DOJ recommends one day in jail for ex-cop in Breonna Taylor raid
July 17 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Justice filed a memo on Thursday recommending one day in jail for former Louisville, Ky., police detective Brett Hankison, who shot into Breonna Taylor's apartment 10 times but didn't injure anyone.
Breonna Taylor, an emergency room technician, was awakened from sleep March 13, 2020, by police with a falsified "no-knock warrant." Her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, thought the officers were intruders and shot at them. The police opened fire, and another officer shot and killed Taylor. Hankison was outside the apartment and shot into the window 10 times. Hankison was convicted of deprivation of rights under color of law in November. He faces up to life in prison.
Prosecutors wrote in the filing they were unaware of another case "in which a police officer has been charged with depriving the rights of another person under the Fourth Amendment for returning fire and not injuring anyone."
A pre-sentence report from the U.S. Probation Office recommended a sentence between 11.25 and 14 years, USA Today reported. The DOJ says that range was incorrectly calculated and "excessive." It recommends the court "grant a significant downward departure."
The memo was signed by Robert J. Keenum, senior counsel for the DOJ's civil rights division, and Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general for the department. Neither was involved with the case.
The memo prompted a strong response.
"The fact that Donald Trump's DOJ thinks Breonna Taylor's life is worth just a one-day jail sentence is morally reprehensible and deeply insulting. This is a dark day for our entire city," Rep. Morgan McGarvey, D-Ky., said in a statement. McGarvey represents Louisville.
Former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said the police did knock and announce themselves. But Taylor's neighbors and her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, said they heard no knock or announcement. Walker has since gotten a $2 million settlement against the city.
Hankison is white, and he was the first convicted in the case. The other officers were not convicted. Hankison was previously acquitted on a state charge.
The memo said that Hankison's suffered enough.
"Here, multiple prosecutions against defendant Hankison were brought, and only one of three juries -- the last one -- found him guilty on these facts, and then only on one charge," the memo says. "The government respects the jury's verdict, which will almost certainly ensure that defendant Hankison never serves as a law enforcement officer again and will also likely ensure that he never legally possesses a firearm again."
But others disagreed with DOJ's request.
Hankison's shots "missed a sleeping baby by about two feet," said former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official Samatha Trepel on LinkedIn. She believes the court will see the request as "transparent, last minute political interference into a case that was tried by non-political, longtime career prosecutors who obtained this conviction in front of an all-white jury of Kentucky citizens before a Trump-appointed judge."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
33 minutes ago
- CBS News
Long Beach man federally charged for allegedly sending money to ISIS
A Long Beach man faces federal charges for allegedly sending money to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. He was arrested on Friday after FBI investigators discovered what appeared to be a bomb inside of his home. Mark Lorenzo Villanueva, 28, faces 20 years in prison for attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, according to a release from the U.S. Department of Justice. Prosecutors say that Villanueva, a lawful permanent resident from the Philippines, communicated with multiple people who claimed to be ISIS fighters via social media. During their conversations, Villanueva allegedly expressed desire to support ISIS, offering to send money to support their activities. Court documents also say that Villanueva told one of the self-identified ISIS fighters that he wanted to fight for them, saying, "It's an honor to fight and die for our faith. It's the best way to go to heaven. ... Someday soon, I'll be joining." Villanueva also allegedly told the other individual that he had a bomb and knives, according to the DOJ's release. When he was arrested on Friday morning, FIB investigators recovered what looked to be a bomb from his bedroom. A message sent by Villanueva in Feb. 2025, he offered to send one of the two ISIS fighters money, asking if it would "cover your equipment and weapons," the DOJ release said. He allegedly discussed sending the money through an intermediary, and Western Union records show that he sent a dozen different payments totaling $1,615 over five months to two intermediaries that accessed the funds from overseas. "Supporting a terrorist group, whether at home or abroad, is a serious risk to our national security," said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli in a statement. "We will aggressively hunt down and prosecute anyone who provides support or comfort to our enemies." Villanueva was expected to make his initial court appearance on Friday afternoon.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Former OpenSea Manager Has Conviction Overturned in First-Ever Crypto Insider Trading Case
A U.S. Appeals Court overturned the conviction of a former OpenSea product manager Thursday, blowing a hole in what had previously been the most prominent conflict of interest-related crypto industry prosecution in the United States to date. The Manhattan-based appeals court found that prosecutors in the initial trial of Nathaniel Chastain were improperly allowed to argue that Chastain's decision-making about what NFTs were featured on OpenSea's homepage constituted 'property' of the company. Chastain was found guilty of wire fraud and money laundering for manipulating his knowledge of what NFTs would be featured on the marketplace's landing page to enrich himself. He was sentenced to three months in prison. At the time of Chastain's arrest for the charges in 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice touted the case as the 'first ever digital asset insider trading scheme.' The appeals court ruled that Chastain's decision-making about what NFTs should feature on OpenSea's homepage did not constitute a traditional property interest of the company. That doesn't mean Chastain's conduct was not still potentially criminal. It means that, as Chastain's attorneys later argued on appeal, he should have faced a different criminal charge, such as fraud based on unethical business dealings. 'A note from the jury suggested that it believed that OpenSea did not view the featured NFT information as confidential but that Chastain acted unethically by trading on the information,' the appeals court wrote in its decision today. 'Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the jury would have reached the same verdict if it had been properly instructed that fraud requires the appropriation of a property interest rather than unprofessional business conduct,' the court continued. The appeals court also noted how, during Chastain's initial trial, the defendant attempted to show that OpenSea CEO Devin Finzer also used privileged company information for 'personal benefit,' as a means to prove that Chastain 'didn't believe company policy precluded officers or employees from using similar company information for personal benefit.' The district court ultimately prevented Chastain's attorneys from questioning Finzer about purported trades the CEO made of Polygon's native token prior to public announcements about the Polygon network's integration with OpenSea. The court ruled such testimony inadmissible in part because there was no proof Chastain was aware of any such trades at the time of his own featured NFT trades. It also said the testimony would improperly disparage Finzer. In today's ruling, the appeals court agreed that Chastain did not offer compelling evidence that he was personally aware of any such trades made by Finzer at the time of the events in questions, nor that his conduct was informed by such knowledge. Thus, it dismissed objections made by Chastain's attorneys that the district court abused its discretion in making such evidentiary rulings. The case now kicks back to its initial district court (also in Manhattan), where it will undergo 'further proceedings' consistent with the appeals court's decision today. Editor's note: This story was updated after publication to clarify statements made by the appeals court regarding OpenSea CEO Devin Finzer. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
