Justice Department says former officer convicted in Breonna Taylor raid should get one day in jail
The officer, Brett Hankison of Kentucky, was convicted on one count of abusing Taylor's civil rights last year after firing several shots through Taylor's bedroom window during a police raid. He is set to be sentenced on Monday.
Taylor's killing became a pillar in the Black Lives Matter movement, and one of several cases that sparked nationwide protests against police violence in 2020. If granted, a shortened sentence could reinflame tensions with activists who believe that government institutions protect officers from facing consequences.
But in a court filing Wednesday, the Justice Department argued that although Hankison 'was part of the team executing the warrant, Defendant Hankison did not shoot Ms. Taylor and is not otherwise responsible for her death.'
'Counsel is unaware of another prosecution in which a police officer has been charged with depriving the rights of another person under the Fourth Amendment for returning fire and not injuring anyone,' prosecutors wrote in their filing.
The request for Hankison to serve one day behind bars would mean a sentence of time-served, meaning that he would not return to jail. They are also asking Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings to sentence him to three years of supervised release.
The filing was signed not by lawyers involved in the case or the career staff who usually handle sentencing requests, but by Trump's appointee to run the Civil Rights Department Harmeet Dhillon and a senior non-career official in her division.
Taylor was shot during a botched 'no-knock' raid in 2020 when officers were searching for Taylor's ex-boyfriend who was not in the home. Taylor's boyfriend at the time, Kenneth Walker III, later said he thought they were intruders and opened fire at police officers.
Officers returned fire, including Hankison, who was accused of blindly firing through a patio door and a window. The bullets pierced into a neighboring apartment where a pregnant woman, a man and a child were home, according to prosecutors.
Hankison was fired from the police department in late June 2020.
In an apparent criticism of the Biden-era Justice Department's handling of the case under, Trump's DOJ noted in their Wednesday filing that the Hankison was acquitted in a state trial and that the first federal trial ended in a mistrial.
'In this case, two federal trials were ultimately necessary to obtain a unanimous verdict of guilt,' prosecutors wrote. 'But even then, the jury convicted on only one count, despite the fact that the elements of the charge and underlying conduct are essentially the same.'
Prosecutors continued, adding that 'the jury's verdict will almost certainly ensure that Defendant Hankison never serves as a law enforcement officer again and will also likely ensure that he never legally possesses a firearm again.'
For his part, Hankison also argued for leniency.
'Mr. Hankison is suspectable to abuse based on his status as a police officer, coupled with the extensive national and international media attention this case has generated over the past five plus years,' his attorneys wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
College Student Returns Home After a Month and Finds 2 Naked Strangers Living in His Apartment: Report
Attorneys suggested the apartment did not breach their contract with the Pennsylvania college student A Pittsburgh college student says he returned home after a month away to allegedly find two naked people in his apartment. Maverick Crupi, who attends the University of Pittsburgh, said he came across the two individuals upon returning to his unit at the SkyVue Apartments in June, according to CBS affiliate KDKA. Crupi said he quickly realized that many of his personal belongings were missing, and saw new pots and pans in the kitchen. Soon after, he ran into the first naked individual. "This lady, she's probably like 35, 40 [years old], just naked, walks out, looks at me and starts screaming," he recalled. ADVERTISEMENT Crupi claimed his former roommate had sublet his room, the outlet reported. But the college student said he was given no notice that this was taking place. There is a clause in the contract Crupi signed for the apartment that stated subletting "is allowed only when we expressly consent in writing.' It also said, "the remaining resident and replacement residents must sign an entirely new lease contract.' However, the outlet reported that Crupi signed what is known as a 'by-the-bed' lease and was only renting his room in the unit. According to KDKA, attorneys said SkyVue did not breach the contract. One of those attorneys, Daniel Stoner, said the subletting clause would have gone into effect if Crupi and his former roommate had signed a joint lease agreement. Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. SkyVue did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment. ADVERTISEMENT Now, Crupi is warning others to 'look at your contract' and 'look at the laws that are in the city' when it comes to leasing. 'Try to see if you're getting what you're entitled to,' he said. 'At the end of the day, the bare minimum, hopefully, at least you're getting that, and people are following their contract.' Read the original article on People
CNET
3 minutes ago
- CNET
What Are 'Trump Accounts'? Breaking Down the Big Beautiful Bill's Newborn Savings Accounts
These new investment savings account will be started for every newborn automatically over the next few years. Getty Images Amid the divisiveness surrounding the passage of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful" spending bill, one portion of the legislation seems like it would be agreeable to pretty much everyone: a new type of investment savings account for newborns, which the federal government will seed with money upfront. That sounds like a win for most folks, but are these accounts all they're cracked up to be? And how will they actually work? Most of the conversations and conflicts surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed into law on July 4, largely ignored these accounts, focusing on the potential damages from sweeping Medicaid cuts and the bolstering of immigration enforcement funding. As polarizing as those elements of the bill were, these new savings accounts, which congressional Republicans attempted to brand as "Trump accounts," had bipartisan support. In the past, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Sen. Cory Booker have suggested similar ideas to help parents begin building up savings for their children. These aren't going to be free money that new parents can use right away, as there are a number of rules about what can be done with the money. Additionally, the policy will only be in place for a few years unless extended. With all that in mind, keep reading for all the details you'll need to know about the so-called "Trump accounts" and what they mean for your family. For more, find out what recent political moves might mean for your student loan payments. Who's eligible for these new accounts? You can open one of these accounts in your child's name as soon as they're born, and so long as you, your spouse and the child have valid Social Security numbers. If the child's parents aren't married, only the parent opening the account and the child need Social Security numbers. As the policy currently stands, these accounts can only be opened for children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. It's another example of a common theme highlighted by critics of the Big Beautiful Bill: benefits set to end around the time Trump will leave the White House and drawbacks kicking in once someone new is in office. Whatever the political machinations behind the timeline might be, just keep them in mind if you have a kid later than the start of 2029, since the policy might not be extended. What do the "Trump accounts" do? These accounts allow parents to contribute up to $5,000 a year towards a fund their child will have access to later in life. As investment accounts -- think a 401(k) for your new baby as opposed to a standard savings account -- they have the potential to accrue a lot more value over the years through capital gains and dividends, but they could also lose value depending on how markets move. Other entities, such as the parents' employers, can also contribute to these accounts, up to $2,500 a year. One of the most publicized and desirable aspects of these accounts is that, once one is opened for a new child, the federal government will seed it with $1,000 to get things rolling. This is why the savings accounts have gotten a thumbs-up from some experts, even if parents never add anything else to the account. "Someone is giving me $1,000 for my kid? That's a no-brainer. Who turns away free money?" Jaime Eckels of Plante Moran Financial Advisors said in an interview with CNBC. "From there, you'll have to decide what additional savings you'll have for your child." It's unlikely, however, that a significant number of Americans will be able to use these accounts to their fullest, since, as the Urban Institute noted, one-third don't currently have over $2,000 in savings or have surplus income high enough to make stock investments. Still though, you'll probably be happier to have that $1,000 from the government even if you aren't able to save much on your own. The Milken Institute estimated that the minimum seed from the government could grow to as much as $8,000 for your child over the course of 20 years. How can I open one of these accounts? You should be able to open one at any bank or participating financial institution. If no one gets around to it, the government will open one for the child automatically the first time you file a tax return with the new baby claimed as a dependent. When can money be withdrawn from one of these accounts? The holder of the account (that is, your child) can't withdraw any funds from them until they are at least 18 years old. Funds withdrawn from the account will be subject to the standard capital gains tax, and an additional 10% penalty until they're 59 and a half or older, similar to withdrawals from a 401(k) account. However, there are a number of notable life expenses that the money can be used for penalty-free, including higher-education costs and expenses incurred due to things like disability, domestic violence or natural disasters. Up to $10,000 can be withdrawn penalty-free to be put towards the purchase of a home, and $5,000 can be withdrawn to cover the costs of having a baby. For more, keep an eye on inflation with CNET's daily tariff impact tracker.
Gizmodo
3 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
‘I Got You Guys Out of So Much Trouble': Trump Signs Stablecoin Crypto Bill
The self-diagnosed 'very stable genius' has, fittingly, signed into law the GENIUS Act, which introduces (very loose, industry-friendly) regulations for the operation of stablecoins—cryptocurrencies pegged to assets like the US dollar. During the press conference and signing ceremony for the bill, Trump got quite transparent about his relationship with the crypto community, telling them, 'I got you guys out of so much trouble.' Trump's comments, made over the weekend, show quite the prescience, seeing as Fortune reported on Tuesday that the Justice Department has dropped a probe into Jesse Powell, the founder of cryptocurrency exchange Kraken. Powell had his home raided by the FBI in part of a case in which he was accused of hacking and cyber-stalking a nonprofit arts group, but that appears to be behind him now that Trump's DOJ has taken its foot off his neck. It's just the latest instance of Trump looking the other way on accused crypto-criminals. Earlier this month, the DOJ and U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ended investigations into crypto futures betting platform Polymarket, which was focused on accusations that the platform was allowing Americans to place bets despite it being illegal for them to do so. Shortly after Trump took office, the Securities and Exchange Commission paused its attempts to charge Chinese crypto mogul Justin Sun for financial crimes—a decision that came shortly after Sun poured $30 million into Trump's memecoin $TRUMP. All of that is in line with the Justice Department's announcement when Trump took office, stating that it would pull back on pursuing crypto-related crime. Trump's off-the-cuff riffing at the GENIUS Act signing provides a pretty straightforward picture of his relationship with the crypto community. In addition to acknowledging he's gotten the crypto bros out of a bind by offering little regulatory oversight or criminal investigation into their industry, he also explained in just a few words the favor-trading he's been doing. '[Crypto] is good for the dollar, and it's good for the country, and that's why I backed you at an early stage,' Trump said. 'I also did it for the votes, because you did come out and vote.' That's a pretty uncomplicated arrangement. The crypto industry backed Trump, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars during the campaign and his inauguration, so Trump offered a crypto-friendly platform to woo the voting bloc. Now they're all cashing in—Trump included, seeing as his kids announced a stablecoin earlier this year that will benefit from the GENIUS Act.
