A state senator from Minnesota who was ordered to “resign in disgrace” after being arrested for trying to meet up with an underage sex worker — with him doing so last week — is now facing allegations of obstruction for allegedly telling a woman to swipe a computer and other items from his home during a phone call from jail, police say.

Justin Eichorn (R-Grand Rapids) — who was best known for his lobbying and support of a “Trump Derangement Syndrome” bill in the Gopher State up until his child solicitation arrest on March 17 — was accused in court documents filed Sunday of lying to federal prosecutors about at least three different things that he allegedly did that temporarily prevented him from being released by a judge this week on bail.

“Eichorn lied to the Court about his access to firearms; Eichorn apparently orchestrated an effort to retrieve a computer from his St. Paul apartment to deprive investigators of the opportunity to examine it; and Eichorn kept with that computer an iPhone that FBI agents found in a recently ‘factory reset’ condition, suggesting that someone with access to the phone’s accounts attempted to wipe it,” prosecutors said in a motion to detain Eichorn, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. “These facts give the government, and should give the Court, serious concern that Eichorn may be attempting to obstruct the ongoing investigation into his conduct,” prosecutors said.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Allegations that murder defendant was ‘a…

Criminal Justice

Allegations that murder defendant was ‘a drug ho’ who practiced witchcraft leads to tossed conviction

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 25, 2025, 9:15 am CST

The New Mexico Supreme Court has overturned a woman’s 2022 murder conviction and barred a retrial because of “severe and pervasive prosecutorial misconduct, exacerbated by a lackluster defense.”

The state supreme court tossed the conviction and the case against Desiree Lensegrav, concluding in a Feb. 20 opinion that her “entire trial was filled with theatrics, hyperbole and disparaging inflammatory statements.”

In his opening statement, the prosecutor called Lensegrav “a worthless mother” and “a drug ho—not my words!” the opinion said. During the trial, the prosecution called a witness who accused Lensegrav of witchcraft. In closing statements, the prosecutor encouraged jurors to convict Lensegrav “for the stench of death that permeated this courtroom.”

The prosecutor was referring to the introduction of “foul-smelling” physical evidence that was attached to the victim’s body, which caused a trial adjournment.

The Legal Profession Blog posted highlights from the opinion, while the Taos News and KOB had coverage. The state supreme court also issued a Feb. 20 press release.

The opinion identified the lead prosecutor as Assistant District Attorney Cosme Ripol of the Eighth Judicial District in New Mexico. He will not be commenting in response to an ABA Journal request, according to the district office manager.

Eighth Judicial District Attorney Marcus J. Montoya issued a statement.

“Though we prepared fully to present this case at trial, secured a conviction and would have preferred to keep this truly bad actor in prison, we accept the opinion of the supreme court, and we will always learn and evolve so as to continually improve,” Montoya said.

Lensegrav’s husband, Aram Montoya, pleaded guilty to murder in the killing in 2021 and received a life sentence. In his opening statement, Ripol told jurors about Aram Montoya’s statements incriminating Lensegrav, even though he was not on the prosecution witness list.

Referring to Lensegrav, Ripol said jurors will hear a story “of a strong, smart, determined, manipulative, vengeful, capable, controlling, resilient, cunning human being with a profound drug problem” who used her “needy, insecure” husband to commit murder.

Ripol also told jurors about expected testimony from the owner of a drug house. The owner would testify that Lensegrav suggested on several occasions that she was a witch, and she “would put menstrual blood concoctions” in her husband’s food to control him, Ripol said. The owner saw Lensegrav’s eyes turn “black. With fury. And rage,” Ripol said. “And it was like a Hollywood movie. He could feel the wind coming out of her.”

Lensegrav and Aram Montoya became suspects in 2020 after Aram Montoya was accused of trying to kill Lensegrav by repeatedly stabbing her in the neck and back with a paring knife. After Lensegrav came out of a medically induced coma, police gave her a Miranda warning and began to question her about the 2019 murder of Joseph Morgas. Police told Lensegrav that her husband had confessed to the murder, and her husband had thrown her “under the bus.”

Lensegrav told police that she wanted Aram Montoya to beat up Morgas because of his statements at the drug house. Morgas was a relative of a man who raped and impregnated Lensegrav when she was a teenager.

Lensegrav said Morgas laughed at her, called her a drug whore, and said she deserved to be raped. He also said he had video of Lensegrav at the drug house, and he would share it with his family, so they could get custody of her child.

Aram Montoya and Morgas fought outside the drug house, Lensegrav told police. Aram Montoya put Morgas in a headlock and “choked him out,” causing him to turn purple and go limp, she said. Lensegrav said she helped dispose of the body, fearing that Aram Montoya would kill her, too, if she didn’t cooperate.

Ripol told jurors that Lensegrav had confessed to strangling Morgas with twine, directed her husband to burn the body and to cut off Morgas’ head with a shovel, and had thrown the shovel and head in the river.

“None of these allegations would conform to the evidence,” the New Mexico Supreme Court said.

“Inexplicably,” the state supreme court said, “defense counsel did not object to the vast majority of instances of prosecutorial misconduct that defendant identifies on appeal.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutorial misconduct was so unfairly prejudicial that it presented a double jeopardy bar to a retrial under the New Mexico Constitution.

“Prosecutors are held to the highest ethical standards in all courtrooms, and any time that standard is not maintained, reversal and this type of circumstance is the result. Like many trials get, this case became emotionally charged,” Montoya said in his statement to the Journal.

“Fortunately, the person we know was physically guilty of taking Mr. Morgas’ life is still in prison, and he will stay there,” Montoya said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

“People hate what they don’t understand.” The United States of Insanity embodies this mantra, and if you watch the film, you’ll hear these wise words uttered by a man in clown face paint. But maybe that’s part of the point.

The fact that I felt compelled to comment on Joseph Bruce and Joseph Utsler’s face paint speaks volumes about how appearances can prejudice. The two collectively form the alternative hip-hop musical group Insane Clown Posse, also known as ICP. The United States of Insanity details their fight against the FBI to prevent the government from labeling them and their fans, who call themselves Juggalos, as a criminal gang. It is now streaming on Amazon Prime.

The film describes Juggalos—female fans are Juggalettes—as commonly lower working-class individuals who show their affection and affinity for the group by painting their faces in a similar clown style as Bruce and Utsler, who go by the stage names Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope. Juggalos not only embrace the hatred so commonly directed at ICP’s music, they make it the “soundtrack of their lives,” according to the group.

Many meet at the annual “Gathering of the Juggalos,” shirtless and sporting face paint, along with “hatchetman” tattoos. There’s also plenty of band merchandise, including T-shirts and beanies. Their clothing and iconography make them immediately identifiable … when they aren’t hiding it.

If it can happen to a Juggalo …

The decision to associate is an important one for Juggalos. After all, ICP’s music is not critically acclaimed, to say the least. In a somewhat self-deprecating manner, the musicians and their fans seem to champion ICP’s music as being notoriously … bad.

As the film progresses, various Juggalos describe the prejudice they have received for their love of ICP’s music. They recount being fired once their employers discovered their musical allegiance. We hear about people being arrested for nonviolent offenses like driving under the influence of alcohol, only to be placed in the jail’s gang unit. One fan explains being denied custody of his son because a room in his home houses his ICP memorabilia.

This leads to the heart of the film’s discussion: How and why has the FBI labeled ICP and their fans a street gang?

“If this happened to a band that America liked, the country would be up in arms,” the group notes.

We learn that the FBI operates from a national definition of what constitutes a street gang, and they believe ICP fits the bill. According to the film, though, the FBI in reaching that conclusion relied on isolated incidents of criminal activity committed by individuals who identify themselves as Juggalos. I’ve dealt with the Department of Justice and gangs before, but I’ve never had a Juggalo case.

First Amendment concerns

The band fights back, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union. Ultimately, ICP and some Juggalos file a federal lawsuit against the FBI, challenging the agency’s designation of the musical group’s fans as a criminal gang. After six months, the suit is dismissed by a Detroit federal judge, based on the government’s position that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing. They argued that any harm inflicted upon the fans was inflicted by third parties, such as local law enforcement.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ohio-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The film audience hears portions of the appellate arguments during which government attorneys argue that the gang designation is simply information the FBI provides local law enforcement agencies to use as they see fit.

Regardless, the trial court’s decision is reversed, and the case is remanded back.

Upon remand, the government again moves for a dismissal, and the trial court again grants their motion. The case is appealed once more; however, this time the dismissal is sustained. The appellate court reasoned that since law enforcement isn’t forced to act on the FBI’s gang designation, the FBI isn’t responsible under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Undeterred, the Juggalos march on Washington, D.C., on Sept. 16, 2017, complete with an ICP concert at the Lincoln Memorial. They aren’t happy with the final decision, but they know their fight was on behalf of something bigger than just ICP.

After all, as one of the ACLU attorneys featured in the film commented, “If the government can target a group of people based on their musical tastes, they can target a group of people based on anything at all.”

What is ‘gang evidence,’ and how does it work?

The United States of Insanity ends on a mostly positive note: Even though the Juggalos lost their court battle against the FBI, they raised public concern for their cause while shedding light on some problematic interpretations of what constitutes a “gang.”

As discussed earlier, the FBI uses a national definition with set criteria as to when that label is appropriate, including the following:

  • The group has three or more members, generally aged 12–24.

  • Members share an identity, typically linked to a name, and often other symbols.

  • Members view themselves as a gang, and they are recognized by others as a gang.

  • The group has some permanence and a degree of organization.

  • The group is involved in an elevated level of criminal activity.

Furthermore, in the federal criminal system, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 created punishment enhancements of up to 10 years for members of criminal street gangs who commit certain crimes.

In my home state of Oklahoma, we have a few gang-related statutes. For instance, “[a]ny person who attempts or commits a gang-related offense” either as a condition of membership or while in association with any gang or gang member “shall be guilty of a felony offense.” That felony is punishable by up to five years in addition to any other penalty imposed.

Additionally, prosecutors often try to employ “gang” evidence in their cases. I’ve seen many offer it as res gestae in the matter, arguing the evidence is necessary to give the jury a complete understanding of the crime.

Really, though, it’s usually just a bold-faced attempt to offer propensity evidence to prejudice the jury against the defendant. In that vein, prosecutors will often result to arguing FRCP 404 or the state equivalent—which allows otherwise prohibited propensity evidence—in hopes of proving the proffered gang evidence will show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or lack of accident.

Don’t get me wrong: Gangs are real. They can be really dangerous. But as The United States of Insanity shows, an affiliation with a group, even one the government labels as a “gang,” isn’t a person’s only defining characteristic.

It’s foolish to say that every action they take is in conformity with, mandated by or in furtherance of the group.

---

Adam R. Banner is the founder and lead attorney of the Oklahoma Legal Group, a criminal defense law firm in Oklahoma City. His practice focuses solely on state and federal criminal defense. He represents the accused against allegations of sex crimes, violent crimes, drug crimes and white-collar crimes.

The study of law isn’t for everyone, yet its practice and procedure seem to permeate pop culture at an increasing rate. This column is about the intersection of law and pop culture in an attempt to separate the real from the ridiculous.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Indiana’s former AG says dropped groping…

Trials & Litigation

Indiana’s former AG says dropped groping suit ends ‘odyssey of unfounded allegations’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 10, 2024, 3:00 pm CST

Four women who accused then-Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill of groping them at a 2018 party have dropped their civil lawsuit against him, citing their conclusion that a trial would not make him take responsibility for his alleged actions.

The four plaintiffs decided to drop the suit filed in Marion County, Indiana, court on Sunday, a day before the scheduled start of trial, report the Indianapolis Star and the Associated Press.

Hill said in a statement that the women dismissed the case with no financial settlement and no conditions, according to AP and the Indianapolis Star. The dropped suit ends “this odyssey of unfounded allegations that have dogged me for nearly seven years and have served as the fuel for political and personal attacks against me,” he said.

At the time of the party, one of the plaintiffs was an Indiana lawmaker and the three others were legislative staffers.

The women said in their statement that they decided to drop the suit “to protect themselves from further hardship, disruption to their lives, and trauma that the trial would create.”

The women had claimed Hill touched them inappropriately without consent at a bar party at the end of the legislative session, leading to Hill’s 30-day suspension from law practice in 2020. The Indiana Supreme Court had found that Hill rubbed his hand down one woman’s bare back, touched a second woman’s back, put his arm around a third woman’s waist and pulled her toward him, and touched a fourth woman’s back and buttocks.

Hill was not criminally charged after a special prosecutor concluded in October 2018 that proof of intent was lacking.

The women’s suit alleged the touching amounted to battery and Hill’s denials of the allegations were defamatory. A judge ruled in March that the women could not refer to the ethics case at trial or to Hill’s alleged drunkenness during the bar party.

Hill had claimed any touching that occurred was not intended to be disrespectful or sexual in nature.

Hill lost the Republican primary race for attorney general in 2020. The women no longer have political careers because their allegations damaged their reputations and work relationships, they said in the statement cited by the Indianapolis Star.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Dechert will pay millions of dollars to settle…

Law Firms

Dechert will pay millions of dollars to settle ‘hack-for-hire’ allegations stemming from ex-partner’s work

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 5, 2024, 10:54 am CST

Dechert has agreed to pay $3.8 million plus costs to settle claims in the United Kingdom that a former London partner conspired to hack and release the emails of a client’s opponent.

The costs have not yet been determined, but they are about $11 million, bringing the total to nearly $15 million, according to Farhad Azima, the aviation executive who said his email was hacked.

Law360 and Bloomberg Law have coverage.

A spokesperson for Azima told Law360 that he has also resolved his claims against the former partner, Neil Gerrard, as part of the U.K. settlement. But the settlement does not resolve Azima’s a RICO suit against Dechert and Gerrard in the United States, according to Bloomberg Law and Law360. A motion to dismiss that federal lawsuit is pending in the Southern District of New York.

Gerrard was global co-chair of Dechert’s white-collar and securities litigation practice before his retirement in 2020.

Azima has alleged that his emails were hacked and released to reporters in a bid to silence his complaints about human rights abuses by Dechert client Ras Al Khaimah, one of the United Arab Emirates. Azima alleges that he was the victim of a “massive hack-for-hire operation” orchestrated by Girardi, according to Law360.

Dechert said there was no admission of liability in connection with the U.K. settlement.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law prof presses male sex-bias allegations…

Law Professors

Law prof presses male sex-bias allegations in new suit after federal judge tosses his Title IX claim

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 7, 2024, 10:42 am CST

Updated: A professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law has filed a new lawsuit against the school stemming from a former associate dean’s alleged comments in 2016 that she didn’t want to see white men teaching anymore in the trial advocacy program that he headed.

Law professor David Schott alleges in his Feb. 2 suit that he notified the law school dean of the alleged comments by Viva Moffat, the associate dean of academic affairs. In the years that followed, he was subjected to a “steady barrage of adverse actions and false statements,” the suit contends.

Law360 has coverage.

The adverse actions culminated with the law school’s failure to renew Schott’s seven-year contract, which should have taken effect in the 2020-2021 school year. As a result, the suit says, Schott was relegated “to the status of an at-will employee and [deprived] of the procedural protections to which he would be entitled as a member of DU’s long-term contract faculty.”

Schott alleges breach of contract, defamation, gross negligence, violations of Colorado wage law and sex-based wage discrimination under the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act.

Schott filed the suit in state court in Denver less than a month after a federal judge tossed his prior suit alleging that his teaching contract was not renewed because he is a man.

The Denver Post and Bloomberg Law via the TaxProf Blog covered the Jan. 4 dismissal of that suit, which alleged retaliation and sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

The federal judge ruled Jan. 4 that Schott had not shown a “materially adverse” action because his employment had not significantly changed. Schott “has not sought medical treatment, has not been fired, his pay has not been reduced, and he has received merit raises from the university in the years following the 2016 allegations and his contract nonrenewal,” wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Christine M. Arguello of the District of Colorado.

Arguello declined to rule on 10 other claims in the federal suit because they involve state law, rather than federal law, according to the Denver Post. Schott’s lawyers have filed notice that they will appeal Arguello’s decision.

Both suits cite comments by Moffat, who allegedly told Schott that she wanted to “see friendly faces, faces of minority women, preferably African-American women.” Schott’s new suit alleges tortious interference with a contract by Moffat.

Shortly after Moffat’s comments, she informed Schott that there had been reports of gender discrimination in the Center for Advocacy at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Those reports were “utterly unfounded” according to the new suit.

One unfounded allegation involved a female professor from another law school who told four female students that they sounded “b- – – -y” during a summer program in Scotland, the suit says. The other involved an allegation that a female student was asked whether she could make the required time commitment when she tried out for for the law school’s national trial team. Everyone was asked this question, the suit says.

Schott requested a formal hearing on the allegations, but it was denied. He was later presented with a “statement of expectations” with five action items that he must carry out because of the gender discrimination allegations.

Schott developed a “plan of action” that substantially complied with the statement of expectations, and it was fully carried out, the suit says. He heard nothing more about his plan from university officials, until the allegations were later used to improperly deny renewal of his teaching contract, Schott’s suit says.

Before the contract renewal, Moffat allegedly reported that she had heard from female students about the “b- – – -y” comment, as well as hearing concerns that female students were asked about personal relationships, one female student was asked whether her husband approved of her participation on the advocacy team, and one student thought that she had to choose between the team and her academic/legal future.

The allegations about the “b- – – -y” comment and husband approval were already part of the Title IX complaint, which was dismissed without a finding of wrongdoing, the suit says. The other allegations were false or made with reckless disregard of their truthfulness, the suit says.

Schott also claimed that he reached a verbal deal with the law school to teach additional classes in exchange for a year in which he would be relieved of his teaching duties, but the school did not live up to the agreement after he increased his teaching duties.

Beginning in 2021, Scott’s annual salary was $115,609, which included his base salary and a stipend for working as the director of the school’s Center for Advocacy. The amount is less than the compensation received by female practice professors, the suit says.

Updated Feb. 7 at 3:40 p.m. to report that law professor David Schott’s lawyers have filed notice that they will appeal Senior U.S. District Judge Christine M. Arguello’s decision.