billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 16, 2024 23:47:23 GMT -5
If the Feds declined to prosecute Trump on fraud charges, how can Bragg prosecute him on a on the same fraud charges? And the NY statute of limitations has passed? I'm not a lawyer so not sure which applies to Trumps case. I thought all this happened in 2016 so the clock has run out: "An action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it". Or this one.
"For falsifying business records to a second degree, a conviction will result in a Class A misdemeanor. All misdemeanors in New York have a statute of limitations for two years. On the other hand, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony. A felony offense statute of limitations is five years". Perhaps you should contact Trump’s attorneys and let them know all about this oversight.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 16, 2024 23:58:23 GMT -5
If the Feds declined to prosecute Trump on fraud charges, how can Bragg prosecute him on a on the same fraud charges? And the NY statute of limitations has passed? I'm not a lawyer so not sure which applies to Trumps case. I thought all this happened in 2016 so the clock has run out: "An action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it". Or this one.
"For falsifying business records to a second degree, a conviction will result in a Class A misdemeanor. All misdemeanors in New York have a statute of limitations for two years. On the other hand, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony. A felony offense statute of limitations is five years". Sitting presidents cannot be indicted. So the statute of limitations clock stops until the president is out of office. Once out of office, the clock starts again.
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,355
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Apr 17, 2024 0:53:02 GMT -5
If the Feds declined to prosecute Trump on fraud charges, how can Bragg prosecute him on a on the same fraud charges? And the NY statute of limitations has passed? I'm not a lawyer so not sure which applies to Trumps case. I thought all this happened in 2016 so the clock has run out: "An action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it". Or this one.
"For falsifying business records to a second degree, a conviction will result in a Class A misdemeanor. All misdemeanors in New York have a statute of limitations for two years. On the other hand, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony. A felony offense statute of limitations is five years". Sitting presidents cannot be indicted. So the statute of limitations clock stops until the president is out of office. Once out of office, the clock starts again. That makes sense Thanks
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,326
|
Post by swamp on Apr 17, 2024 9:28:36 GMT -5
If the Feds declined to prosecute Trump on fraud charges, how can Bragg prosecute him on a on the same fraud charges? And the NY statute of limitations has passed? I'm not a lawyer so not sure which applies to Trumps case. I thought all this happened in 2016 so the clock has run out: "An action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it". Or this one.
"For falsifying business records to a second degree, a conviction will result in a Class A misdemeanor. All misdemeanors in New York have a statute of limitations for two years. On the other hand, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony. A felony offense statute of limitations is five years". They're felonies. It's 5 years. And the statute tolls while the defendant is out of state. You can also have a fed to decline to prosecute and have the state do it, or the state declines and the fed does it, or they both prosecute for the same actions.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 17, 2024 9:41:12 GMT -5
THE BOROWITZ REPORT
Poll: Majority of Americans Prefer Sleeping Trump to Conscious VersionNEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—In a development that an aide to the presumptive GOP nominee called “the best news this campaign has gotten in quite some time,” a new poll shows that a majority of likely voters “vastly prefer” Donald J. Trump when he is asleep to when he is awake. According to the survey, conducted by the Opinion Research Institute at the University of Minnesota, the conscious version of Trump garners a lowly 41 percent approval rating, in marked contrast with the unconscious version’s 98 percent. When asked to state what they liked most about the slumbering Trump, 72 percent checked “Cannot say anything,” while a whopping 83 percent ticked “Can do no harm.” Carol Foyler, a top Trump campaign aide, said that the numbers suggest “we have to do a better job of getting the message out that Donald Trump is asleep most if not all of the day.” “We need to showcase Mr. Trump at campaign events where he looks heavy-lidded and, ideally, snores,” she said. “If, during a debate with Biden, he were to suddenly doze off and face-plant on the podium, that would be huge for us.” The aide said that the poll results would help the Trump campaign fine-tune its electoral strategy, adding, “Between now and Election Day, we have to keep Donald Trump on a steady drip of warm milk, chamomile tea, and Ambien.” Poll: Majority of Americans Prefer Sleeping Trump to Conscious Version
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 17, 2024 10:43:22 GMT -5
If the Feds declined to prosecute Trump on fraud charges, how can Bragg prosecute him on a on the same fraud charges? And the NY statute of limitations has passed? I'm not a lawyer so not sure which applies to Trumps case. I thought all this happened in 2016 so the clock has run out: "An action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it". Or this one.
"For falsifying business records to a second degree, a conviction will result in a Class A misdemeanor. All misdemeanors in New York have a statute of limitations for two years. On the other hand, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony. A felony offense statute of limitations is five years". I am not a lawyer either but I have heard the feds don’t usually charge someone unless they have a completely solid case. Maybe NY thought it was solid enough for them. As for the statute of limitations- I would think is that was a possible out Trump’s lawyers would have jumped on it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 17, 2024 12:26:50 GMT -5
"I should be right now in Pennsylvania, in Florida, in many other states — North Carolina, Georgia — campaigning," Trump said Tuesday. i got a great idea, then! plead guilty to all charges, and then you will be released awaiting sentencing! Very dated info but back in the early 80's, one of my poli sci class textbooks indicated that there was no empirical data that showed that personal appearances by presidential candidates increased vote totals in an area.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 17, 2024 13:26:26 GMT -5
i am actually not concerned with the business fraud allegations. i am concerned with the election interference allegations. THOSE are of national importance.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,409
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 17, 2024 14:55:30 GMT -5
According to Twitter, trump,fell asleep and farted audibly in court today. 🤣
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 18, 2024 8:46:23 GMT -5
Here are the witnesses expected at Trump’s hush money trialNEW YORK — Former President Trump is set to come face-to-face with a lineup of witnesses in his first criminal trial that could include former White House aides, Trump Organization employees and multiple people allegedly paid hush money on his behalf. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) is looking to convince a New York jury that the former president criminally covered up hush money payments to conceal damaging information from voters during his 2016 campaign, which ultimately led to victory. During the roughly six-week trial, Bragg’s team is expected to bring in key players in Trump’s orbit and those who knew about the hush money arrangement at the center of the case. Here’s a look at some of the potential trial witnesses, which the judge revealed this week. ‘Catch-and-kill’ scheme Michael Cohen Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer and personal lawyer, is expected to be a star witness for prosecutors. Cohen made the 2016 hush money payment at the center of the case, with Trump’s 34 counts of falsifying business records all connected to reimbursements made to Cohen following the payment. Trump has pleaded not guilty and has denied wrongdoing. He insists the records are truthful. Cohen had served as a loyal aide to the then-real estate mogul for roughly a decade. At one point, he even said he’d take a bullet for Trump. Rest of article here: Here are the witnesses expected at Trump’s hush money trial
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 18, 2024 9:01:48 GMT -5
And so it begns. Live Updates: Juror Is Dismissed as Trump’s Trial Begins Third DayThe juror was among seven selected for the panel on Tuesday, and her dismissal underscored the challenges of picking a jury for the criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump. A juror who had been selected for Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan was abruptly excused on Thursday, demonstrating the challenges of picking a jury to decide the fate of the polarizing former president. The woman told the judge overseeing the case that she had developed concerns about her identity becoming public. Although the judge has kept prospective jurors’ names private, they have disclosed their employers and other identifying information in court. After excusing her, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, instructed reporters to no longer detail where a prospective juror works. “I have the legal authority to do it,” the judge said of blocking the news media from reporting identifying employer information. Rest of article here: Live Updates: Juror Is Dismissed as Trump’s Trial Begins Third Day
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 18, 2024 10:53:04 GMT -5
must have been the disney employee.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 18, 2024 11:48:43 GMT -5
must have been the disney employee. I later read it was the hospital employee?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 18, 2024 11:57:42 GMT -5
must have been the disney employee. Update. Despite their stated reason, I wonder if either of these two felt any external pressure to back out of serving on the jury. 2 jurors dismissed from Trump hush money trial as prosecutors seek to hold ex-president in contemptNEW YORK (AP) — Two jurors in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial were dismissed Thursday, one after expressing doubt about her ability to be fair and impartial and the other over concerns that some of his answers in court may not have been accurate. The dismissals reduced to five the number of jurors who have been seated for the first-ever criminal trial of a former president. The setbacks in the selection process emerged during a frenetic morning in which prosecutors also asked for Trump to held in contempt over a series of social media posts this week, while the judge in the case barred reporters from identifying jurors’ employers after expressing privacy concerns. The seating of the full jury — whenever it comes — will be a seminal moment in the case, setting the stage for a trial that will place the former president’s legal jeopardy at the heart of the campaign against Democrat Joe Biden and for weeks of testimony about Trump’s private life before he became president. 2 jurors dismissed from Trump hush money trial as prosecutors seek to hold ex-president in contempt
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Apr 18, 2024 12:04:41 GMT -5
I question whether there's ever a good reason for jurors' names (or any other info that could potentially identify them) to be made public. Seems like it could be really dangerous, depending on the case. Never know when some whackjob is gonna come after you for retribution when they lose.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 18, 2024 14:59:55 GMT -5
i had a fairly minor drug (distribution) case, and my name was never released, only jury number.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Apr 18, 2024 15:02:05 GMT -5
I question whether there's ever a good reason for jurors' names (or any other info that could potentially identify them) to be made public. Seems like it could be really dangerous, depending on the case. Never know when some whackjob is gonna come after you for retribution when they lose. I would be scared as hell to be a juror on this trial.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 18, 2024 15:30:32 GMT -5
I question whether there's ever a good reason for jurors' names (or any other info that could potentially identify them) to be made public. Seems like it could be really dangerous, depending on the case. Never know when some whackjob is gonna come after you for retribution when they lose. I would be scared as hell to be a juror on this trial. you are well informed. most people are not.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,409
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 18, 2024 16:05:40 GMT -5
I would also be scared.
Hospitals generally employ a lot of people. I’m guessing she indicated her job title. When I was on a jury they asked what my husband did. There are only 6 of them in the city and several of them are women. I was asked what judge he worked for - that would narrow it down to just him. Because he is an attorney, I get why they need some extra details on him - although I’m not sure why they need to know the judges name.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 18, 2024 16:28:46 GMT -5
I question whether there's ever a good reason for jurors' names (or any other info that could potentially identify them) to be made public. Seems like it could be really dangerous, depending on the case. Never know when some whackjob is gonna come after you for retribution when they lose. I would be scared as hell to be a juror on this trial. Exactly. What if some MAGA minion gets hold of the jury list and publishes it on social media? You’d have every delusional nut job in the country on your phone or at your door.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 18, 2024 20:23:46 GMT -5
Donald Trump’s Hush-Money Trial Has a 12-Person Jury, Rebounding After HiccupsA12-person jury has been picked to decide the fate of Donald Trump in his hush-money case, setting the stage for the first criminal trial of a former president to kick off in earnest next week. The jury was finalized Thursday after three days of questioning nearly 200 prospective jurors and some hiccups along the way that included jurors being dismissed after having been selected. Five women and seven men are on the jury, which includes an investment banker who follows Trump on social media, a physical therapist who likes to run, a security engineer and a retired wealth manager. “I don’t think too much about politics and what you hear from people,” the retiree said in court during jury selection. Another juror said she didn’t have a strong opinion about Trump but wasn’t a fan of his public image and described him as self-serving. “How he portrays himself in public is not my cup of tea,” she said. One alternate juror was also selected but five still need to be picked. They are expected to be chosen on Friday. The judge presiding over the case, Justice Juan Merchan, swore in the selected jurors and instructed them to return Monday in hopes of beginning opening statements then. Rest of article here: Donald Trump’s Hush-Money Trial Has a 12-Person Jury, Rebounding After Hiccups
|
|
Pink Cashmere
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 24, 2022 16:18:40 GMT -5
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by Pink Cashmere on Apr 19, 2024 8:09:10 GMT -5
I question whether there's ever a good reason for jurors' names (or any other info that could potentially identify them) to be made public. Seems like it could be really dangerous, depending on the case. Never know when some whackjob is gonna come after you for retribution when they lose. I was a juror on a criminal case. The crime wasn’t violent in nature, but because the judge who presided over the case handles a lot of murder cases, there is a blanket policy to protect the identity of all jurors that serve in his courtroom. We were told that after we were done, if we wanted to ensure that we didn’t have to serve again within the next 10 years, we needed to make sure we kept the certificate we received in case we got called again, because that would be the only proof that we’d served jury duty. There would be no records kept, it would be like we’d never been there. Even though it wasn’t a murder trial, that still made me kind of nervous. The defendant was part of a ring of criminals, and after we delivered our verdict, we learned that that was the first of 17 cases against the defendant in 3 states. If there were things in place to try to protect us, surely it can be done on high profile cases.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Apr 19, 2024 9:53:40 GMT -5
I served on a murder trial in my city. I honestly have no idea if our personal information was made public or not. It was quite a few years ago and I likely wouldn't have even given it any thought at the time. We found the defendant guilty.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,409
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 19, 2024 11:08:14 GMT -5
I would be scared as hell to be a juror on this trial. Exactly. What if some MAGA minion gets hold of the jury list and publishes it on social media? You’d have every delusional nut job in the country on your phone or at your door. I heard that they are not speaking their names in court (which would make it public record) and the document that includes their names will be tightly controlled, with strict rules about copying or transcribing. It will be restricted to being viewed in a secure area - etc etc. But - I would still be worried that one of Trump’s representatives would memorize the names and slip them out into the world. Or that someone would sit outside the building and do some facial recognition to figure out who these people are. Another way is if you disappear from work for weeks, people will suspect. You can lie and tell them something else - but if you work at a company with more than a handful of people - someone will figure it out and if they are nefarious and part of the Trump world, your name could get out there. And that doesn’t include people who are clever, motivated and spend time thinking about how to make trouble.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 19, 2024 11:21:52 GMT -5
We need to develop a juror protection program. New home, New identity.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,368
|
Post by NastyWoman on Apr 19, 2024 11:25:31 GMT -5
What has boggled my mind ever since this whole issue came up is that the orange paint addict could have 100% avoided this trial if only he hadn't been such a cheapskate who just can't face paying for anything himself. I don't have a clue how rich he actually is but even if he overstates his wealth by a couple of billion $ those $160k would have been peanuts. But no, he has to go and falsify business records the dumb ass...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 19, 2024 11:33:10 GMT -5
I would be scared as hell to be a juror on this trial. Exactly. What if some MAGA minion gets hold of the jury list and publishes it on social media? You’d have every delusional nut job in the country on your phone or at your door. i would ask for protective custody. let's face it. MAGAts are not the sharpest tools in the shed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 19, 2024 11:37:20 GMT -5
I question whether there's ever a good reason for jurors' names (or any other info that could potentially identify them) to be made public. Seems like it could be really dangerous, depending on the case. Never know when some whackjob is gonna come after you for retribution when they lose. I was a juror on a criminal case. The crime wasn’t violent in nature, but because the judge who presided over the case handles a lot of murder cases, there is a blanket policy to protect the identity of all jurors that serve in his courtroom. We were told that after we were done, if we wanted to ensure that we didn’t have to serve again within the next 10 years, we needed to make sure we kept the certificate we received in case we got called again, because that would be the only proof that we’d served jury duty. There would be no records kept, it would be like we’d never been there. Even though it wasn’t a murder trial, that still made me kind of nervous. The defendant was part of a ring of criminals, and after we delivered our verdict, we learned that that was the first of 17 cases against the defendant in 3 states. If there were things in place to try to protect us, surely it can be done on high profile cases. i think that we should be less worried about our personal safety on juries and more concerned with the fate of the nation. the latter is in much greater peril, imo. consider the exposure of WITNESSES. that is where the rubber really hits the road, imo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 19, 2024 11:41:11 GMT -5
What has boggled my mind ever since this whole issue came up is that the orange paint addict could have 100% avoided this trial if only he hadn't been such a cheapskate who just can't face paying for anything himself. I don't have a clue how rich he actually is but even if he overstates his wealth by a couple of billion $ those $160k would have been peanuts. But no, he has to go and falsify business records the dumb ass... this is actually the entire case, Nasty. as you just said, that is chump change for Trump. he likely spends $160k in a week flying around and making mischief. it is NOTHING to him. but because he did this in furtherance of the campaign for president, it is an actual crime. it is the FACT that he didn't do this out in the open that makes it a problem for him.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 19, 2024 12:41:37 GMT -5
I was a juror on a criminal case. The crime wasn’t violent in nature, but because the judge who presided over the case handles a lot of murder cases, there is a blanket policy to protect the identity of all jurors that serve in his courtroom. We were told that after we were done, if we wanted to ensure that we didn’t have to serve again within the next 10 years, we needed to make sure we kept the certificate we received in case we got called again, because that would be the only proof that we’d served jury duty. There would be no records kept, it would be like we’d never been there. Even though it wasn’t a murder trial, that still made me kind of nervous. The defendant was part of a ring of criminals, and after we delivered our verdict, we learned that that was the first of 17 cases against the defendant in 3 states. If there were things in place to try to protect us, surely it can be done on high profile cases. i think that we should be less worried about our personal safety on juries and more concerned with the fate of the nation. the latter is in much greater peril, imo. consider the exposure of WITNESSES. that is where the rubber really hits the road, imo. Intimidating a jury member to the point they fear violence against them, their family or their homes so that they vote not guilty is just as important as the fate of the nation. Now Uber drivers have something to fear when they are sent to an address to pickup a package. Reprehensible act. Read the complete article in case you are not familiar with the case. Additional charges filed against man in killing of Uber driver he mistakenly believed was a scammerCNN — An 81-year-old Ohio man pleaded not guilty to multiple counts of murder and other charges Wednesday related to the shooting death of an Uber driver he mistakenly believed was working with a scammer attempting to extort him, according to the Clark County prosecutor. William Brock was previously arraigned on a murder charge for purposely causing Loletha Hall’s death. On Monday, a grand jury indicted him on that charge, as well as two new counts of felony murder, according to court records. The two felony murder counts accuse Brock of causing Hall’s death as a result of committing or trying to commit another underlying felony: felonious assault and kidnapping, respectively. In addition to the three murder counts, he was also charged with kidnapping her and felonious assault. In all, he faces five charges. CNN has reached out to Brock’s defense attorney, Paul Kavanagh, for comment. Complete article here: Additional charges filed against man in killing of Uber driver he mistakenly believed was a scammer
|
|