The US Bank executive killed in a plane crash died of blunt-force injuries
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The U.S. Bank executive killed when his plane crashed into a home in suburban Minneapolis died of blunt-force injuries, a medical examiner ruled Tuesday.
The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office identified the sole occupant of the plane as Terrance Robert Dolan, 63, of Edina. The aircraft was a single-engine Socata TBM7, which went down Saturday in Brooklyn Park.
Dolan was vice chair and chief administration officer at Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank. He was named chief administration officer in 2023 and had been with the company for more than 26 years.
The National Transportation Safety Board is still investigating the cause of the crash.
Dolan was flying back to Minnesota from Naples, Florida. After a stop in Des Moines, Iowa, he departed for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport, which is a few miles from the crash site.
A man inside the house escaped the resulting fire, but the house was destroyed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The longest-serving legislative leader in US history will be sentenced on corruption charges
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Michael Madigan's stunning political collapse is expected to culminate Friday when the longest-serving legislative leader in U.S. history is sentenced on federal bribery, conspiracy and wire fraud convictions tied to a scheme to push legislation in exchange for jobs and contracts for his associates. The former Illinois House speaker was convicted in February on 10 of 23 counts in a remarkable corruption trial that lasted four months. The case churned through 60 witnesses and mountains of documents, photographs and taped conversations. Madigan will appear in U.S. District Court Friday in Chicago, where Judge John Robert Blakey will determine his sentence. Federal prosecutors are seeking a 12 1/2-year prison term. Madigan's attorneys are seeking probation, contending the government's sentence would 'condemn an 83-year-old man to die behind bars for crimes that enriched him not one penny.' During a legislative career that spanned a half-century, Madigan served nearly four decades as speaker, the longest on record for a U.S. legislator. Combined with more than 20 years as chairperson of the Illinois Democratic Party, he set much of the state's political agenda while handpicking candidates for political office. More often than not, he also controlled political mapmaking, drawing lines to favor his party. Meanwhile, prosecutors said, the Chicago Democrat built a private legal career that allowed him to amass a net worth of $40 million. Madigan was convicted on 10 counts of bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud and other charges for ensuring approval of legislation favorable to utility giant ComEd in exchange for kickbacks and jobs and contracts for loyalists, including a Chicago alderman seeking a paid job on a state board after retiring from government. The jury deadlocked on six counts, including an overarching racketeering conspiracy charge, and acquitted him on seven others. 'Madigan's criminal activity spanned nearly a decade and was particularly egregious because it involved efforts to enrich himself — both by maintaining his political power by securing do-nothing jobs for his political allies and by attempting to line his own pockets with legal business,' prosecutors wrote in a court filing. 'In so doing, Madigan served his own personal interests and not the interests of Illinoisans.' Defense lawyers called the government's recommended sentence 'draconian' and, given Madigan's age, a life sentence. They asked Blakey to consider the totality of Madigan's life and work and the need to care for his wife in requesting a sentence of five years' probation, with one year of home confinement, a requirement to perform community service and a 'reasonable fine.' In a video submitted to the court, Madigan's wife, Shirley, asks for a sentence of probation, explaining that Madigan is her caregiver and she would have to seek outside help if he is imprisoned. And, she says, 'I'm a part of him.' 'There's some days I keep him going,' Shirley Madigan says on the video. 'He keeps me going sometimes, too, but I think that the impact that I have on him has been much, much larger.' The court received more than 200 letters of support for Madigan, many from constituents, friends, leaders of nonprofits and other organizations that interact with the state. Some noted asking him for help just once. Most lauded him for dedication, integrity or a personal touch. 'Mike Madigan is a good man who has selflessly done an exceptional amount of good for others,' his lawyers wrote in a separate filing. 'He is widely respected for his dedication to honesty and integrity.' Tried alongside Madigan was his former legislative colleague and longtime confidant, Michael McClain. The jury couldn't reach a decision on any of the six counts against McClain. He was convicted, though, in a separate trial over the ComEd conspiracy last year. John O'connor, The Associated Press
Boston Globe
44 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What makes for a good closing argument? Jurors in the Karen Read retrial are about to find out.
'It's equal parts art and science,' Christopher Dearborn, a professor at Suffolk Law School said. 'It's about persuasion, trying to tell a better story than the other side. And some of those basic principles of persuasion are really fundamentally no different, whether it's a barroom argument, a closing argument, or a toast or speech.' Several attorneys and legal professionals who spoke to the Globe were unanimous: one of the worst things that attorneys can do in their closing arguments is appear underhanded or insincere. Advertisement 'If you do something that loses you credibility, it really can hurt you,' Dearborn said. 'On close cases, on the margins, being the side that the jury trusts or likes the most can make a difference.' Losing credibility can happen easily by failing to mention what Dearborn referred to as 'bad facts' — ignoring evidence or threads that are detrimental to your case. Karen Read defense attorney Alan Jackson. Pat Greenhouse/Globe Staff Some of those facts involve Advertisement 'In his opening statement, Hank Brennan never talked about Trooper Proctor,' Dearborn said. 'I think it'll be a mistake if he doesn't own that own that issue in his closing. Because it can look like he's trying to hide something.' Even if the facts of the case are fully and accurately addressed, attorneys still run the risk of appearing to be insincere. 'If you are not a person who raises your voice, then don't do that in the closing,' said Boston-based attorney J.W. Carney, Jr. 'Or if you are a person who's sometimes a little insecure, it's okay, you can show that. The jurors have gotten to know who you are through the trial. You don't want to change that personality.' Good lawyers balance their own personality, whether flashy or more methodological, with a measure of accessibility when speaking to jurors. 'You have to be very mindful of the jury's intelligence and be very careful not to potentially insult them or suggest that they don't have the ability to be, both individually and collectively, discerning," said attorney Brad Bailey. At the end of the day, that means delivering the argument like a regular person, clearly and articulately without being overly wordy or extravagant. Related : 'You should talk like you are at Thanksgiving dinner, talking to your grandmother,' said Jack Lu, a retired Superior Court judge and lecturer at Boston College Law School. 'Zero legalese, zero police language, and zero lawyer language.' Advertisement That's not to say there's no room for emotion, he added. 'If there is not blood on the floor, meaning rhetorically, at the end of the closing argument, you have not used raw emotion,' Lu said. Throughout the trial, attorneys from both teams have been making note of what testimony or threads of evidence resonate with jurors, Bailey said. 'You can bet there's a lot of conversation behind closed doors about what seemed to work,' he said. 'You may see direct eye contact being made with particular jurors that could have reacted to certain things.' Carney, who worked alongside Brennan while representing James 'Whitey' Bulger more than a decade ago, said the lead prosecutor in the Read case would address the jurors directly. 'Some lawyers act as if they're giving a closing argument as an orator in the Roman Coliseum,' Carney said. 'Hank talks to individuals in the jury. What he's doing is speaking to a single juror at a time. And that juror during the deliberations will remember the point that Hank gave.' Special prosecutor Hank Brennan questions an accident reconstruction expert on the witness stand during the Karen Read retrial in Norfolk Superior Court. Greg Derr/Associated Press The defense, meanwhile, will seek to convince the jury that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof in establishing Read's guilt. 'They not only have to lay out why they believe that the crimes have not been proven and why they think the jury ought to have multiple reasonable doubts, but they also anticipate upfront and try to rebut in advance what they believe the prosecution is going to say [in the rebuttal],' he said. Carney pointed to one recent case — Advertisement 'When it was done, I spoke to my two partners and said, 'Here is the website on which you can watch [Reddington's] closing argument, it's brilliant,'' he said. Dearborn said the closing arguments from Read's first trial 'were a little too long, a little bit too scattershot.' But there were a few— particularly from the defense — that he said probably resonated with the jury. 'Those are the things that sometimes jurors talk about because there's only so much attention span out there,' he said. 'So if you're not aware of that when you're talking to a jury, you can lose the jury.' Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
2 hours ago
Legion of Christ priest arrested in Mexico City airport on rape charge for alleged abuse of a minor
MEXICO CITY -- Authorities arrested a Roman Catholic priest at the capital's international airport on charges of raping of a minor over a period of years, officials said Thursday. The Mexico state prosecutor's office said that Rev. Antonio Cabrera, a member of the Legion of Christ religious order, was arrested Wednesday night on a court order for rape. Authorities cited incidents in 2004, 2007 and 2011, but the investigation only began in December 2024, after the alleged attacks were reported. The abuse allegedly occurred in Naucalpan, a Mexico City suburb. The prosecutor's office did not say why Cabrera was at the airport. The Legion of Christ religious order has been involved in sexual abuse scandals before, including those of its late founder, the Rev. Marcial Maciel, who was later determined to be a serial pedophile. The Vatican in 2010 took over the Mexico-based Legion and imposed a process of reform after an investigation showed that Maciel had sexually abused seminarians and fathered at least three children with two women. The Legion of Christ confirmed the arrest of one of its priests without naming him in statement Thursday. The order said it had not received information from authorities about the case, but were willing to cooperate with the investigation. Cabrera was jailed pending an initial hearing.
