US Attorney for NY John Sarcone chased by knife-wielding illegal Salvadoran migrant who threatened to slit his throat: prosecutors
A US Attorney for New York was allegedly chased by a knife-wielding illegal immigrant with a lengthy criminal record who threatened to slit his throat on the streets of Albany Tuesday night, prosecutors said.
John Sarcone, the Trump-appointed US Attorney for the Northern District of New York, was allegedly chased and threatened outside the Hilton Hotel in Albany by Saul Morales-Garcia — an illegal migrant from El Salvador who was previously deported, WNYT reported, citing Albany County prosecutors.
3 US Attorney for the Northern District John Sarcone was threatened by a knife-wielding illegal migrant in Albany on Tuesday.
Houston Chronicle via Getty Images
Advertisement
Morales-Garcia, 40, allegedly aggressively advanced toward Sarcone with his weapon in hand — gesturing that he would slit the attorney's throat as he lunged at him before chasing the US attorney down the street outside the hotel just before 10 p.m. Tuesday, that report stated citing local police.
Sarcone was uninjured, and nearby Albany County sheriff's deputies picked up Morales-Garcia just moments after the alleged attack, according to local cops.
The alleged attempted slasher was previously convicted of a felony in El Salvador and has been deported from the United States at least once in the past, WNYT reported, citing investigators.
Advertisement
3 The knife allegedly used in Tuesday night's incident.
Albany County Sheriff's Office
Albany County prosecutors said the incident appeared to be a 'random' street encounter.
Morales-Garcia is currently in the country illegally and has a criminal record in at least three other states outside of New York, prosecutors said.
It is not known when Morales-Garcia entered the US or where he allegedly crossed into the country.
Advertisement
3 Saul Morales-Garcia, 40, was charged with attempted second-degree murder accused after allegedly threatening to slit the throat of US Attorney John Sarcone.
Albany County Sheriff's Office
He is charged with attempted second-degree murder and is being held without bail, the Albany Times Union reported.
'It's important that everybody understands that we take these things seriously — whether you're the US Attorney for the Northern District or your name's John Smith and you live on Morton Avenue,' Albany County District Attorney Lee Kindlon said after the court hearings, the outlet reported.
Advertisement
US Attorney Sarcone was appointed to the Northern District of New York in March by Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The Pace University graduate is a native New Yorker, growing up in a 'humble, blue-collar background' in Croton-on-Hudson, Sarcone said in a statement at the time.
The Northern District of New York declined to provide a comment to The Post.
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Large crowds demonstrate, march at anti-Trump 'No Kings' protest in Denver
Large crowds peacefully gathered in front of the Colorado State Capitol in Denver Saturday to take part in one of several anti-Trump 'No Kings' rallies in Colorado and across the country.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge's ruling blocking President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all. The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops. 'Those are maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,' Judge Eric Miller, one of Trump appointees on the panel, told California's lawyer. 'But they've told us repeatedly that when there is a case that is directly applicable to an issue, even if we think it's been undercut by later developments…we're supposed to follow the applicable case and leave it to them to overrule it,' Miller added. The judges repeatedly stressed an 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, that gives the president exclusive authority to decide whether an exigency justifying the use of military power has arisen. Samuel Harbourt, California's attorney, insisted 'it was a very different case.' 'If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,' Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. 'But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you're making.' Judge Mark Bennett, the other Trump appointee, questioned whether the courts could intervene in the Los Angeles deployment even if there was some limited role for judicial review. 'With the facts here and the language in Martin v. Mott, how can that test be met here?' he asked. Trump deployed the National Guard over a week ago as protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's immigration raids, devolving at times into violence. He cited a statute that allows the guard to be federalized when there is a rebellion or when the president can't execute federal law with regular forces. Tuesday's arguments followed a district judge's order directing Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, called Trump's takeover illegal and said it exceeded the scope of the statute. The Justice Department appealed the ruling within minutes of its release, and the 9th Circuit panel granted the government's request to temporarily halt the ruling as its request for a longer pause is considered. Brett Shumate, who represented the government at Tuesday's arguments, said Breyer 'improperly second-guessed' Trump's judgment about the need to call up the guard, interfering with his commander-in-chief powers. 'It upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the President's military orders. It puts article three judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,' Shumate said. California also argues that regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute's mandate to issue his order 'through' the state's governor. California says that requires Newsom to consent, which he did not. But at least some of the judges appeared skeptical of that argument, too. 'It's a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,' said Miller. The appeals court could now rule at any time. Before adjourning, the panel noted Breyer is moving quickly to a Friday hearing on whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal. And if the administration loses, they asked for the deployment to remain intact until they have an opportunity to file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. Updated on June 18 at 5:58 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard deployed, for now
A federal appeals court panel late Thursday allowed President Trump to keep the National Guard deployed in Los Angeles, for now. The three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously extended its pause of a judge's order finding Trump's deployment illegal and forcing him to return control of the troops to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote in its unsigned, 38-page decision. The panel said it disagreed with the administration that Trump's decision isn't reviewable by the courts, but the judges acknowledged they must be 'highly deferential.' 'Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the opinion reads. Trump has sent in thousands of National Guard troops to protect immigration officers in the wake of recent protests in Los Angeles, which at times have devolved into violence. The move quickly sparked a lawsuit from Newsom and the state's attorney general. Though the 9th Circuit's decision marks a victory for Trump in the legal battle, it may be short-lived. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who issued last week's decision invalidating the deployment, is set to hold a hearing Friday on whether to issue an indefinite injunction. Breyer is an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. In deploying the troops, Trump cited a statute that allows him to federalize the National Guard whenever there is a rebellion or when he cannot execute federal laws with regular forces. The appeals panel said Thursday it agreed the latter trigger was likely met, so it didn't need to reach the question of whether there was a rebellion. 'Plaintiffs' own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. According to the declarations submitted by Defendants, those activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute the laws,' the opinion reads. The three-judge appeals panel comprised two Trump-nominated judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and Judge Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Biden. The 9th Circuit also rejected Newsom's argument Trump failed a statutory requirement to issue his deployment order 'through' the governor. Newsom contended it established a requirement that he consent, but the appeals panel said notifying the adjutant general of the California National Guard was likely sufficient. The panel stressed the statute 'does not give governors any veto power over the President's federalization decision.' 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The president is not a king and not above the law,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' he continued. Updated June 20 at 8:30 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
