Esther Holm, denied that her client was intoxicated. She said Grossman was distracted when she saw the boys’ mother dive out of the way of Erickson’s vehicle.
“Ms. Grossman was not driving impaired,” Holm told the jury. “She did not see the children, as her attention was diverted by Ms. Iskander.”
Erickson’s attorney, Jeff Braun, called the boys’ deaths a tragedy but emphasized that the vehicle he was driving “made no contact with the children.”
Virginia
Man gets life in prison for double murder scheme in affair with Brazilian au pair
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — A Virginia man who was having an affair with the family’s Brazilian au pair was sentenced Friday to life in prison without parole for the murder of his wife and a man who was lured to the couple’s home as a fall guy.
Brendan Banfield, a former IRS law enforcement officer, claimed that he shot Joseph Ryan after he came across Ryan attacking his wife on the morning of Feb. 24, 2023. But prosecutors said Brendan Banfield and au pair Juliana Peres Magalhães set Ryan up in a scheme to get rid of Christine Banfield, a pediatric intensive care nurse.
Judge Penney Azcarate called Banfield’s actions evil and calculated.
“The disregard of the life of your wife, someone you supposedly loved, is almost unfathomable,” she said in handing down the sentence. The scheme involved “luring a completely innocent man into your deadly trap; continuing on after the murders without a care; and not once — not once — thinking of the impact” on the Banfields’ 4-year-old daughter. Brendan Banfield “took everything from her,” Azcarate said.
In addition to murder, jurors in February convicted Banfield of child endangerment because the couple’s daughter was home during the killings.
During Banfield’s trial, Magalhães testified that he had told her he wanted to marry her and have children with her, but he needed to “get rid of” his wife first. He didn’t want a divorce because “she would have more money than he would” and because he wanted custody of the couple’s daughter, said Magalhães, who was 21 when she started working for the Banfields in 2021.
Magalhães told jurors that she and Brendan Banfield had impersonated Christine Banfield on a website for sexual fetishes. They used the site to lure Ryan to the house in Herndon, Virginia, for a sexual encounter involving a knife and staged the scene to look as if they had shot a violent intruder.
Magalhães testified that on the day of the killings, she waited in a car outside the house with the Banfields’ child. When Ryan arrived, she called Brendan Banfield, who was waiting at a nearby McDonald’s. The pair took the child to the basement and then went to the bedroom, where they encountered Ryan. Brendan Banfield shot Ryan and then stabbed Christine Banfield with the knife Ryan had brought. When Magalhães saw Ryan moving, she fired a second shot that killed him.
Some media have dubbed the case the “au pair affair.” Magalhães pleaded guilty to manslaughter after agreeing to testify against Brendan Banfield. Magalhães was sentenced to 10 years in prison after Banfield’s trial.
Prosecutors lose appeal in fake elector case, vow to present it again to a grand jury
PHOENIX (AP) — One of the three remaining criminal cases stemming from efforts by President Donald Trump’s supporters to overturn the 2020 election results appears headed back to a grand jury in Arizona.
The case began in April 2024 when an indictment sought by Arizona’s Democratic attorney general charged 18 Republicans with forgery, fraud and conspiracy, accusing them of trying to undo former President Joe Biden’s victory in the state by 10,457 votes.
In a decision released Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected Attorney General Kris Mayes’ request to avoid sending the case back to the grand jury. Mayes had hoped to continue pushing forward through the courts without having to start over at the grand jury level.
An appeal sent the case to the state’s highest court after defense attorneys argued successfully that the original grand jury hadn’t been shown the relevant parts of a law that governs how presidential contests are certified.
The most recent ruling marked another setback for Mayes, whose case has been stalled for over a year. The attorney general’s office said it will again present the case in its entirety to a grand jury rather than end the prosecution. It declined to comment further on the decision.
The ruling came after similar cases in Michigan and Georgia were dismissed by the courts and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. All three cases ended after Trump defeated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. Cases related to the fake elector scheme are ongoing in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.
In Arizona, defense lawyers have argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed. Federal law was amended in 2022 to specify that any given state could put forward only one slate of electors and that state governors are responsible for signing off.
Mark L. Williams, an attorney representing Giuliani, applauded the state Supreme Court’s latest decision and questioned whether Mayes’ office will carry through on its promise to bring the case back to the grand jury. “In my mind, the whole thing is meritless,” Williams said. “Mr. Giuliani has done nothing wrong.”
The state attorney general has faced steep challenges in making her case.
It was filed nearly three and a half years after the 2020 election and levels complicated conspiracy charges against the 18 defendants. A dozen dismissal requests filed by defense attorneys have slowed progress in court.
The first judge on the case recused himself in late 2024 after an email surfaced in which he told fellow judges to speak out against attacks on Harris’ campaign for the presidency. The next judge ordered the case to be sent back to a grand jury.
Of the 18 Arizona defendants, two were former Trump aides, five were lawyers working for Trump and 11 were Republicans who submitted a document falsely claiming Trump won Arizona.
Three defendants have resolved their cases, including one who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.
The rest have pleaded not guilty. Some said they signed the certificate in case Trump won court challenges and a new slate of electors was needed urgently before Congress’ Jan. 6 deadline to tally votes.
Washington
Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on federal regulation of telecom companies
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Thursday in upholding the power of federal regulators to enforce data privacy laws on telecommunications companies.
The 8-1 decision preserved one of the Federal Communications Commission’s key tools, though the companies also won a concession from the Republican administration that could shift the regulatory landscape.
The appeal from telecommunications giants Verizon and AT&T challenged a combined $100 million in penalties imposed after the agency determined that the companies had failed to safeguard customer location data.
The companies argued that the FCC’s process was unconstitutional because it gave them little opportunity to tell their side of the story in front of a jury.
The administration defended the fines as an essential regulatory tool. But the government also said companies did not have to pay the penalties right away, a regulatory shift in the companies’ favor.
The Supreme Court agreed, affirming the FCC’s power to order fines when challenges are still available.
“The orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said he would have given the two telecom companies a clearer path to recouping the fines they already paid.
Other agencies use similar enforcement methods, so a sweeping victory for AT&T and Verizon could have had widespread effects, advocates said.
The environmental group Earthjustice applauded the ruling, saying it has direct implications for other agencies and a key energy-efficiency case.
“By rejecting this unsupported attack on agency authority, the Court’s decision safeguards the government’s ability to enforce laws that protect people, communities, and the environment,” said Caroline Flynn, the group’s Supreme Court counsel.
The libertarian-leaning New Civil Liberties Alliance was disappointed by the decision, but expected it to help other companies in the future. “In fact, it may even buttress their willingness to challenge future agency orders in federal court before paying any penalties,” said the alliance’s president, Mark Chenoweth.
A few more carriers may decide to litigate, but the decision leaves the FCC with the power to “publicly announce large fines with much fanfare,” said Doug Orvis, a veteran telecom attorney. “It will be interesting to see what happens going forward.”
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has sided against federal agencies and limited their power before. That includes overturning a decades-old decision that had given regulators an advantage in court and stripping another agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud.
California
Jury awards $176M for wrongful deaths of brothers struck by socialite’s car
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Los Angeles jury has awarded $176 million to the parents of two young brothers killed in a hit-and-run collision when a California socialite’s car struck them in a crosswalk nearly six years ago.
The jury found both Rebecca Grossman and Scott Erickson, a former Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher, negligent in the deaths of 11-year-old Mark Iskander and 8-year-old Jacob Iskander. The damages awarded Wednesday were for wrongful death and emotional distress.
Court was scheduled to resume Friday as jurors must still decide whether to award punitive damages to the boys’ parents, Nancy and Karim Iskander.
Grossman was sentenced in 2024 to serve 15 years to life in prison after being convicted of second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter and hit-and-run driving in a separate criminal trial. She is a co-founder of the Grossman Burn Foundation and the wife of a prominent burn doctor.
The boys’ parents also filed lawsuits in civil court against both Grossman and Erickson, who was driving ahead of her when the Iskander brothers were killed. That trial began in April.
The deadly crash occurred on the evening of Sept. 29, 2020, in Westlake Village, a city on the western edge of Los Angeles County.
Brian Panish, the Iskander family’s attorney, argued that Grossman and Erickson were both driving recklessly after drinking margaritas together. The two were dating at a time when Grossman and her husband were separated.
Panish said Grossman was driving 73 mph (117 kph) when her car struck the boys in a crosswalk on a road where the posted speed limit was 45 mph (72 kph).
He said Grossman was following Erickson, who was also speeding and narrowly missed the family.
“This was a totally preventable collision,” Panish told the jury in closing arguments Wednesday. “They went out for a walk and they never came home.”
Grossman’s attorney, Esther Holm, denied that her client was intoxicated. She said Grossman was distracted when she saw the boys’ mother dive out of the way of Erickson’s vehicle.
“Ms. Grossman was not driving impaired,” Holm told the jury. “She did not see the children, as her attention was diverted by Ms. Iskander.”
Erickson’s attorney, Jeff Braun, called the boys’ deaths a tragedy but emphasized that the vehicle he was driving “made no contact with the children.”
Virginia
Man gets life in prison for double murder scheme in affair with Brazilian au pair
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — A Virginia man who was having an affair with the family’s Brazilian au pair was sentenced Friday to life in prison without parole for the murder of his wife and a man who was lured to the couple’s home as a fall guy.
Brendan Banfield, a former IRS law enforcement officer, claimed that he shot Joseph Ryan after he came across Ryan attacking his wife on the morning of Feb. 24, 2023. But prosecutors said Brendan Banfield and au pair Juliana Peres Magalhães set Ryan up in a scheme to get rid of Christine Banfield, a pediatric intensive care nurse.
Judge Penney Azcarate called Banfield’s actions evil and calculated.
“The disregard of the life of your wife, someone you supposedly loved, is almost unfathomable,” she said in handing down the sentence. The scheme involved “luring a completely innocent man into your deadly trap; continuing on after the murders without a care; and not once — not once — thinking of the impact” on the Banfields’ 4-year-old daughter. Brendan Banfield “took everything from her,” Azcarate said.
In addition to murder, jurors in February convicted Banfield of child endangerment because the couple’s daughter was home during the killings.
During Banfield’s trial, Magalhães testified that he had told her he wanted to marry her and have children with her, but he needed to “get rid of” his wife first. He didn’t want a divorce because “she would have more money than he would” and because he wanted custody of the couple’s daughter, said Magalhães, who was 21 when she started working for the Banfields in 2021.
Magalhães told jurors that she and Brendan Banfield had impersonated Christine Banfield on a website for sexual fetishes. They used the site to lure Ryan to the house in Herndon, Virginia, for a sexual encounter involving a knife and staged the scene to look as if they had shot a violent intruder.
Magalhães testified that on the day of the killings, she waited in a car outside the house with the Banfields’ child. When Ryan arrived, she called Brendan Banfield, who was waiting at a nearby McDonald’s. The pair took the child to the basement and then went to the bedroom, where they encountered Ryan. Brendan Banfield shot Ryan and then stabbed Christine Banfield with the knife Ryan had brought. When Magalhães saw Ryan moving, she fired a second shot that killed him.
Some media have dubbed the case the “au pair affair.” Magalhães pleaded guilty to manslaughter after agreeing to testify against Brendan Banfield. Magalhães was sentenced to 10 years in prison after Banfield’s trial.
