1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After US prosecutors mistakenly file confidential…

Trials & Litigation

After US prosecutors mistakenly file confidential memo, is their challenge to congestion pricing doomed?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 9:51 am CDT

Federal prosecutors have been kicked off a challenge to congestion pricing in New York City after they mistakenly filed a confidential memo saying the government is “very unlikely” to be successful.

The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York will be replaced on the case by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division, according to a statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Law360, Courthouse News Service, ABC News and the New York Times (here and here) have coverage.

“Are SDNY lawyers on this case incompetent or was this their attempt to resist?” the Transportation Department said in a statement cited by news media. “At the very least, it’s legal malpractice. It’s sad to see a premier legal organization continue to fall into such disgrace.”

The U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement the court filing “was a completely honest error and was not intentional in any way. Upon realizing the error, we immediately took steps to have the document removed.”

The confidential memo dated April 11 said there is “considerable litigation risk” in defending efforts by Sean Duffy, the secretary of the Transportation Department, to block the congestion pricing program using an argument that it was not statutorily authorized.

The Federal Highway Administration might be able to properly end the program, however, under regulations concerning the termination of cooperation agreements that no longer further agency priorities, the memo said.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York said in an April 24 order the mistaken filing raises two questions. The first is whether there is sufficient basis to seal the document after it was published by media outlets. The second is whether the mistaken disclosure waives the applicable attorney-client privilege.

Liman, an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term, is temporarily keeping the memo under seal and is asking for parties’ responses with due dates of May 2 and May 7.

Disclosure of the memo is “a lawyer’s nightmare,” but it is unlikely to be a deciding factor in the case, said Eric A. Goldstein, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group that supports congestion pricing, in an interview with the New York Times.

Little in the memo was surprising, and Liman, the judge in the litigation, is already familiar with the issues after hearing four other challenges to congestion pricing, Goldstein said.

Corey Bearak, a lawyer who opposes congestion pricing, told the New York Times that the Trump administration should consider other ways to challenge the program, including by joining litigants fighting congestion pricing in state court.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook…

Prosecutors

Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook posts criticizing judge presiding in his case, report says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 11:12 am CDT

The acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., formerly helped ghostwrite posts criticizing a judge presiding in a civil case in which he was the defendant, according to lawsuit documents cited by ProPublica.

U.S. attorney nominee Edward R. Martin Jr. helped his associate, Priscilla Gray, write the posts that began in 2016 after the Illinois judge “dealt Martin a major setback in the case,” according to the report by ProPublica, noted by Bloomberg Law’s Wake Up Call. Martin is filling the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia position on an acting basis.

Gray’s posts on the judge’s Facebook page called the judge a “politician” with the “lowest rating for a judge in Illinois.”

Martin had urged Gray to call the judge’s actions “unfair and rigged over and over,” according to ProPublica. He also urged Gray to privately message the judge, the article reports.

The judge was presiding in a case seeking to oust Martin from association with a grassroots group that he once headed, the Eagle Forum. The plaintiff was Anne Schlafly Cori, an Eagle Forum board member who was the daughter of the group’s founder, Phyllis Schlafly.

The truth about Martin’s involvement in the criticism “emerged as Cori’s lawyers gathered evidence for her lawsuit,” according to ProPublica.

President Donald Trump has nominated Martin, who has no prosecution experience, to remain in the U.S. attorney position. Martin did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment. Gray also declined to comment to the publication.

Andy Schlafly, a former Eagle Forum board member who supported Martin, told ProPublica that Gray “speaks for herself” and had every right to express her outrage. He also said no court has ever sanctioned Martin for his “First Amendment advocacy.”

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

A Georgia man has been indicted on murder charges after his wife died after being diagnosed with AIDS — and prosecutors say he knew he was HIV-positive and never told her.

Cleveland Broadie, who is in his early 60s, was previously charged with reckless conduct after his wife, Denise Broadie, died in April 2022, two days after she was diagnosed with having AIDS. Now, a grand jury has indicted him for malice murder and felony murder in connection to Denise Broadie’s death.

After she passed away, Denise Broadie’s family members suspected that their stepfather knew full well he was HIV-positive when he married their mother in 2014 and neglected to tell her about his status. WAGA, a local Fox affiliate, spoke to the family, who hired a private investigator to look into the life Cleveland Broadie had before he joined their family.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court will consider scope of Sixth…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will consider scope of Sixth Amendment right to counsel during trial recess

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 15, 2025, 2:37 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when a judge banned him from discussing his ongoing testimony when meeting with his lawyers during an overnight trial recess.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of David Asa Villarreal on April 7, report SCOTUSblog, Law360 and Law.com.

Villarreal was the only defense witness at his trial for fatally stabbing his boyfriend Aaron Estrada, according to prior coverage by SCOTUSblog. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison.

Two prior Supreme Court decisions have led to a lower-court split on whether defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to talk to their lawyers about their testimony when it is interrupted by an overnight break, according to the cert petition and a brief opposing cert filed by prosecutors in Texas.

In Geders v. United States, a decision in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are violated when a judge prohibits the defendant from conferring with their lawyer during an overnight break.

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Perry v. Leeke that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are not violated by a ban on consulting with their lawyer during a 15-minute recess between direct and cross-examination.

Six federal appeals courts and three state supreme courts have held that defendants have a right to confer with a lawyer about testimony during an overnight recess, according to the cert petition. The top state supreme courts or criminal courts in four other states—including Texas, in a ruling against Villarreal—have reached the opposite conclusion, according to the cert petition.

The case is Villarreal v. Texas.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Prosecutors ‘gravely injured’ his reputation…

Prosecutors

Prosecutors ‘gravely injured’ his reputation with misleading assertions, SCOTUSblog founder Goldstein says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 21, 2025, 9:20 am CDT

Updated: SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein is alleging that federal prosecutors “seriously misled the court” and should be rebuked for misstatements in public filings in a tax fraud case against him.

Goldstein criticized the government in a bid to compel production of grand jury testimony from an office manager who received an offer of cryptocurrency and other compensation from Goldstein. The government had characterized the compensation as an apparent attempt to influence a witness, an assertion contested by Goldstein in a March 18 document filed in federal court for the District of Maryland.

Goldstein’s court filing said his reputation was “gravely injured by the government’s false and misleading allegations in public filings,” including allegations that he likely tried to bribe the potential witness.

Goldstein said the court should address at a March 25 hearing “whether sanctions against the government are warranted—in the form of a rebuking the government on the record—for its lack of candor.”

Bloomberg Law and Law360 have coverage.

Goldstein, a former high-stakes poker player and U.S. Supreme Court litigator, has been accused in a federal indictment of hiding millions of dollars in income and cryptocurrency transactions on tax returns. He is also accused of using his boutique law firm to help cover his debts and of making false statements to mortgage lenders.

Prosecutors made allegations about attempting to influence a witness while seeking to keep in place conditions of Goldstein’s pretrial release.

The witness was a manager who had decided to leave Goldstein’s former firm, Goldstein & Russell. Prosecutors had said Goldstein was apparently trying to influence the manager when he offered the departing employee a $10,000 bonus, student loan payments and cryptocurrency.

After Goldstein sought disclosure of the grand jury testimony, the government said in a court filing the witness “has explained that defendant did not suggest that the witness not assist in the investigation, and the witness cannot testify as to defendant’s subjective intent.”

Goldstein’s lawyers characterized those caveats as a “belated confession” that discloses “exculpatory witness testimony” by the manager.

Goldstein also said there is another explanation for offering compensation to the manager: to retain the manager to assist the firm in gathering materials responsive to government subpoenas.

Goldstein’s court filing also criticized the government for alleged “false and misleading allegations” that he “used cryptocurrency accounts in violation of his release conditions” and “that he has access to millions of dollars in secret cryptocurrency accounts.”

The government’s lack of candor on the witness issue is “part of a broader pattern of misleading statements and omissions in the litigation over Mr. Goldstein’s release conditions,” the court filing said.

Updated March 27 at 10:37 a.m. to report that the office manager received an offer of cryptocurrency and compensation.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s…

Ethics

Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s ‘inner sanctum’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 27, 2025, 10:27 am CDT

An Oklahoma lawyer has been suspended for six months for watching real-time jury deliberations on a monitor in a murder case that he prosecuted.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court suspended former assistant district attorney Isaac Seth Brantley Shields in a March 25 decision.

The Legal Profession Blog published highlights.

Shields violated “the inner sanctum of a jury,” which is “a high breach of trust and a serious interference with the administration of justice,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. “It is common knowledge that observing jury deliberations is unacceptable.”

Shields was accused of watching the deliberations video July 1, 2022, in the trial of Chouteau, Oklahoma, man Robert Kent Kraft, according to prior coverage by KJRH.com. There was no audio, according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Shields was an assistant district attorney in Oklahoma’s District 12, which consists of Craig County, Mayes County and Rogers County. He was the lead prosecutor in the trial of Kraft, who claimed that he fatally stabbed another man in self-defense.

Jurors were deliberating in an adjacent courtroom to give them more space during the COVID-19 pandemic. The room was equipped with three security cameras that remained on during deliberations. Facial expressions and hand gestures were visible on the high-quality video, but it was not possible to read words on paper.

Two hours into the deliberations, an officer allowed Shields into the locked security office where the video played. Shields claimed that he was asked to enter because of a security situation involving the defendant’s family trying to enter the courtroom; security personnel said the security incident happened hours later, but they did not know why Shields was allowed in.

Shields said he did not immediately leave because he was curious about what was taking the jurors so long and because he had nothing else to do, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. He left and returned several times. He later told another assistant district attorney who was the second chair in the trial to come the security room. Shields controlled the cameras to zoom in and zoom out and discussed his observations with security officers and the other prosecutor.

At first, there appeared to be a holdout juror, but Kraft was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder. His case is on appeal after a mistrial was granted because of the prosecutors’ jury observations.

A deputy reported his concerns about the prosecutors watching the video. When asked what happened, Shields told his supervisors that he was in the room for “30 minutes. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less,” according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. He also said the video was grainy.

Shields actually observed the jury for more than two hours, according to the state supreme court. Shields “misrepresented and was deceitful regarding the reason he entered the security room, the length of time he watched the jury, and what he observed,” the state supreme court concluded.

Shields “not only observed the jury for over two hours, he failed to disclose that he was doing so to the court, or opposing counsel, even when dealing with jury questions. This is egregious behavior,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields and the other prosecutor self-reported the matter to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

Shields agreed to resign and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which he acknowledged violating a law that bans observing or recording jurors. He specified, however, that he had no intent to break the law.

Shields argued that he received no advantage by observing the jury, and he had watched others—including judges and prosecutors—listen to juries when deliberations got loud.

The state supreme court cited several mitigating factors. They included Shields’ military service, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, his self-reporting of the incident to the Oklahoma Bar Association, and his cooperation in the investigation that followed.

He has been “diligent in completing the terms” of the deferred prosecution agreement and has entered into an agreement with Lawyers Helping Lawyers, a referral service for lawyers, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields’ lawyer, Sheila Naifeh, told the ABA Journal that she and her client have no comment on the suspension.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer convicted in fatal shooting of man…

Criminal Justice

Lawyer convicted in fatal shooting of man who attacked him in law firm parking lot

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 10, 2025, 10:07 am CDT

A Connecticut lawyer was found guilty of first-degree manslaughter Friday for fatally shooting a man who attacked him in the parking lot of his law firm.

Robert L. Fisher Jr., 78, of Connecticut was convicted after jurors deliberated for three hours, report Law360, CT Insider and the Register Citizen.

Connecticut law imposes a “duty to retreat” before using force that can cause death or serious injury, according to the Register Citizen and a previous Connecticut Insider story. The duty applies only when a person can safely retreat and is outside the home or the office.

The state does not have a stand-your-ground law, which allows the use of deadly force without a duty to retreat, even outside the home or the workplace, when a person reasonably thinks that it is necessary to prevent death or serious injury.

The June 2021 incident began, Fisher had testified, when Matthew Bromley pulled him from his car and began punching him, claiming that the lawyer had “ruined my life,” according to CT Insider. Then Bromley spit in his face, according to Fisher’s testimony, described by CT Insider.

“I was in fear,” Fisher said. “He was so impossibly angry his face was contorted with rage. I have never seen anything like it. I undid my seat belt and kicked him, so he would be farther away. … I got out of the car to face him. … He charged me in the chest. He was shouting. ‘I am going to kill you.’”

Fisher, who was 74 years old at the time of the incident, said he fired his gun when Bromley charged toward him and reached for his arm. Prosecutors said Fisher could have retreated to his car and locked the door, rather than shoot Bromley.

Prosecutors had cited eyewitness accounts that Fisher stepped forward from his car’s open door before shooting. The forward step showed that the shooting was in revenge for the attack, rather than self-protection, the prosecution claimed.

In his closing argument, Litchfield County State’s Attorney David Shannon described what he thought that Fisher could have been thinking, according to Law360.

“How dare this little man in his beat-up old Saab, wearing his wife beater tank top and his cargo shorts, assault him?” Shannon said. “How dare he [Bromley] do that? He [Fisher] was going to refuse to be a victim. That’s what happened here.”

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

An Ohio man who murdered a woman he claimed to consider a “sister” was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty by a jury.

According to prosecutors, Brandon Davis, 46, organized the execution of Asiah Slone, 35, who had been in a relationship with Davis’ father that ended tumultuously. In June 2024, Slone was reported missing by her brother. Weeks later, on July 1, 2024, Slone’s decomposing remains were found by her best friend in a garbage can in Middletown, Ohio.

Two suspects were arrested in connection to her murder — Davis and Perry Hart, 59, who prosecutors said was directed by Davis to finish the job he started by shooting Slone in the head while she slept.

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.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein wins pretrial…

Criminal Justice

SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein wins pretrial release after denying moving millions in crypto

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 13, 2025, 3:37 pm CST

SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein has won his pretrial release a second time after offering proof to contravene prosecutors’ claims that he moved millions of dollars in cryptocurrency while facing tax fraud charges.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan of the District of Maryland ordered Goldstein’s release Thursday after finding that the former U.S. Supreme Court litigator had plausibly denied the crypto allegations. Sullivan nonetheless imposed additional conditions on release to bar access to computers and internet-capable devices absent prior approval. Goldstein will also have to disclose all cryptocurrency wallets that he owns or to which he has access.

Bloomberg Law, Law360 and PokerNews have coverage.

Goldstein is a former “ultrahigh-stakes” poker player, prosecutors have said. In a Jan. 16 indictment, he was accused of understating gambling winnings and concealing cryptocurrency transactions on tax returns, using his boutique law firm to help cover his debts, putting women he was pursuing on the law-firm payroll, and failing to report money owed in debts and taxes when he applied for a mortgage.

Goldstein was arrested on Monday after federal prosecutors alleged that Goldstein violated the terms of his release by failing to disclose two cryptocurrency wallets. Prosecutors said Goldstein received $8 million in crypto through the wallets and sent another $6 million, all within the span of five days in February. The wallets were “unhosted,” which makes it impossible for prosecutors to subpoena a cryptocurrency exchange, a bank or a financial institution to learn the owner.

Prosecutors thought that Goldstein owned the wallets because of messages dating back to 2023 indicating that he had used them to transfer crypto. But Goldstein offered “a plausible explanation” that he had instructed others in the past to use the wallets in a way that benefited him, even though the wallets were never actually his, Sullivan said.

Lawyers from Munger, Tolles & Olson sought the release of Goldstein, their new client, in a Feb. 11 emergency motion. Attached to the motion were cellphone messages supporting Goldstein’s claim that he didn’t own the wallets.

“The government has made a mistake,” they wrote.

While Sullivan said he was no longer convinced, by clear and convincing evidence, that Goldstein violated the terms of his release, he is still “highly suspicious that Mr. Goldstein has used cryptocurrency while on conditions of release.”

“There is ample evidence that Mr. Goldstein has been and remains a sophisticated and frequent user of cryptocurrency for years,” Sullivan wrote. “He has used cryptocurrency—or directed others to use it on his behalf—to pay for everything from gambling losses to luxury watches for multiple women. … And it now even appears that Mr. Goldstein currently has cryptocurrency accounts—besides [the two wallets mentioned by prosecutors]—that he controls, and of which he did not inform his supervising pretrial services officer.”

Prosecutors had alleged that Goldstein transferred millions in cryptocurrency even as he claimed to be “destitute” in a bid to substitute properties owned by relatives as collateral to assure his future court appearances. Goldstein didn’t want to use the home that he owns with his wife, SCOTUSblog co-founder and reporter Amy Howe.

Goldstein had referenced a pretrial services report that said he had a negative net worth of more than $3.3 million in a motion that he filed under his signature Feb. 5. Goldstein said he wanted to use the equity in his home to pay for his lawyers.

Yet one of Goldstein’s bank accounts has a balance of $250,000, and he has been spending $20,000 per month for an apartment in Dallas, $5,000 per month for a housekeeper, and $8,000 per month on a personal assistant, prosecutors said.

See also:

Indicted SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein can’t switch collateral, magistrate judge rules

Poker-playing SCOTUSblog founder has net worth of negative $3.3M, criminal court document says

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