Mahdi Ali's family ups pressure for exoneration in 2010 Seward Market killings
Mahdi Ali is serving three consecutive 30 year sentences for the triple murder from early 2010.
An accomplice told FOX 9's Tom Lyden in 2021 that he lied in Ali's trial so that he would take the fall, changing his story to say Ali wasn't there.
A coalition to free Ali from prison delivered a resolution from the Minneapolis Federation of Educators to the Hennepin County Attorney, which has begun a review of the case.
MINNEAPOLIS (FOX 9) - Just after a group of activists gathered outside the Hennepin County government center to demand Mahdi Ali's release, Ali himself called in from Oak Park Heights prison.
He again maintained his innocence as this coalition works to get his case reviewed and Ali exonerated.
"Please join me," he said. "Join my team, fight for justice, fight for exoneration."
What we know
The coalition began a concerted effort to free Ali a few months ago. A couple weeks ago, they got the Hennepin County Attorney's Conviction Integrity Unit to agree to take a look.
"They tell us it might take a while and that's fine," said Michelle Gross, a police-brutality activist who's taken an active role in fighting for Ali's release. "We're patient people, but we're not going to tolerate him remaining in prison forever and ever and ever."
They gathered Tuesday to present Hennepin County Attorney with another document: A resolution passed by the Minneapolis Federation of Educators also asking Ali's case be reviewed.
Several members of the coalition are teachers who knew Ali. One is the union president.
The backstory
In early 2010, two men entered the Seward Market in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis. Security footage shows them robbing the store.
One of the men shot both of the clerks working there, as well as a customer who walked in the front door. It all happened in one minute.
Mahdi Ali was quickly identified as a suspect and interviewed by detectives. He admitted being with two men who were also considered suspects, but insisted he wasn't there.
But one of the other men said Ali was the one who fired the fatal shots and testified to that at Ali's trial.
In 2021, in an interview with FOX 9 investigator Tom Lyden, that accomplice said he lied, that Ali wasn't there, that they made him the scapegoat. That man, convicted in the robbery, has since been let out of prison.
"His accusation that Mahdi was with him, he has recanted," said Marcia Howard, the MFE president. "He has said that Mahdi was not with him."
The coalition activists are trying to find that man to get him to say the same thing on the record to those reviewing Ali's conviction. So far, no luck.
What's next
Gross acknowledges that reviewing the case is complicated, but hopes continued pressure can speed things along.
Adding to the pressure is Marvina Haynes, whose brother was exonerated last year after nearly 20 years in prison for murder after it was determined the eyewitness testimony was faulty.
"And we want Madhi Ali released immediately," said Haynes. "Mahdi is innocent."
Mahdi Ali was a teenager when convicted. He's now 30 years old. He'll be 107 when his sentence is served.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
a few seconds ago
- CBS News
Trial over California National Guard deployment concludes as judge questions limits of president's authority
The trial over President Trump's deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this summer reached its third and final day Wednesday, as lawyers for the Justice Department and the state of California argued over the validity of Gov. Gavin Newsom's lawsuit and whether the Posse Comitatus Act — which generally bars the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement – applied to the troop deployment. Mr. Trump in June deployed 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, saying they were needed to protect federal property and law enforcement agents amid June protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Newsom did not approve of the use of his state's Guard forces and responded with a lawsuit requesting an injunction limiting the military's role in the city. In addition to claiming the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, argued that there is no precedent for the lawsuit, for injunctive relief or money damages under the act, and that Newsom and the state of California have not suffered the harm required to sue. "It is, in fact, the federal government who is engaged in unprecedented conduct," said Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, representing the State of California, explaining that the government has never used the military in this way before. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer seemed perplexed by several of the government's assertions, particularly what he called the apparent "absence of any limits to a national police force." He questioned the Justice Department's claim that the 19th century law at the center of this trial is not relevant, and the assertion that his court lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the president. "So then what is the remedy?" Breyer asked Hamilton, raising the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. "You're saying there's a criminal remedy? The president can be prosecuted? You say that in light of the Supreme Court decision, the Trump decision. Isn't he immune?" "So that's it. Too bad. So sad. It's over," he added emphatically. "And that's the end of the case." California has asked Breyer for an injunction that would allow the military to protect federal property — such as courthouses and ICE facilities — but block it from continuing the support for immigration enforcement operations, which the state's lawyer called an "unlawful military crusade." "The constitution and the law and the facts are on Governor Newsom's side," said Josh Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School. "But that doesn't mean he's going to win. Ever since World War II, the courts have embraced this military deference doctrine, which really is presidential deference in matters of military command and control." "We're going to see federal officers everywhere if the president determines that there's some threat to the safety of a federal agent," Breyer said to Hamilton. "And it's his determination. Not mine, it's his. That's what you're saying. That's what the law is." Hamilton said that wasn't "quite what I'm saying." He asserted the troops are not enforcing federal law, but providing protection, and that it is lawful for guardsmen and marines to provide protection for federal buildings – the one point he agreed with California's attorney on. But, he argued, there is no distinction between protecting federal property and protecting federal law enforcement working out in the field. Breyer pointed out that federal employees "are everywhere." The judge further questioned why any National Guard members remain in Los Angeles, and expressed concern about the justification for continued operations. Hamilton testified that 300 guardsmen remain, a 90% reduction in the force. Strong countered that it is still a significant number of soldiers, and certainly enough to violate the law. "Thank goodness for the National Guard, but why is the federalized National Guard still in place?" asked Breyer. "What's the threat today? What was the threat yesterday?" "I go back to the thing that I'm really troubled by: What limiting factors are there to the use of this force?" he said, "Once you have a force in place, and maybe legitimately do so, and the threat that gave rise to the force in that place subsides … how does one look at this national police force that goes out of where the threat was and starts executing other laws?" Breyer appeared to take issue with the Justice Department's argument that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, noting that a key witness, Major General Scott Sherman – who was at one point the commanding general of the Guard task force in Los Angeles – had testified that the troops were trained to act within the bounds of that law. "Then why is it the excellent Major General sought assurance that the Posse Comitatus Act was followed?" said Breyer. "Why did I spend a day looking at slide after slide, and regulation after regulation, and reports after reports on conduct of the soldiers to ensure that they were in compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act if the Posse Comitatus Act is irrelevant?" Strong argued that all of the Department of Defense's leaders agreed that the Posse Comitatus Act applied to the Task Force 51 troops in Los Angeles. She said they substituted the word "protection" for "security" when describing the troops' activities because they knew that "security" would violate the act. She asserted that the secretary of defense had released a memorandum invoking a constitutional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and affirmatively instructing soldiers to engage in activities that violated it — but the memo was issued after those activities had taken place. On Tuesday, Sherman testified that he was advised of a "constitutional exception" that enabled the troops to conduct certain activities that would normally violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Strong called this an attempt by the Department of Defense to justify their actions after the fact that "itself reveals a knowledge and awareness of their violations." The federal government is "disregarding the law, and so we need show nothing more than that," said Strong. She further argued that the Constitution seeks to make sure the president cannot control a standing army the way the king had in 1776. She said that it would deny the basic principles of federalism for the state to have "no legal recourse to challenge the conduct of these troops." "If you look at the plain language of the Posse Comitatus Act, and the fear of standing armies that existed at the time of the Constitution," Kastenberg said. "...One of the biggest issues in the state conventions and in the framing of the Constitution to begin with was to significantly curtail the president's authority over the standing army, and keep the standing army very small." Breyer did not give a timeline for his ruling, stating at the end of the day, "I will decide the case as soon as I can decide the case."Joe Walsh contributed to this report.
Washington Post
a few seconds ago
- Washington Post
Los Angeles school year begins amid fears over immigration enforcement
LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles students and teachers return to class for the new academic year Thursday under a cloud of apprehension after a summer filled with immigration raids and amid worries that schools could become a target in the Trump administration's aggressive crackdown. Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Alberto Carvalho has urged immigration authorities not to conduct enforcement activity within a two-block radius around schools starting an hour before the school day begins and until one hour after it classes let out.
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
DC Mayor Bowser walks delicate line with Trump, reflecting the city's precarious position
NEW YORK (AP) — As National Guard troops deploy across her city as part of President Donald Trump's efforts to clamp down on crime, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is responding with relative restraint. She's called Trump's takeover of the city's police department and his decision to activate 800 members of the guard ' unsettling and unprecedented ' and gone as far as to cast his efforts as part of an 'authoritarian push.' But Bowser has so far avoided the kind of biting rhetoric and personal attacks typical of other high-profile Democratic leaders, despite the unprecedented incursion into her city. 'While this action today is unsettling and unprecedented, I can't say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we're totally surprised,' Bowser told reporters at a press conference responding to the efforts. She even suggested the surge in resources might benefit the city and noted that limited home rule allows the federal government 'to intrude on our autonomy in many ways.' 'My tenor will be appropriate for what I think is important for the District,' said Bowser, who is in her third term as mayor. 'And what's important for the District is that we can take care of our citizens.' The approach underscores the reality of Washington, D.C.'s precarious position under the thumb of the federal government. Trump has repeatedly threatened an outright takeover of the overwhelmingly Democratic city, which is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed in 1973 that could be repealed by Congress. Republicans, who control both chambers, have already frozen more than a $1 billion in local spending, slashing the city's budget. That puts her in a very different position than figures like California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Illinois Gov. B Pritzker, Democrats whose states depend on the federal government for disaster relief and other funding, but who have nonetheless relentlessly attacked the current administration as they lay the groundwork for potential 2028 presidential runs. Those efforts come amid deep frustrations from Democratic voters that their party has not been nearly aggressive enough in its efforts to counter Trump's actions. 'Unfortunately she is in a very vulnerable position,' said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. 'This is the sort of thing that can happen when you don't have the powers that come with being a state. So that's what we're seeing right now, the mayor trying to navigate a very tough administration. Because this administration has shown no restraint when it comes to any kind of constitutional barriers or norms.' A change from Trump's first term Bowser's approach marks a departure from Trump's first term, when she was far more antagonistic toward the president. Then she routinely clashed with the administration, including having city workers paint giant yellow letters spelling out 'Black Lives Matter' on a street near the White House during the George Floyd protests in 2020. This time around, Bowser took a different tact from the start. She flew to Florida to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago after he won the election and has worked to avoid conflict and downplay points of contention, including tearing up the 'Black Lives Matter' letters after he returned to Washington in response to pressure from Republicans in Congress. The change reflects the new political dynamics at play, with Republicans in control of Congress and an emboldened Trump who has made clear he is willing to exert maximum power and push boundaries in unprecedented ways. D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson said she understands Bowser's position, and largely agrees with her conclusion that a legal challenge to Trump's moves would be a long shot. Trump invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in his executive order, declaring a 'crime emergency' so his administration could take over the city's police force. The statue limits that control to 30 days unless he gets approval from Congress. 'The challenge would be on the question of 'Is this actually an emergency?'' said Henderson, a former congressional staffer. 'That's really the only part you could challenge.' Henderson believes the city would face dim prospects in a court fight, but thinks the D.C. government should challenge anyway, 'just on the basis of precedent.' Trump told reporters Wednesday that he believes he can extend the 30-day deadline by declaring a national emergency, but said 'we expect to be before Congress very quickly.' 'We're gonna be asking for extensions on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days,' he said. 'We're gonna do this very quickly. But we're gonna want extensions. I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will.' Limited legal options Bowser's response is a reflection of the reality of the situation, according to a person familiar with her thinking. As mayor of the District of Columbia, Bowser has a very different relationship with the president and federal government than other mayors or governors. The city is home to thousands of federal workers, and the mass layoffs under DOGE have already had a major impact on the city's economy. Her strategy has been to focus on finding areas where she and the new administration can work together on shared priorities. For now, Bowser appears set to stick with her approach, saying Wednesday that she is focused on 'making sure the federal surge is useful to us.' During a morning interview with Fox 5, she and the city's police chief argued an influx of federal agents linked to Trump's takeover would improve public safety, with more officers on patrol. Police chief Pamela Smith said the city's police department is short almost 800 officers, so the extra police presence 'is clearly going to impact us in a positive way.' But Nina Smith, the Democratic strategist, said she believes Bowser needs a course correction. 'How many times is it going to take before she realizes this is not someone who has got the best interests of the city at heart?' she asked. 'I think there may need to be time for her to get tough and push back.' Despite Trump's rhetoric, statistics published by Washington's Metropolitan Police show violent crime has dropped in Washington since a post-pandemic peak in 2023. A recent Department of Justice report shows that violent crime is down 35% since 2023, reaching its lowest rate in 30 years. ___ Associated Press writers Ashraf Khalil and Will Weissert in Washington contributed to this report.
