When is trial date for father of accused shooter at Apalachee High School?
The mass shooting occurred Sept. 4 at the high school in Winder, where the suspect Colt Gray was a ninth-grade student.
Colin Gray, 54, gave his young son the AR-15 style rifle as a Christmas gift, according to court records. He faces a 29-count indictment that include charges of second-degree murder and reckless conduct.
A trial date for Colt Gray on numerous murder and aggravated assault charges has not been set, as pretrial motions are still underway.
The elder Gray remains in jail, although Primm gave him a $500,000 bond in February, but the judge stipulated that 10% of the amount must be a cash bond.
Colin Gray has been granted a change of venue for the trial, a motion that was supported by the defense team led by attorney Brian Hobbs and and the prosecutors Piedmont Circuit District Attorney Brad Smith and chief assistant Patricia Brooks.
In Tuesday's order, the judge told the lawyers he wanted their pre-trial motions filed by July 15. The judge also said he wanted to see a complete witness list and the jury selection questions that each side proposes for potential jurors by Aug. 15. If he has a problem with any question, he would discuss those with the lawyers.
The judge has not set a date for deciding on locations for the change of venue, but has told lawyers he will make a decision, which includes moving the trial to another county or bringing jurors from another county to Barrow County. The jury would be sequestered during the trial.
Barrow County Sheriff Jud Smith testified earlier that there are 75 deputies on the witness list from his office and that will have an impact on his office if they must leave the county for the trial.
Primm has noted that the trial for Colin Gray is expected to take about three weeks, so he has to find a courthouse that will accommodate that timeframe as well as finding a courthouse with the needed technology to present evidence.
This article originally appeared on Athens Banner-Herald: Trial date set for father of teen accused in Apalachee High shootings
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Judge denies motion to keep data out of trial for driver in Johnny Gaudreau crash case
A New Jersey judge has denied a motion from attorneys for the driver accused of fatally striking Columbus Blue Jackets player Johnny Gaudreau and his younger brother almost a year ago, saying data from the man's vehicle can be presented if the case goes to trial. Sean Higgins, 44, is charged with involuntary manslaughter, aggravated vehicular homicide and other charges in connection with the Aug. 29, 2024, deaths of Johnny, 31, and Matthew Gaudreau, 29. The Aug. 21 hearing centered on a motion filed by Higgins' attorneys asking for information from his Jeep Grand Cherokee to be kept out of any potential trial. In court filings, Higgins' legal team argues the evidence collected from some automated modules was gathered outside the scope of a search warrant. The filings say information from the Jeep was not recorded during the collision with the Gaudreaus. The New Jersey State Police state in a crash report that collisions between pedestrians or cyclists and vehicles do not typically register in vehicles like the Jeep because the mass and velocity between the two objects is so great. Higgins' Jeep only registered changes in velocity of 5 mph or more within 150 milliseconds or when airbags were deployed, court records say. After hearing arguments from the attorneys for both sides, Superior Court Judge Michael Silvanio denied the suppression request. Silvanio said that information gathered from the airbag control module for the Jeep Higgins was driving on the night of crash was obtained properly, noting that information is irrelevant to the case at this point. He also said that information that New Jersey State Police gathered from the Jeep's infotainment system was done properly and could be admitted at a future trial. A separate hearing is scheduled for Sept. 18 for arguments to be presented about whether statements Higgins gave to New Jersey police after the crash can be used against him or whether his Miranda rights were violated. Higgins rejected a plea offer in January that would have resulted in a 35-year prison sentence. What happened to Johnny and Matthew Gaudreau? Around 8:20 p.m. on Aug. 29, Higgins passed two vehicles while driving on a road in Oldmans Township, New Jersey. Both of the vehicles in front of Higgins had slowed down after seeing the Gaudreau brothers, who were bicycling one in front of the other on the road's shoulder, according to court and police records. The brothers had been in town to attend their sister's wedding, which was scheduled for the next day. Witnesses, including the two drivers who were in front of Higgins, told New Jersey State police that Higgins had been driving aggressively, speeding up and then falling back several times before passing the first vehicle on the left, according to court records. When the second vehicle moved to the left to give the brothers more space, records say Higgins drove around that vehicle on the right, hitting the brothers. Higgins and his disabled Jeep were found about a quarter-mile away from where the crash is believed to have occurred, Assistant Salem County (New Jersey) Prosecutor Michael Mestern has said. A blood test after the crash found Higgins' blood-alcohol level to be 0.087, according to court records. A police report says Higgins admitted to drinking beer before and while driving, as well as throwing beer cans into a field near where his Jeep had stopped. Reporter Bethany Bruner can be reached at bbruner@ or on Bluesky at @
Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Settlement seems imminent as hairstylist seeks dismissal of sexual abuse lawsuit against Skip Bayless, Fox
The Fox Sports hairstylist who alleged that longtime sports talk show host Skip Bayless made unwanted sexual advances toward her has attempted to have her lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed, only to be rebuffed by the court. The request is an indication the parties have reached a settlement, said Edson McClellan, a lawyer with Rutan & Tucker who specializes in high stakes civil and employment litigation. In addition to Bayless, defendants include parent company Fox Corp. and two additional high-profile former employees at the sports network — commentator Joy Taylor and executive Charlie Dixon. McClellan said the filing for dismissal by plaintiff Noushin Faraji 'is a strong indication that a settlement has been reached.' The court rejected the request for dismissal because in addition to Faraji alleging sexual battery, retaliation and wrongful termination, the lawsuit added a class action complaint alleging that Fox engaged in 'unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices' by failing to pay minimum wages, reimburse business expenses and pay severance to other employees as well. For the settlement with Faraji to take place, her lawyers must either refile the lawsuit without the class action complaint or file a declaration explaining why the individual complaint should be dismissed while the class action complaint continues to move forward, according to Alexander R. Wheeler, a partner with the Parris Law Firm. 'The judge sits in an advisory, almost fiduciary relationship with those who stand to benefit from the class action,' Wheeler said. 'If the case was settled to the single plaintiff, the judge might say, 'Hold on, what's the deal with the class action?' Judges do not want plaintiffs using the threat of class action to extract a better settlement.' Faraji's allegations in the 42-page lawsuit filed in January had serious consequences for Bayless, Taylor and Dixon. All three were fired, although Taylor and a lawyer for Dixon said their employment with Fox ended for reasons other than the lawsuit. 'For over a decade at Fox, Faraji was forced to endure a misogynistic, racist, and ableist workplace where executives and talent were allowed to physically and verbally abuse workers with impunity,' the lawsuit alleged. Faraji accused Bayless, 73, of offering her $1.5 million to have sex with him. Bayless worked at Fox Sports from 2016 until 2024, when his show 'Undisputed' was canceled after a dip in ratings coincided with the departure of his co-host, former NFL star Shannon Sharpe. In a separate case, Sharpe in July reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with a woman who accused the Hall of Fame tight end of sexual assault and battery. Sharpe was fired as a commentator on ESPN's 'First Take' after the settlement was completed. Faraji's lawsuit alleges that Dixon made an unwanted pass at her during a birthday party for Taylor at a Hollywood restaurant in 2017. Faraji told Taylor about the episode, but Taylor responded by saying, 'Get over it,' pointing out that 'she herself only had her job because of Mr. Dixon and that Ms. Faraji only had her job because Ms. Taylor requested her,' and 'she warned that Mr. Dixon could take both away,' according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also details at length an alleged ongoing affair between Taylor and Dixon as well as a romantic relationship between Taylor and another Fox co-host, Emmanuel Acho. On the 'Hot Mics With Billy Bush' podcast a few days ago, Taylor said the allegations weren't the reason she was let go by Fox. 'I will say that that situation and that suit had nothing to do with the changes that happened at FS1,' she said. 'I mean, I think from a logical standpoint, everyone can just look at it and see what the changes were and that there were three shows that were cut.' In a court filing denying Faraji's allegations, Taylor's attorney wrote that her client 'welcomes the opportunity to publicly prove that her inclusion in this action is improper.' Faraji accused Dixon, the FS1 executive producer of content, of sexual harassment. Former network anchor and reporter Julie Stewart-Binks also accused him in a separate lawsuit. An attorney for Dixon said in a statement emailed to The Times in April that his client had been told by Fox Sports 'that he was being let go for violating company policy' in a matter that had nothing to do with the lawsuits. 'According to the network, Mr. Dixon did not disclose to human resources or the legal department that a third-party production company had hired his wife as a temporary freelancer,' attorney John Ly wrote. Bayless denied 'each and every allegation' made by Faraji in a court filing in February, asserting that he 'acted with a good faith belief that he had good cause to act as he did' and none of his actions 'were in bad faith, spiteful, malicious, or otherwise motivated by any ill-will or illegal intent.' Faraji alleged that Bayless made repeated unwanted advances toward her during and after she gave him weekly haircuts, and he offered to pay her for sex. 'Mr. Bayless began finding excuses to touch Ms. Faraji,' the lawsuit states. 'He would give her lingering hugs after each haircut, putting his body against her own, pressing against her breasts. He then began to kiss her on her cheeks. Ms. Faraji was uncomfortable by the physical contact and would make excuses to leave right after the haircuts.' In July 2021, the lawsuit states, Faraji explained to Bayless that she was undergoing biopsies to determine whether she had cancer. 'Mr. Bayless then grabbed her hands, began kissing them, and offered her $1.5 million to have sex,' according to the lawsuit. 'Approximately one week later, Mr. Bayless made another advance at Ms. Faraji. Ms. Faraji responded: 'Skip, stop, you have a wife.'' Lawyers for Fox and the defendants went through mediation in March but could not resolve the case, according to a court filing in April. Faraji's lawyers wrote that 'while the parties did not resolve at mediation, they are continuing to engage in settlement discussions with the mediator.' Laurie L. Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School and former federal prosecutor, said a settlement likely would be imminent once the class action portion of the lawsuit is addressed to the judge's satisfaction and the individual complaint is dismissed. Non-disclosure agreements could keep the details from being made public. 'We don't know who is paying what,' she said. 'Were admissions involved? So many cases like this involve non-disclosures. But having gone through mediation, it sounds like they went a long way toward reaching a settlement, and they are at that stage now.'
UPI
8 hours ago
- UPI
Menendez brothers receive parole hearings after decades in prison
Erik Menendez confers with his attorney Leslie Abramson while his brother Lyle was giving testimony in Superior Court in Los Angeles on September 13, 1993. The brothers are charged with killing their parents. File Photo by UPI Photo/Jim Ruymen/Files | License Photo Aug. 21 (UPI) -- Erik and Lyle Menendez will face a California parole board beginning Thursday who may free them from prison after more than 30 years for killing their parents. Erik is scheduled for an initial suitability hearing, or parole hearing, at 11:30 a.m. EDT on Thursday at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in Los Angeles. Lyle is slated to appear before the parole board at the same location and time Friday. The Menendez brothers were resentenced in May to 50 years to life in prison, which made them eligible for parole. Both were originally serving life sentences without the possibility of parole after being convicted of first-degree murder in the 1989 shooting deaths of their parents at their family's Beverly Hills home. Commissioners will review testimony from other family members and prosecutors, while also considering how the brothers behaved while in prison, their criminal histories and potential future plans if released. If they are found appropriate for parole, a process which can take months to complete, the ultimate decision to free them will end with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has 30 days to accept, deny or change their paroles, or send it back to the board. Newsom has so far declined to comment on how he would decide to act should the board recommend parole for the brothers. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman, who has opposed parole for the brothers, said in a statement that his office would make a final decision on its position based on evidence presented at the hearing. "The Menendez brothers have never fully accepted responsibility for the horrific murders of their parents, instead continuing to promote a fall narrative of self-defense that was rejected by the jury decades ago," he said. "We have consistently opposed their release because they have not demonstrated full insight into their crimes or shown that they have been fully rehabilitated, and therefore continue to pose a risk to society." Hochman also pointed out that Newsom denied parole to Sirhan Sirhan, who was sentenced to life for assassinating Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, because he failed "to exhibit full insight and responsibility," which he says is critical to deciding whether someone is eligible for parole. Several of the Menendez brothers' family members, who have formed an advocacy group named "Justice For Erik and Lyle," released a statement that said "As always, our family remains cautiously optimistic, grounding ourselves in the reality that California's parole process is incredibly rigorous, with low grant rates." The group further says it expects the brothers will face heavy scrutiny in their parole board hearing. "We know that Erik and Lyle will come home, that is no longer a doubt," it added. "Wishing my amazing husband all the love and strength for his parole hearing," Tammi Menendez, Erik's wife, posted to X Thursday. "I believe in you and can't wait for this new chapter together." "You've got this!" she concluded.
