California man angry about abortion, gun rights cases, pleads guilty to trying to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh
A California man angry about abortion and gun rights cases pleaded guilty on Tuesday to attempting to kill U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his Maryland home, the Justice Department said.
Nicholas John Roske, 29, of Simi Valley, admitted to flying from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., on June 7, 2022 with a firearm and ammunition in his suitcase in an effort to target the high court justice, federal prosecutors said.
"This calculated attempt on the life of a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice was a heinous attack on the Court itself," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. "Anyone who thinks they can use violence or intimidation to influence our courts will be met with the full force of the law and face up to life in prison."
After arriving in Washington, Roske took a taxi in the middle of the night to Montgomery County, Maryland, with the intention of killing Kavanaugh, authorities said.
At around 1:05 a.m. on June 8, 2022, two Deputy U.S. Marshals protecting Kavanaugh's home saw Roske arrive in front of the residence. He was wearing black clothing and had a backpack and suitcase, prosecutors said.
The U.S. Marshals, who were in a vehicle, got out as Roske began to walk down the street.
Shortly after, Roske called the Montgomery County Emergency Communications Center saying he was having homicidal and suicidal thoughts, had a gun in his suitcase, and flew from California to kill Kavanaugh.
Local authorities arrived at the scene where they searched Roske's suitcase and found a firearm; black tactical chest rig and tactical knife; two magazines, each containing 10 rounds of ammunition; 17 additional rounds; pepper spray; zip ties; a hammer; screwdrivers; a nail punch; a crowbar; a pistol light; duct tape; hiking boots with padding on the outside of the soles; and lock-pick tools, along with other items.
"The attempted assassination of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is an extreme, brazen act, one that we — along with our federal, local, and state law-enforcement partners — will not tolerate," said U.S. Attorney Kelly O. Hayes. "It's through these partnerships that we're able to hold criminals accountable and uphold the rule of law."
While being questioned by investigators, Roske said he was upset about a recent Supreme Court draft decision regarding the right to abortion as well as the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 elementary school students and two teachers.
"Roske indicated that he believed the Associate Justice that he intended to kill would side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws," prosecutors said in a court filing last week.
Prosecutors said Roske used an encrypted platform to send messages suggesting he planned to kill three Supreme Court justices.
"Im gonna stop roe v wade from being overturned," Roske allegedly said in the messages. "I could get at least one, which would change the votes for decades to come. and I am shooting for 3 ... at the end of the day biden still chooses the replacements. gop cant do s--- about it."
Roske faces up to life in prison when he's sentenced on Oct. 3.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Washington's Supreme Court slashes public defender caseload limits
(Photo by) The state Supreme Court on Monday responded to a 'crisis' in Washington's public defense system by slashing caseloads for those providing counsel to poor defendants facing criminal prosecutions. Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one's primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors. The group that represents Washington counties says the new standards are unattainable with the level of funding now available and due to a shortage of lawyers. Under the court's interim order, the new caseload limits take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and should be achieved 'as soon as reasonably possible' and no later than 10 years, Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote in the four-page order. 'The crisis in the provision of indigent criminal defense services throughout our state requires action now,' Stephens wrote for the majority. Monday's decision is a potential game-changer in the state's effort to shore up a beleaguered public defense system that struggles to provide timely, equitable and effective counsel. 'It's a bold move. I didn't expect justices to go this far,' said Larry Jefferson, director of the state's Office of Public Defense. Jefferson warned justices 18 months ago the system was on the 'verge of collapse' as cases piled up, trials backed up and over-stressed attorneys retired or resigned to work in higher-paying, less stressful jobs. He appealed to the justices for help. 'This is one of the first times that public defenders have been listened to,' Jefferson said. Some counties have had to release those accused of crimes due to the lack of available defense counsel. The ACLU of Washington sued Yakima County last year for failing to appoint attorneys for indigent people charged with crimes. Hiring more public defenders costs money. Cities and counties worry they also will need to amp up hiring of court staff and prosecutors to keep pace and that will be expensive. 'What they are describing here is impossible with our current budget constraints,' said Derek Young, executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties. 'There's not nearly enough workforce now. If we triple the demand for services, where will all these lawyers come from?' 'There is no timeline we can accommodate this absent the Legislature waking up' and providing greater financial support, he said. The new state budget provides $20 million for counties, he said, which is about 6% of their total public defense costs. Standards the state Supreme Court adopted in 2012 said a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should have no more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2023, the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts and the RAND Justice Policy Program released the National Public Defense Workload Study. It concluded public defenders should handle far fewer cases. That year, Washington's high court asked the Washington State Bar Association to weigh in on whether the cap needed adjusting in light of the findings. The association responded in March 2024, recommending new maximums of 47 felony credits or 120 misdemeanor credits in a year, depending on the severity of the charges. The reduction would be phased in over three years. Under that approach, the cap for felony cases would be 120 in the first year, 90 in the second and 47 in the third. For misdemeanors, the limit would be 280 cases in the first year, dropping to 225 and then 120. As part of its proposal, the association assigned crimes credits based on seriousness and complexity of providing a legal defense. A motor vehicle theft was assigned one credit and a murder seven, for example. That means a lawyer could theoretically be assigned 47 vehicle theft or seven homicide cases in a year before hitting their limit. Such case weighting is 'permissible and encouraged' but not required, Stephens wrote for the court. If done, a local government should adopt and publish any policies and procedures underlying the use of such weighting, Stephens wrote. The Supreme Court started accepting public comment on the bar association's request to trim caseloads a year ago, while also holding public hearings and internal work sessions. In each hearing, prosecutors argued reducing caseloads would lead to filing of fewer cases to ensure no one's rights to counsel are violated. 'Without sufficient attorneys or without sufficient resources, it would lead to a de facto decriminalization and an increase in vigilantism,' Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in September. He added that 'way too many' people have had their cases dismissed or not filed because of a lack of public defenders. Supporters of reducing caseloads said in the hearings that the change is needed to stabilize the system. They contend that large caseloads and low pay are driving people out of public defense and deterring new lawyers from entering this line of legal work. And they, too, pointed to the problem in some counties where those accused of crimes, but unable to afford a lawyer, can wait long periods of time before they receive counsel. 'Public defense is in a downward spiral. We can fix this,' said Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and chair of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense in September. 'This will be expensive. Justice is not cheap.' The order issued Monday isn't the final word. New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place. And the bar association made other recommendations on subjects like staffing and training that justices are still considering. But the justices wanted to put out caseload information because they knew local governments are putting together their budgets for next year, Stephens wrote in the order.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Americans are starting to learn who ‘Maryland father' Abrego Garcia really is
For a while, the favored moniker for Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the media was 'Maryland father.' Abrego Garcia was indeed living in Maryland and was indeed a father, but this wasn't what was most distinctive thing about him. There are hundreds of thousands of fathers living in the state who aren't illegal immigrants and don't have ties to criminal gangs. Abrego Garcia, of course, is the man who was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador despite a judge's order that he couldn't be deported there. Instead of quickly asking for Abrego Garcia to be sent back to the United States, the Trump administration dug in its heels and suffered repeated legal setbacks, including at the Supreme Court. Sensing political opportunity and appalled at the notion of someone living in the US being sent, based on no criminal charges, to perhaps the most inhumane prison in the Western Hemisphere, Democrats made Abrego Garcia a cause. They inevitably downplayed the drip-drip evidence that he was an unsympathetic character. It emerged that he had been picked up by local police in 2019 at a Home Depot years ago and the cops suspected that he and his associates were gang members. It emerged that his wife accused him of abusing her. It emerged that he'd been stopped in Tennessee in suspicious circumstances in 2022 with multiple men in the vehicle. Whether Abrego Garcia was a good guy or a reprobate, a member of MS-13 or of his church choir, had no bearing on whether he should have been imprisoned in El Salvador with our active support. The answer to that was 'no' regardless, but now that the Trump administration has brought him back to the United States and filed charges against him, the 'Maryland father' description has been exposed as ludicrously inapt. According to a Department of Justice indictment, Abrego Garcia routinely engaged in human smuggling, transporting illegal aliens within the United States on more than 100 occasions. The facts set out in the indictment regarding the Tennessee traffic stop are particularly damning. Abrego Garcia's story was that the men in his Suburban had been working construction in St. Louis for two weeks and he was bringing them back to Maryland. The men, all lacking identification, had no luggage or construction tools. The vehicle was outfitted with a makeshift third row for passengers in the back. All of which was suspicious enough. What's more, the indictment says, license-plate tracking data showed that the car hadn't been anywhere close to St. Louis in the past year. It had, however, been in the Houston, Texas, area, where the prosecutors say the illegal-alien passengers had been picked up. The administration will have to prove its charges in court, and if they have been exaggerated in the cause of nailing Abrego Garcia, that will presumably be exposed. The facts matter, and Abrego Garcia never should have been made into a mere symbol. The administration seemed to think keeping him in El Salvador somehow furthered the cause of immigration enforcement, but whether Abrego Garcia stayed there or came back to the United States wasn't going to materially affect deportation efforts one way or the other. For their part, Trump's critics — yet again — assumed because someone was targeted by the president, he or she must be a figure of righteousness. The fact of the matter is that Abrego Garcia never should have been in the United States in the first place. He came here illegally in 2012. Only after he was picked up by police in the aforementioned 2019 stop and put in deportation proceedings did he make a meritless asylum claim. An immigration judge nevertheless granted him a withholding of removal and Abrego Garcia was permitted to go about his business, which, according to the Justice Department, was smuggling other illegal immigrants. We'll learn more as the case proceeds, but we know enough already to conclude that this isn't a typical or commendable Marylander. Twitter: @RichLowry
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Harvey Weinstein jurors beg for coffee ‘for energy' as grueling, dramatic deliberations continue in NYC sex crimes retrial
Jurors weighing Harvey Weinstein's fate pleaded for a dose of caffeine as their grueling deliberations continued Monday — with yet another dramatic revelation about apparent dysfunction in the jury room. The third day of deliberations in Weinstein's Manhattan sex-crimes retrial ended without a verdict, and with a request from jurors for a cup of Joe when they return Tuesday morning. 'We the jury request coffee, tomorrow morning for energy,' read a note sent to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber. Advertisement 7 The third day of deliberations in Weinstein's Manhattan sex-crimes retrial ended without a verdict. Steven Hirsch It came after more drama unfolded in the morning, when the panel sent notes to the court asking to be reminded of the definition of reasonable doubt and how to avoid a hung jury. A separate note accompanied that request, sent by the foreman, Juror No. 1, who said he needed to speak to the judge 'about a situation that isn't very good.' Advertisement Juror No. 1, who had asked late Friday to speak to the court before changing his mind, expressed concern about 'something going on in the jury room' — later revealing that jurors have discussed Weinstein's general past. 7 It came after more drama unfolded in the morning, when the panel sent notes to the court asking to be reminded of the definition of reasonable doubt. AP 'They are pushing people, talking about his past,' the juror said in a closed-doors meeting with attorneys, according to a transcript of the conversation. It's unclear what exactly from the disgraced Hollywood honcho's checkered past jurors were whispering about — but the disclosure was enough for Weinstein's attorney, Arthur Aidala, to demand an end to deliberations. Advertisement 7 'They are pushing people, talking about his past,' the juror said in a closed-doors meeting with attorneys, according to a transcript of the conversation. Getty Images 'He's coming to us crying for help. We don't send him into the lion's den without taking any action,' Aidala cried out in the meeting, before asking the judge for a mistrial. 'There is a tainted jury, there's jury misconduct.' Aidala charged. 'There's information in the jury room that we now know… People are considering things that were not in this trial as evidence.' Farber ultimately denied Weinstein's latest mistrial bid — the second such request made by Aidala over what appeared to be rising tension between jurors. Advertisement 7 It's unclear what exactly from the disgraced Hollywood honcho's checkered past jurors were whispering about. AP The attorney also made a failed bid for a mistrial Friday after Juror No. 7, described as a 25-year-old 'computer kid,' asked to be dismissed from the case, saying that 'playground stuff' had broken out among the groups, with some on the jury gossiping about one of their own. 'The experience I've had in the day-and-a-half here, in good conscience, I don't think this is fair and just,' he told the court Friday morning when he was brought to the witness box to explain why he wanted to quit. 7 Farber ultimately denied Weinstein's latest mistrial bid — the second such request made by Aidala over what appeared to be rising tension between jurors. Steven Hirsch Aidala, while arguing for the case to be tossed, said the judge should have questioned the juror further to inquire about the drama. But Farber shot down the bid, dismissing the juror's concerns as nothing more than typical 'abnormal tensions during deliberations.' The judge's guidance was confirmed by another juror, Juror No. 10, who provided a positive deliberations update just before noon Monday. 'I just basically wanted to give the temperature. I think that things are going well today,' the woman said. 'The tone is very different today. We're making headway.' Advertisement 7 Aidala, while arguing for the case to be tossed, said the judge should have questioned the juror further to inquire about the drama. AP The jury sent a flurry of notes to the court Monday — including asking for a re-reading of trial testimony from clinical psychologist Lisa Rocchio, who had explained why sexual assault victims might maintain contact with their attackers. They also asked for a laptop with emails and evidence from the testimony of Jessica Mann, a former actress who cried during her time on the stand as she graphically detailed an alleged 2013 rape by Weinstein. But the panel was notified that their coffee ask would be a 'tough no' — because the state doesn't provide anything but lunch for jurors during trials. Advertisement 7 The judge's guidance was confirmed by another juror, Juror No. 10, who provided a positive deliberations update just before noon Monday. Steven Hirsch 'As much as I would love to give you coffee, I'm powerless,' the judge said, drawing a smile from jurors before he suggested they all chip in to buy a jug of Joe from Dunkin' Donuts. The jury will resume its deliberations on Tuesday morning. Weinstein, 73, was originally found guilty at trial in 2020 of criminal sex act and rape and given a 23-year prison sentence — but New York's highest court tossed the conviction last year. Advertisement The fallen Miramax founder faces up to 25 years in prison at his retrial on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual act, and four years in prison on third-degree rape. He has pleaded not guilty.
