Police in Minnesota conducted unconstitutional searches in the case of a Mayo Clinic doctor accused of poisoning his wife and the evidence collected in those searches will be tossed, a judge ruled this week.

Dr. Connor Bowman is charged with first-degree murder and accused of using gout medicine to kill his wife Betty Jo Bowman in August 2023 at their home in the Twin Cities area. Cops with the Rochester Police Department submitted numerous applications for search warrants that Connor Bowman’s attorney’s have argued were unconstitutional. Investigators collected 14 electronic devices plus an iPad in the weeks after Betty Bowman’s death.

More from Law&Crime: ‘Upset about being told she had to move out’: Daughter ‘went shopping’ after murdering father and attacking mother for evicting her

District Judge Kathy M. Wallace took issue with two search warrants and tossed the following information collected from 13 of the devices and iPad for violating the defendant’s right to privacy:

Media including texts, emails, photographs, notes, and/or audio files and
videos, including media regarding toxic/hazardous/controlled substances,
financial matters, divorce and/or personal relationship information.

Text messages/communication including conversations about toxic/
hazardous/controlled substances, financial matters, divorce and/or personal
relationship information.

Web/Internet browsing history including searches/websites/articles etc.
about toxic/hazardous/controlled substances, financial matters, divorce
and/or personal relationship information

Wallace wrote cops failed to meet the particularity requirement, which “prevents law enforcement from having unbridled discretion in determining what items should be searched or seized and from engaging in general searches and exploratory rummaging.”

In other words, Wallace believes the language in the warrants was too broad. At the time of the first application, cops knew of the Bowmans’ marriage trouble, his financial troubles and the fact that the victim ingested a smoothie with the gout medicine that allegedly led to her death.

“This knowledge demonstrates that law enforcement could have provided more specificity in the … search warrant by searching exclusively for data concerning toxic/hazardous/controlled substances, financial matters, divorce and/or personal relationship information,” Wallace wrote.

The judge also noted investigators applied for the second warrant at issue about a month after the first. By then, they knew a lot more and could have been more specific, she said. Despite this, the application was worded almost exactly the same as the first, she said.

It’s unclear how the tossed evidence will impact the state’s case against the doctor. Prosecutors have not commented on the matter.

As Law&Crime previously reported, Dr. Connor Bowman was charged in the summer of 2023 with second-degree murder in the death of Betty Jo Bowman, but a grand jury indicted him for first-degree murder in January 2024. His wife died at a hospital on Aug. 20, 2023, following a four-day stay for what doctors initially thought was food poisoning. Her condition “deteriorated rapidly” from the time of her admission and she began to experience cardiac issues, fluid in her lungs, and organ failure. She was considered a healthy person before her hospital admission, making her death suspicious, investigators said.

Cops grew even more leery of the doctor after friends said Betty Bowman was seeking a divorce and he was in hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Friends also noted that as a pharmacy resident who also worked in poison control, he would have the knowledge to poison his wife if he wanted. The Southeast Minnesota Medical Examiner determined her cause of death to be toxic effects of colchicine and the manner of death to be homicide.

Investigators claim that Connor Bowman used his Mayo Clinic email address to buy the the drug colchicine — the drug used to treat gout — that they believe he used to poison his wife. He tried to blame her for buying the drug that killed her, saying she “fraudulently” bought the drug under his name, authorities said.

Detectives recently obtained information from a warrant on his phone which showed he was on the dating app Bumble by Aug. 29, just nine after his wife’s death. He identified himself as a widower and allegedly began chatting with a woman. The woman allegedly told cops she thought it was strange that he brought up the fact that he obtained a nearly $500,000 payout from his wife’s death.

Connor Bowman talked to another woman who asked if it was OK to be flirting with someone and he said it was fine and that his deceased wife would want him to move on and be happy, according to the warrant. He said his wife had died of “listeria poisoning,” a foodborne bacterial illness, “earlier in the summer,” the warrant said. The doctor allegedly told another woman his wife died of a morphine overdose about a year prior.

Cops also obtained his Google searches from his phone, which allegedly included looking for “is widow gender neutral” on Aug. 18, two days before his wife’s death.

More from Law&Crime: Woman spikes family member’s lemonade, tea with rat poison and antifreeze, then sings about Jesus on the way to jail: Cops

The doctor allegedly suggested to others and in his wife’s obituary that she suffered from hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, or “HLH,” which is a rare illness where certain blood cells build up and damage organs. But investigators learned she had no previous symptoms of HLH.

The day after she died, the medical examiner’s office alerted the Rochester Police Department about a suspicious death. The office had prevented a cremation from taking place due to the unusual circumstances, according to documents.

Connor Bowman had asked the medical examiner’s office that his wife should be “cremated immediately” because her death was natural, authorities said. But according to the medical examiner, they received a call from a woman who knew the Bowmans who said the couple was having marital issues and “talking about a divorce following infidelity and a deteriorating relationship,” a probable cause arrest affidavit said.

Defendant Bowman emailed death investigators at the medical examiner’s office asking if toxicology reports that were being completed were more “thorough” than what would typically be done at a hospital, the affidavit said. He also asked for a list of what would be tested.

Connor Bowman had attended pharmacy school and worked in poison control in Kansas and was currently in medical school. A spokesperson from the Mayo Clinic said in a statement to Law&Crime that his residency at the hospital had just finished in October.

“We are aware of the recent arrest of a former Mayo Clinic resident on charges unrelated to his Mayo Clinic responsibilities,” the statement said. The hospital would not comment further.

Betty Bowman had recently told others that her husband was in debt so they kept separate bank accounts. Connor Bowman told a friend he was going to receive a $500,000 life insurance policy as a result of his wife’s death. Investigators found a check for nearly $500,000 from an insurance company in the Bowman home.

In Rochester Police Department applications for search warrants previously reviewed by Law&Crime, friends of the couple depict a marriage on the rocks because of financial troubles and infidelity. Though the Bowmans were in an “open relationship,” the couple agreed they would not become emotionally attached to their other partners. However, Connor Bowman became infatuated with his new girlfriend, friends told detectives. Betty Bowman allegedly confronted her husband about the woman and suggested they start divorce proceedings. One friend said she went to see Connor Bowman at his home three days after the death to find the girlfriend there with him and his wife’s photos taken down, the warrant said.

Another pal said she was visiting with Betty Bowman 10 days before her death when she gave her a smoothie her husband had made for her in a Lilo & Stich cup. It “tasted very bad,” and the friend thought it was strange Connor Bowman had made a smoothie for his wife because he “never made anything for anybody,” according to the warrant.

“[The friend] said jokingly at the time that Connor must be trying to poison her, but didn’t think much of it at the time. Betty even joked that she had considered it at the time and said she didn’t think that would happen but decided to not drink the smoothie anyway and threw it out,” the warrant said. The friend became suspicious when Betty Bowman suddenly became ill and died.

The doctor also was not acting like a grieving husband typically would in the days following his wife’s death, the friends said. He seemed “stoic and calm,” even going out for drinks where he “appeared to be happy or at least indifferent” about his wife’s death two days after the fact.

One of Betty Bowman’s boyfriends told detectives that Betty Bowman, on Aug. 14, told him she “had a few days off work and was looking to spend some time with him.” The two saw each other the next day and texted later that night while she was drinking with her husband at home.

On Aug. 16, she told him she was so sick she could not sleep at all. She said she thought it may have been an alcoholic drink that she had that caused her illness because it was mixed in a large smoothie. She went to the hospital a short time later.

A federal judge in Maryland issued an order on Tuesday stating that Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) “likely violated the Constitution in multiple ways” by unilaterally dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in an effort to shutter the agency completely.

The ruling is yet another impediment to the Trump administration’s stated effort to gut the federal workforce and shrink the size of the government.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang granted a preliminary injunction at the request of 26 current and former USAID contractors and employees, ordering Musk and DOGE to cease any additional cuts at the agency without the “express authorization” of an authorized agency official. The judge also directed USAID to restore access to the agency’s computer systems for employees, including more than 1,000 workers placed on leave since February, supposedly at Musk’s direction.

“Under these circumstances, the evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to [the Trump administration’s] sweeping claims that Musk has acted only as an advisor, Musk made the decisions to shutdown USAID’s headquarters and website,” Chuang wrote in the 68-page opinion.

The ruling stems from a Feb. 13, lawsuit filed on behalf of the employees by the State Democracy Defenders Fund and law firm Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez PLLC. The suit alleged that Musk had been granted “an extraordinary amount of power” without being nominated or confirmed by the Senate, in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause

“Indeed, the scope and reach of his executive authority appears unprecedented in U.S. history,” the complaint states. “His power includes, at least, the authority to cease the payment of congressionally approved funds, access sensitive and confidential data across government agencies, cut off systems access to federal employees and contractors at will, and take over and dismantle entire independent federal agencies.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge acknowledges his civics presentations…

Judiciary

Federal judge acknowledges his civics presentations to politically affiliated club violated ethics code

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 7, 2025, 8:47 am CST

The judicial council of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver has tossed an ethics complaint against a federal judge who took corrective action after he was accused of giving presentations to a politically affiliated group.

The unnamed federal judge acknowledged that his civics-related presentations to the group violated the ban on making speeches to a political organization in the judicial conduct code, according to a June decision published last month by 10th Circuit Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes.

The judge “voluntarily acknowledged his mistake, ensured the removal of his presentations from the club’s YouTube channel, and notified the club that he would not present at future club meetings,” Holmes wrote.

Reuters and Colorado Politics have coverage.

The judge said he made the presentations because he wanted to represent the federal judiciary and the role that law plays in society. Political activity was not the “sole, or really even the predominate, focus” of the club, the judge had stated.

The ethics complaint had been filed by a pro se litigant who said the judge demonstrated his lack of partiality by his educational presentations to the club. The litigant also claimed that the judge made inappropriate comments during the presentations and discriminated against the litigant while presiding in his civil matter.

Those claims “are dismissed because they are completely unsupported,” Holmes said.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge offers ‘unreserved apology’…

Judiciary

Federal judge offers ‘unreserved apology’ after order says his Alito criticism violated ethics rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 18, 2024, 12:09 pm CST

Senior U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the District of Massachusetts is offering an “unreserved apology” and a commitment to “scrupulously avoid” future transgressions after he was found to have violated the judicial code of ethics for criticizing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in an op-ed in the New York Times.

Ponsor’s apology letter resolves the ethics complaint, according to the Dec. 10 order by Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia. Diaz investigated after the case was transferred to his court from the appeals court with jurisdiction in Massachusetts, where Ponsor is located.

The Wall Street Journal broke the story on Diaz’s order, followed by coverage by Reuters and Bloomberg Law.

Ponsor, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, had criticized the display of an upside-down flag at Alito’s home and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at the justice’s vacation home in the May op-ed.

The flags are associated with stolen-election claims and Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol rioters. Alito has said his wife erected the flags.

“Flying those flags was tantamount to sticking a ‘Stop the Steal’ bumper sticker on your car,” Ponsor wrote in the op-ed. “You just don’t do it.”

Noting Alito’s claim that his wife flew the flags, Ponsor offered a hypothetical. If his wife had expressed her view of the death penalty when he had a case pending on that issue, Ponsor said, he would have recused himself based on the appearance of partiality.

Diaz said Ponsor’s criticism harmed public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and its “political implications and undertones” violated a ban on commenting on the merits of pending cases.

Following the flags controversy, Democrats had called for Alito’s recusal in pending cases involving obstruction charges against accused Capitol rioters and President-elect Donald Trump’s immunity from prosecution in the federal election-interference case.

The public might have interpreted Ponsor’s op-ed “as a commentary on partisan issues and as a call for Justice Alito’s recusal” in pending Jan. 6 cases, Diaz said.

Ponsor’s apology letter said the ethics violations were “unintentional at the time but clear in retrospect.”

The Article III Project, a conservative group, had filed the ethics complaint against Ponsor.

“The courts and Judge Ponsor took this seriously,” said Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, in a statement cited by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. “I accept his apology letter at face value.”

At least one government official was unamused by Kamala Harris‘ appearance on Saturday Night Live last night.

Senior Republican Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr said in a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter) that NBC violated the agency’s “Equal Time” rule.

“This is a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule,” Carr wrote. “The purpose of this rule is to avoid exactly this type of biased and partisan conduct – a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election. Unless the broadcaster offered Equal Time to other qualifying campaigns.”

Carr was first nominated by Trump and then again by President Biden. He’s one of five commissioners, including a chairperson.

More coverage from Law&Crime: Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against CBS over Kamala Harris ’60 Minutes’ interview mocked as ‘outrageous violation of First Amendment principles’

Just days before Tuesday’s Presidential election, the Democratic nominee appeared on SNL opposite her impersonator Maya Rudolph for a skit as part of the show’s cold opening.

Generally speaking, the Equal Time rule requires broadcasters to provide the same amount of airtime for one candidate as the other. If one candidate appears on a broadcast channel, it must provide an opportunity for the other candidate(s) to appear for the same amount of time. News broadcasts, political ads and documentaries are exempted from the rule. According to Carr, the FCC chairman under the Obama Administration in 2016 election said the agency would enforce the rule. The stations filed equal opportunity notices when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton appeared on the show, Carr said.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former DOJ official who alleged election…

Ethics

Former DOJ official who alleged election fraud violated at least one ethics rule, ethics committee says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 5, 2024, 9:14 am CDT

Former U.S. Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark violated at least one ethics rule in connection with his false claims of election fraud during the 2020 presidential election, according to a preliminary finding announced Thursday by an ethics hearing committee.

The preliminary finding is not binding, according to the three-person committee of the D.C. Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility. It will prepare a report and recommendation that will be forwarded to the board.

Law360, Reuters and Politico have coverage.

The ethics charges against Clark allege that he tried to engage in conduct involving dishonesty by trying to send a letter to Georgia officials with false statements about election fraud, and that he tried to engage in conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.

The draft letter claimed that the DOJ had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of Georgia.”

Clark, who was the acting chief of the DOJ’s Civil Division, had asked other officials to sign the letter, but they refused.

During an ethics hearing that included six days of testimony, Clark’s lawyer argued that his client was being accused of a “thought crime.” There was an internal debate, and the letter was never sent, said lawyer Harry W. MacDougald.

According to Politico, the preliminary finding “jump-starts a process that could lead to the suspension or even permanent revocation of Clark’s license to practice law, even as he’s considered a candidate for a senior position in a second Trump administration.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. NRA general counsel violated statutory duties…

Verdicts & Settlements

NRA general counsel violated statutory duties but caused no monetary harm, jurors find; LaPierre liable for $5.4M

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2024, 12:41 pm CST

The general counsel for the National Rifle Association was among three senior NRA leaders found to have violated their statutory duties by jurors Friday.

Jurors found former NRA executive vice president and former CEO Wayne LaPierre liable for $5.4 million in damages and former chief financial officer Wilson “Woody” Phillips liable for $2 million. Jurors also found that the NRA didn’t handle charitable funds properly and violated state whistleblower laws.

But jurors found that NRA corporate secretary and general counsel John Frazer did not cause financial harm and was not liable for damages. Jurors found that he made false statements in NRA filings, but there was no cause to remove him.

Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the Feb. 23 verdict in a press release.

Law360, NBC News and the Associated Press have coverage.

James had sued the NRA and top officials for civil fraud. Her lawsuit alleged that LaPierre exploited the NRA for the benefit of himself and his inner circle, using donor money to pay for private jets, expensive meals and family vacations.

According to the press release, James presented evidence that Phillips allegedly had a no-show post-employment contract, that whistleblowers faced harassment and intimidation, that the NRA paid invoices for LaPierre’s repeated flights to the Bahamas, and that invoices worth more than $4 million were passed through a vendor to conceal expenses incurred by NRA executives.

LaPierre has already repaid the NRA more than $1 million, leaving him liable for $4.35 million.

A separate bench trial will determine whether an independent compliance monitor should be appointed. The trial will also determine whether the NRA and Frazer should be barred from soliciting funds for charitable organizations in New York.

A lawyer from Frazer, William Fleming, told Law360 that he is disappointed with the verdict.

In an online statement, the NRA said the jury verdict “confirms what the National Rifle Association of America … contended all along—that it was victimized by certain former vendors and ‘insiders’ who abused the trust placed in them by the association.”

“During a 24-day jury trial, the NRA established the [New York attorney general] cannot prove self-dealing or bad faith by the NRA board of directors,” the statement said. “The NRA disputed key allegations in the [New York attorney general]’s complaint—namely, that any governance issues at the NRA are ‘persistent.’ As importantly, the NRA established that it adopted new policies and accounting controls, displaced vendors and ‘insiders’ who abused the association, and accepted reparations for costs determined to be excess benefits. Most of these corrective measures—part of an internal investigation ignited by the NRA board—were adopted before the [New York attorney general] filed her lawsuit. The NRA’s commitment to good governance was on full display during the trial proceedings.”

See also:

“Civil fraud trial seeking independent monitor for NRA begins after CEO’s resignation, official’s $100K settlement”

“Ex-NRA CEO didn’t consult GCs office about key legal decisions, general counsel testifies”