DOJ employee spiked happily pregnant girlfriend's coffee with abortion pills: sheriff
Justin Anthony Banta, 38, who works in the IT department of the DOJ, is charged with capital murder in Parker County, Texas, for allegedly putting 'Plan C' abortion drugs in his pregnant girlfriend's coffee, the sheriff's office said in a statement.
Justin Banta, 38, identified as an IT specialist with the Department of Justice, allegedly spiked his girlfriend's coffee with 'Plan C' abortion pills.
Parker County Sheriff's Office
The couple found out about the pregnancy in September 2024, with the unidentified woman refusing the DOJ employee's offer to terminate the pregnancy with 'Plan C' pills he would purchase online, the statement said.
Advertisement
Banta's girlfriend was happily six-weeks pregnant when she had a sonogram on October 17 that revealed a strong heartbeat, and good vital signs, the Parker County Sheriff's Office revealed.
Later that same day she met the IT specialist at a coffee shop — quickly suspecting that Banta had spiked her drink with the 'Plan C' abortion-inducing pills without her consent.
The following day the woman went to the emergency room with extreme bleeding and lost the pregnancy, later reporting the incident to police.
Advertisement
Upon first hearing of the pregnancy, Banta immediately suggested that the couple pursue an abortion using pills he could purchase online, the sheriff's office alleged.
AP
Banta was interviewed by the PSCO and his phone was collected as evidence — but sheriff's deputies claim the DOJ IT specialist performed a remote 'reset' on the device preventing them from gathering crucial evidence, according to the statement.
That alleged IT infraction garnered Banta a separate tampering with physical evidence charge PSCO in addition to the capital murder charge, filed in Tarrant County by the Texas Rangers.
The Department of Justice did not respond to request for comment. It was not clear what sort of punishment Banta faces on the capitol murder charges.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Evening Edition: DOJ Investigating If The D.C. Police Manipulated Crime Data
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating claims that the Washington, D.C., police department manipulated crime data to publish more favorable stats claiming the city is far more safe than what is being said about it. This, just over a week after President Trump federalized the Metropolitan Police Department to respond to a series of high-profile killings, violent attacks and car-jackings. Federalizing the MPD also included sending hundreds of National Guard members and various federal law enforcement agents from various states to the nation's capital. Fox's John Saucier speaks to David Spunt, Washington D.C. based correspondent for FOX News Channel, who shares the latest on the investigation and the current law enforcement surge in Washington D.C. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia highlights the Trump administration's criminal vengeance, too
Kilmar Abrego Garcia became the face of the Trump administration's cruelly incompetent immigration agenda, when the government illegally sent him to El Salvador and resisted remedying its unlawful action — until it finally relented and returned him to the U.S., where it had criminal charges waiting for him. In a new motion, his lawyers say that those criminal charges must be dismissed on the grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution. Writing that Abrego 'was charged because he refused to acquiesce in the government's violation of his due process rights,' his lawyers argued that his criminal case 'results from the government's concerted effort to punish him for having the audacity to fight back, rather than accept a brutal injustice.' Noting that he brought a civil lawsuit for his return while he was 'being tortured in El Salvador' earlier this year, they alleged that senior government officials responded by seeking 'vengeance' and beginning 'a public campaign to punish Mr. Abrego for daring to fight back, culminating in the criminal investigation that led to the charges in this case.' The motion argues that the campaign kicked off with Vice President J.D. Vance falsely calling Abrego 'a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here,' with other executive branch officials joining the effort to publicly criticize him, including by calling him a terrorist. Abrego pleaded not guilty to the charges of illegally transporting undocumented immigrants. But regardless of whether the government can prove his guilt on those charges beyond a reasonable doubt if the case goes to trial, any reasonable observer can see the vengeful political motivation behind him facing those charges in the first place. Yet, can that reality lead to dismissal of criminal charges? As I noted when Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., recently filed her own such motion to dismiss charges that she assaulted federal officers at an immigration facility, selective and vindictive prosecution is a high legal bar to clear. Abrego's lawyers acknowledge this, writing that these motions 'are infrequently made and rarely succeed.' But they insist that 'if there has ever been a case for dismissal on those grounds, this is that case.' They recalled that the criminal case centers on a 2022 car stop from which Abrego was released without charge. The only thing that changed in the intervening years, they wrote, 'was that the government unlawfully renditioned Mr. Abrego to El Salvador, and he challenged that illegal conduct. As a matter of timing, it is clear that it was that lawsuit — and its effects on the government — that prompted the government to reevaluate the 2022 traffic stop and bring this case.' The government will have a chance to respond before the judge overseeing the case in Tennessee weighs in. Before deciding on such motions, judges can order discovery and an evidentiary hearing to assist in their decision. Presumably, the administration doesn't want a formal public airing focused on its motivations, so expect the Justice Department to argue in its forthcoming response that Abrego's motion should be denied without a hearing or discovery. The motion comes ahead of Abrego's potential release from criminal custody on Friday, though the government has signaled its intent to put him back into immigration proceedings, which would move forward in Maryland (where he had been living), separately from the Tennessee criminal case. As for the criminal case, it would be a fitting end for a court to dismiss it based on recognizing the vengeance that's plain for all to see. And though, as Abrego's lawyers noted, such motions are rare, there have been at least two recently, the other coming from McIver, whose charges also came in response to scrutiny of the administration's immigration actions. While we don't yet know whether these latest motions will succeed, if this vengeful administration continues along a similar trajectory in President Donald Trump's second term, such motions may no longer be rare. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Judge denies Justice Department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
NEW YORK — A federal judge who presided over the sex trafficking case against financier Jeffrey Epstein has joined two other judges in rejecting the government's request to unseal grand jury transcripts related to the decades-long sexual abuse suffered by girls and young women who fell into his orbit. The ruling Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request. Barring reversal on appeal, Berman's decision forecloses the possibility of grand jury testimony being released now that three judges have reached the same conclusion. A federal judge in Florida declined to release grand jury documents from an investigation there in 2005 and 2007. The rulings are a collective repudiation of the Justice Department's effort to divert attention away from its stated refusal to release a massive trove of records in its possession and make clear that the still-sealed court documents contain none of the answers likely to satisfy the immense public interest in the case. President Donald Trump had called for the release of transcripts amid rumors and criticism about his long-ago involvement with Epstein. During last year's presidential campaign, Trump promised to release files related to Epstein, but he was met with criticism — including from many of his own supporters — when the small number of records released by his Justice Department lacked new revelations. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on Wednesday. Berman said a 'significant and compelling reason' to reject the government's request was that the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.' He wrote that the government's 100,000 pages of Epstein files and materials 'dwarf the 70 odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials.' 'The Government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein Files,' Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the Justice Department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts. 'By comparison,' Berman added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.' The Justice Department had informed Berman that the only witness to testify before the Epstein grand jury was an FBI agent who, the judge noted, 'had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay.' The agent testified over two days, on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Berman ruled. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. She was recently transferred from a prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, officials in Trump's Republican administration have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the House Oversight Committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In a letter to Maxwell's lawyers, Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.
