Former deputy sentenced to 16 months in prison for 2022 beating of inmate in Camden County Jail
Ryan Robert Biegel, now 27, of Kingsland, Georgia, pleaded guilty on Jan. 28 to using unreasonable force against the detainee, according to a news release from the Department of Justice.
>>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<<
Action News Jax first told you in November 2022 about the release of a video showing the September 2022 beating of Jarrett Hobbs from Greensboro, North Carolina, in the Camden County Jail.
The DOJ said the incident occurred on September 3, 2022, when Biegel and two other correctional officers entered the holding cell where Hobbs was detained.
[DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks]
We also told you in November 2022 when Biegel, Mason Garrick, and Braxton Massey were charged with battery of an inmate and violating the oath of office. In May 2023, the three men were indicted by a grand jury in Camden County.
The DOJ said Biegel admitted to punching Hobbs five times in the back of the head, acknowledging that it was not reasonable or necessary for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
Biegel further struck Hobbs in the head and body an additional twenty-two times with his fists and knees, the DOJ said.
[SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
The FBI Brunswick Resident Agency Field Office and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation investigated the assault.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer J. Kirkland for the Southern District of Georgia and Trial Attorney Alec Ward of the Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section prosecuted the case.
Action News Jax has reached out to the Camden County Sheriff's Office and Hobbs' attorney Harry Daniels for comment on the sentencing.
Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Epstein Fiasco Worsens as Dems Suddenly Find Big New Weapon
Desperate times may call for desperate measures, but they also call for creative ones. Faced with a criminal president and a GOP congressional majority that's wholly devoted to shutting down any and all transparency and accountability for him, Democrats will have to get increasingly resourceful in their efforts to crack through that facade. The very tentative good news is: They actually have options to do just that. This is why you should pay attention to the news that Senate Democrats are now exercising an obscure, rarely used law to try to force transparency on the so-called Epstein files. The New York Times reports that seven Democrats on the upper chamber's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee just sent a letter to DOJ demanding that it turn over the information it has compiled related to the investigation pursuant to the 2019 arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges, using a decades-old statute: Under a section of federal law commonly referred to in the Senate as the 'rule of five,' government agencies are required to provide relevant information if any five members of that committee, which is the chamber's chief oversight panel, request it. The letter spells out exactly what Democrats are demanding, calling for the release of 'all documents, files, evidence, or other materials in the possession of DOJ or FBI related to' Epstein's prosecution, including 'audio and video recordings' and much more. This is a good move. Let's start with the law in question: It states that if 'any five members' of that Senate committee request 'any information' that is 'related to any matter within the jurisdiction of that committee,' the relevant executive agency 'shall' submit it. There's a companion provision for the House. A historical parallel here is worth noting. This 1928 law was passed in the wake of the Teapot Dome scandal, according to David Vladeck, a professor of government at Georgetown. That scandal, which involved a corrupt Cabinet member under President Warren Harding taking bribes in exchange for oil leases, resulted in higher public awareness of governmental corruption and the need for better congressional oversight to ensure transparency. Critically, though, the statute that Senate Democrats are now invoking, Vladeck says, was originally designed to 'ensure that the minority' in Congress 'has real access to what executive agencies are doing.' As you may have noticed, this is a particularly urgent need right now: Democratic efforts at oversight have been entirely blocked by the GOP majority, which is devoted to protecting Trump at all costs. House GOP leaders literally shut down a vote on whether to release the Epstein materials. And while there are scattered indications that some Republicans do want to force more transparency on the White House this fall, after congressional recess ends, it's easy to imagine nothing coming of that, especially if and when Trump commands them to stand down. Enter this new effort by Senate Democrats. There are reasons to think it might do some good. Obviously the Justice Department will ignore the demand. But Senate Democrats can then try to take the administration to court. 'The Justice Department has to comply,' congressional scholar Norman Ornstein told me. 'If they refuse, Senate Democrats need to sue the attorney general and the Justice Department for failure to comply with the law.' Democrats seem to agree, as Democratic leader Chuck Schumer appeared to confirm at a press conference on Wednesday. 'This is the law,' Schumer said. 'This can be challenged in the courts.' Congressional procedure expert Sarah Binder says the whole matter will then turn on what the courts say. 'The statute is very clear—agencies shall provide these documents,' Binder told me. 'The question is whether the courts would agree that a group of senators, as opposed to the whole chamber, has standing to sue.' Here there's reason for (very) cautious optimism. House Democrats got pretty far the last time this was attempted. They invoked the statute in 2017 to try to force the first Trump administration to divulge information related to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., which raised many ethical issues. Importantly, an appeals court ruled that House Democrats did have standing to bring this lawsuit. And the Supreme Court even agreed to hear the case in 2023. But that never happened because the Democrats ended the lawsuit after they received the documents they'd sought. Now this same question could be considered by the high court, only this time on the Epstein case. Vladeck, who was involved in the previous litigation, says he thinks this is likely, precisely because the courts already tilled so much relevant ground in that litigation. Appeals courts will rule the same way this time, Vladeck predicted, with the result that 'this case' or one like it 'will have to get to the Supreme Court.' Obviously, it's anybody's guess how the high court would then rule. But sustained legal efforts like these will keep the media focus on what the administration is refusing to do in the face of overwhelming public interest in getting to the bottom of this scandal. And it will keep the focus on what the courts are doing. 'The courts can screw around with this, but it would clearly be saying, 'We don't care about the law,'' Ornstein told me. 'Every time we can shed light on the unwillingness of John Roberts and the Supreme Court to do anything about Trump's lawlessness, the better off we are, even if it's far from ideal.' I've argued that there's real value in efforts like this from the minority. They can be constructive if they impart new information to the public or shine a glaring light on the failure of others in power to impose accountability. As Marcy Wheeler notes, it can also help break through the clutter. The failure of accountability is everywhere in the Epstein matter. After campaigning on a promise of transparency, the president—with the active assistance of most of the GOP—is thwarting disclosure of untold damning information involving a ring of child predators, information that quite possibly involves some of the richest and most powerful people in the world, including the president himself. It's easy to give up on congressional oversight. But Democrats have options for getting very creative. No matter how hopeless it might seem at times, we shouldn't lose sight of that, lest we do Trump's (very) dirty work for him. Democrats: Stay on this, and don't let up.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Gilbert Arenas arrested: What we know about the federal gambling indictment
Former NBA player Gilbert Arenas and five other individuals were arrested on Wednesday as part of a federal indictment tied to a gambling business. According to the Department of Justice, the individuals operated a high-stakes power games at an Encino mansion that Arenas owned. He was charged with one count of conspiracy to operate an illegal gambling business, one count of operating an illegal gambling business, and one count of making false statements to federal investigators. Note that Arenas has not been convicted of a crime and is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. Who else was involved in this alleged poker ring? Per the DOJ, five other individuals were also charged in the indictment and arrested. Per NBC News, each were picked up "without incident" on Wednesday by agents with LAPD, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Internal Revenue Service. Gershman is a suspected "high-level member of an Israeli transnational organized crime group" as well. When did this allegedly happen? The DOJ noted that the defendants allegedly operated the gambling business from September 2021 until July 2022. The basketball player's likeness was apparently part of the branding, per NBC News: The operation even included a poker felt labeled "ARENAS POKER CLUB" with the image of Arenas in his basketball uniform and famed No. Zero, officials said. Arenas allegedly rented the Encino mansion that he owned for the poker games and another individual, Arthur Kats, collected rent to pay Arenas on his behalf. Gilbert Arenas is making a court appearance this afternoon Arenas will make his first appearance later this afternoon at the United States District Court in Los Angeles. Could the former NBA player go to prison? Yes, if he is found guilty, Arenas could potentially face time in prison. Here is more: "If convicted, the defendants would face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison for each count." Arenas is facing three counts, so he could potentially face a maximum of 15 years in federal prison.
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
SCOTUS to discuss Ghislaine Maxwell's case privately in September at post-summer conference
The Supreme Court revealed on Wednesday that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal to her sex trafficking conviction will be among the many cases the high court reviews at a closed-door conference in September. The Supreme Court posted a brief notice indicating it plans to examine a petition from Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend and associate, on Sept. 29, marking the first time the justices will have her case before them. The public could learn whether the high court plans to review Maxwell's case within days or weeks of that date. If the Supreme Court were to deny Maxwell's petition, she would have no appeal options left. If the high court were to grant it, that means it would review Maxwell's arguments that she was improperly prosecuted. Maxwell was convicted by a jury in New York in 2021 of five counts involving sex trafficking of a minor and conspiracy and sentenced to 20 years in prison. She appealed her conviction, arguing it should be tossed out because a plea deal Epstein reached with the federal government in 2007 immunized her and statutes of limitations for her actions had lapsed. Maxwell's case has reentered the spotlight in recent weeks after the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI revealed that they had reviewed Epstein's case files and found no further information that they could release to the public. The DOJ and FBI also said they uncovered no further evidence that would allow them to bring investigative action against figures who may have been associated with Epstein, a wealthy financier and registered sex offender who died in 2019 while in prison awaiting trial. But the administration faced intense blowback from MAGA supporters who felt Trump appointees, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, were reneging on promises to unveil revelatory information about Epstein's case. Trump, who was among the many prominent figures who once socialized with Epstein, said the topic was "sordid" but "boring" and dismissed questions about it. But in the face of building pressure, the president demanded the DOJ take more action to release files. The Supreme Court signaling that it will review Maxwell's case comes at a delicate moment. After Trump's demands, the department asked the court to release a limited and redacted batch of documents from the grand juries' indictments of Epstein and Maxwell. Then, DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell in Tallahassee, Florida, where she is serving her prison sentence, and questioned her for two days. Blanche's motives for the meeting remain unclear. Maxwell's attorney, David Markus, told reporters after the meeting that it marked the "first opportunity she's ever been given to answer questions about what happened." She answered questions about "maybe about a hundred different people, and she didn't hold anything back," Markus said. He said they had not "yet" approached Trump about clemency. The president recently said, when asked by a reporter about the matter, that he is "allowed" to give Maxwell a pardon but that he had not considered it at this stage. The House Oversight Committee has also moved to pull back the curtain on Epstein's case by subpoenaing Maxwell to testify before the panel. Maxwell's attorney responded by saying she would need full immunity to testify and that she wanted to wait until after the Supreme Court responded to her petition.
