Category: US

The nurse accused of killing five people last week when her Mercedes plowed into traffic at a busy Windsor Hills intersection had been involved in 13 previous crashes, Los Angeles County prosecutors alleged Monday in charging her with murder.

Authorities revealed new details about Thursday’s crash and about the driver, Nicole Lorraine Linton, 37, whose permanent address is in Texas and who is currently renting a room in Los Angeles while working as a traveling registered nurse.

Prosecutors said they are reviewing multiple previous crashes linked to Linton — both in and out of California — including one in 2020 that involved bodily injury in which two cars were totaled. They provided few additional details, however.

Linton’s attorney, Halim Dhanidina, asked the court Monday to continue her arraignment to October because he is reviewing her out-of-state history of “documented profound mental health issues.” Dhanidina did not elaborate on those issues but said the Windsor Hills crash could be linked to them.

Here’s what we know:

the crash

California Highway Patrol officers investigate a fiery crash where multiple people were killed near a Windsor Hills gas station on Thursday.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Surveillance video just before Thursday’s deadly crash shows a dark-colored Mercedes barreling down La Brea Avenue at high speed as dozens of cars cross on Slauson Avenue in Windsor Hills. Prosecutors say Linton was behind the wheel.

The Mercedes does not appear to slow before running a red light shortly after 1:30 pm The light had been red for nine seconds before the car barreled through the intersection, slamming into multiple cars, prosecutors said. The Mercedes burst into flames and hurtled into a light pole, where it came to rest. After the crash, a streak of fire burned on the ground, and billowing smoke could be seen from miles away.

Prosecutors say Linton was speeding as fast as 90 mph.

At least six vehicles were involved in the crash, according to California Highway Patrol investigators. In addition to the fatalities, eight people were injured.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón said there is no evidence of any alcohol use by Linton at this point.

In announcing charges against her Monday, he declined to discuss what led to the crash, saying it was still under investigation and he was “not going to get into the details.”

The aftermath

Candles, balloons and flowers at a street memorial to victims of a deadly crash at the intersection of La Brea and Slauson avenues in Windsor Hills.

(Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times)

The impact of the crash and fire caused it killed 23-year-old Asherey Ryan; her 11-month-old child, Alonzo Quintero; her boyfriend, Reynold Lester; and their unborn child. Ryan was 8½ months pregnant when she was killed. The boy she was carrying had been named Armani Lester, according to the Los Angeles County coroner’s office.

Two additional women killed in the crash have yet to be identified.

Linton was hospitalized with moderate injuries for several days before being taken into police custody.

Photographs posted online after the crash appear to show Linton sitting on the curb with a bloody arm. She seems to be wearing hospital scrub pants and a shirt that has writing on the breastplate and sleeve.

Images from the scene show massive front-end damage to the Mercedes, which rammed headfirst into a light pole. A law enforcement source told The Times that Linton suffered a broken foot and broken wrist in the collision, but the car’s advanced air bag systems for a front-end collision seem to have protected her from the worst of the impact.

A specialized CHP accident investigation team is extracting data from the Mercedes’ computers that capture speed, braking and acceleration.

The charges

Linton was charged Monday with six counts of murder and five counts of gross vehicular manslaughter. The vehicular manslaughter charges are for the deaths of the four adults and the baby, who was about two weeks shy of his first birthday. Ryan’s unborn child cannot be included in those charges.

Linton faces up to life in prison if convicted of all charges.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Natalie Stone denied her bail, which previously had been set at $9 million, at the request of the district attorney’s office, which said she is a flight risk. Linton was set to leave LA and travel to Hawaii for work, prosecutors said.

CNN
—

A federal appeals court on Tuesday signed off on a House Ways and Means Committee request to obtain former President Donald Trump’s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service.

The 3-0 ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is a blow to Trump, who has argued for years in court against releasing his tax returns to any investigators. A trial-level judge he appointed while president previously rejected his arguments in the case.

But Trump still could appeal, making the litigation unlikely to end at this time. The court said the judgment would not be issued for seven days, giving Trump time to appeal. This litigation is separate from the House select committee’s investigation into the January 6 riot.

The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge David Sentelle, said that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal’s request for the records was within the scope of his committee’s inquiry, and the court also rejected Trump’s argument claiming that the request had a retaliatory motive, making it invalid.

Neal has requested the returns under a law that allows disclosure of an individual’s tax returns to the committee – a request that the Trump administration had rebuffed.

The appeals court on Tuesday said that Trump did not prevail in his argument that as a former President his records should not be turned over.

“In this case, the need for the Trump Parties’ information to inform potential legislation overrides the burden to the Executive Branch largely because that burden is so tenuous,” Sentelle, a Reagan appointee, wrote in the opinion.

Judge Karen Henderson, a George HW Bush appointee and Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, also agreed with the decision, though Henderson wrote that she believed there should be more scrutiny on a request like this that would have implications for the presidency.

The case stems lawsuit Neal filed in 2019 seeking a court order compelling the IRS, then under the Trump administration, to turn over Trump’s tax returns

The litigation moved at a slow pace that outlasted Trump’s presidency, and in July of last year, the Justice Department signaled it was switching positions in the case in favor of the committee obtaining the returns. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, last December granted requests from the department and the House to dismiss the case, prompting Trump’s appeal to the DC Circuit.

This story has been updated with additional details.

A spokesman for the DA’s office declined to comment.

But in a separate court filing, DA Fani Willis said the doctor’s note came a day after Giuliani tweeted a smiling photo of himself with an entertainment reporter in New Hampshire.

After the doctor clarified that Giuliani wasn’t cleared for air travel — Thomas said Giuliani had been driven to New Hampshire — the DA’s office said it offered to pay for train or bus fare. It also said that it had obtained evidence that Giuliani had purchased airline tickets to Italy and Switzerland for late July dates shortly after his medical procedure — though it doesn’t specify whether Giuliani used the tickets.

“Based on the foregoing, the District Attorney respectfully requests that the Court deny Rudolph William Louis Giuliani’s motion and order him to comply with … (court orders) commanding his appearance before the special grand jury instantor,” Willis wrote.

Giuliani was ordered to testify last month by New York State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Farber after he failed to show at a July 13 hearing in which he was scheduled to argue why the court shouldn’t honor the Georgia subpoena.

Farber wrote that Giuliani was required to appear before the Fulton grand jury beginning on Aug. 9, “and on any such other dates as this Court may order.”

Publicly addressing the development for the first time, Thomas said that Giuliani had received notice of his New York hearing the day before his scheduled appearance, as he was recovering from his procedure, and set it aside without looking at the date. By the time I have reviewed the document the court date had already passed.

McBurney signed off on Giuliani’s subpoena in early July, noting that he was “a necessary and material witness” to the criminal investigation, which is examining whether Trump or his allies committed any state crimes when they tried to overturn Georgia’s 2020 elections. It was one of a half-dozen subpoenas aimed at compelling the testimony of Trump’s top allies and legal advisers.

The grand jury has indicated it’s interested in testimony Giuliani gave before Georgia legislators in three separate hearings in late 2020. Giuliani screened edited surveillance video of ballots being tabulated at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena, which he described as a “powerful smoking gun” of widespread election fraud

Giuliani’s claims were quickly debunked by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, but he continued to share the video and doubled down on his comments in the weeks after. He was later suspended from practicing law in New York, in part because of his testimony from him in Georgia.

His subpoena says there’s evidence that Giuliani was “part of a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump Campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.”

Giuliani was also reportedly a central figure in the Trump campaign’s quest to appoint a slate of “alternate” Republican voters in swing states like Georgia that Joe Biden won, another area of ​​interest to the special grand jury.

Giuliani also called Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, in late 2020. Ralston testified before the special grand jury last month.

Giuliani’s lawyer recently asked the DA’s office whether his client was a target of the investigation.

“Obviously if Mr. Giuliani is a target of the investigation, the parties would have to have other discussions regarding his appearance before the Grand Jury at any time,” Thomas wrote.

The DA’s office recently indicated it is considering Georgia’s 16 GOP electors targets of the investigation, though McBurney ruled that one, state Sen. Burt Jones, could not be examined by the Fulton DA’s office due to a conflict of interest on Willis’ end.

Giuliani could ultimately try and cite attorney-client or executive privilege to avoid answering questions from jurors or prosecutors.

To look ahead:

tuesday: Lawyers for Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani will argue before a Fulton judge that their client should have his testimony before the special grand jury delayed due to a recent medical procedure.

wednesday: Attorneys for US Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) will appear before an Atlanta-based federal judge to try and quash his subpoena to testify because of legislative privilege.

next week: John Eastman and Jenna Ellis, two attorneys affiliated with the Trump campaign, will challenge their subpoenas in front of local judges in their respective home states of New Mexico and Colorado.

Research shows that expanded access to preventive care and coverage has led to an increase in colon cancer screenings, vaccinations, use of contraception and chronic disease screenings.

Ngampol Thongsai/Getty Images/EyeEm

hide caption

toggle caption

Ngampol Thongsai/Getty Images/EyeEm

Research shows that expanded access to preventive care and coverage has led to an increase in colon cancer screenings, vaccinations, use of contraception and chronic disease screenings.

Ngampol Thongsai/Getty Images/EyeEm

The Affordable Care Act has survived many challenges in court, but the case of Kelley v. Calf – now before a federal judge in Texas – threatens to undermine one of the most popular provisions in the law, which requires most health plans to provide coverage for preventive care with no copays.

If the judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs, access to free birth control, cancer screenings, vaccines, PrEP (HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis), counseling for alcohol misuse, diet counseling for people at higher risk of chronic disease, and many more preventive services would be in jeopardy, according to the nation’s leading doctors’ groups, which have sounded the alarm.

“The lawsuit could cause millions of Americans, probably more than 150 million, to lose guaranteed access to preventive services,” Dr. Jack Resneck, president of the American Medical Association, told NPR. “There’s really a great deal at stake,” he said.

The doctors’ group points to research showing that expanded access to preventive care and coverage, ushered in by the ACA, has led to an increase in colon cancer screenings, vaccinations, use of contraception and chronic disease screenings. There’s also data to show that expanded coverage has reduced racial and ethnic disparities in preventive care.

Resneck warns that if the preventive care mandate is rolled back in court, it threatens to reverse this progress. Some plans may decide to limit or deny coverage for certain services. Others would tack on copays.

“Having copays and deductibles brought back for these services would actually keep many patients from getting them,” Resnick says. He says for people on a tight budget, a copay for a mammogram or colonoscopy could be enough of a disincentive to skip the screening.

Americans have saved billions of dollars in out-of-pocket spending on contraceptives since the ACA’s preventive services and birth control coverage took effect. And since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration has taken steps to clarify the benefits. “Under the ACA, most private health plans are required to provide birth control and family planning counseling at no additional cost,” according to an HHS release. (A small percentage of American workers are covered by grandfathered insurance plans that are not required to follow the ACA’s preventive care coverage rules.)

Plaintiffs in the Texas case argue that the preventive care mandates violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Some object to paying for health insurance plans that cover contraceptives, PrEP drugs, or other preventive care services that may violate their religious beliefs. Plaintiffs also object for economic reasons, arguing that the mandate to cover preventive services raises the price of insurance coverage.

Plaintiff John Kelley, an orthodontist who lives in Tarrant County, Texas, “has no desire to purchase health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage because his wife is past her child-bearing years,” according to the complaint. “He does not want or need health insurance that covers Truvada or PrEP drugs because neither he nor any of his family members is engaged in behavior that transmits HIV,” the complaint continues. “Mr. Kelley is also a Christian,” and he is unwilling to purchase health insurance plans that subsidize certain types of contraception or PrEP drugs “that encourage homosexual behavior and intravenous drug use.”

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who is known as a key strategist behind the Texas abortion law passed in 2021 that bans abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy. America First Legal Foundation, launched by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller, is also providing counsel.

“The plaintiffs seem perhaps extra motivated by the contraceptive requirement and coverage of services like PrEP,” says Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University. But she says the lawsuit is broad in its reach: “This is very clearly a threat to the entire preventive services requirement under the Affordable Care Act.”

One of the plaintiffs’ legal arguments rests on the nondelegation doctrine, the principle that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to other entities, explains Andrew Twinamatsiko of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health at Georgetown University.

When the ACA was written, Congress empowered several groups to use their expertise to identify evidence-based preventive services. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices helped identify the appropriate vaccines, the Preventive Services Task Force reviewed evidence to recommend which procedures and services could be covered, and the Health Resources and Services Administration determined services and screenings for maternal and child health coverage.

“The plaintiffs argue that this structure delegates too much decision-making power to the groups without providing sufficient guidance – or what they call ‘intelligible principle’ – to exercise their discretion,” Twinamatsiko explains.

Some legal scholars say that the argument that Congress has not provided enough specific guidance on what counts as preventive care could hold up in court.

“I’ve argued for years that the phrase preventive care is very open-ended,” says Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College and a scholar at the Cato Institute. “The courts might react to this position by saying, ‘Congress: If you want something like birth control covered, you have to be more precise,” Blackman says.

The case was argued in late July before Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court, Northern District of Texas — the same judge who ruled in 2018 that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.

“I’m expecting a pretty sweeping decision that is likely to invalidate all the preventive care requirements,” Keith says. Legal experts expect the case will be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and ultimately end up before the US Supreme Court.

Though the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act in prior cases, there’s now a new make-up of justices. Scholars point to the recent EPAv. west virginia decision, in which justices challenged the EPA’s authority to act without specific direction from Congress. Georgetown’s Twinamatsiko points to another case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. pennsylvania, that also centered on the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provision requiring employers to include cost-free birth control in their health plans in accordance with the Health Resources and Services Administration guidelines. In that case, “Justice Clarence Thomas specifically said that the ACA’s preventive services requirement seems to give HRSA virtually unlimited power to determine what counts as preventive care,” tipping his hand at what his opinion of him would be if Kelley v. Calf comes before the Supreme Court.

State attorneys general in 20 states filed a friend of the court brief defending access to free, preventive care. And public health experts have weighed in too. “It’s really difficult to take away something that people already have,” says A. Mark Fendrick, a doctor who directs the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design. “If the preventive mandate were to be struck down, I believe lots of people will not get the preventive care they need.”