- Prosecutors filed a waiver for a 16-year-old to be tried as an adult after he sexually assaulted a girl, filmed it, and sent it to his friends.
- A judge denied the waiver because he says the teen came from a “good family” and did well on college tests.
- An appellate court overturned the ruling, but many were upset with remarks the judge made.
- Many were particularly upset with the judge questioning whether or not the victim was really unaware of what was going on, and saying that she should take into account how this case would impact the boy’s life.
16-Year-Old Accused of Sexual Assault
Court documents show that a New Jersey family court judge brought up a 16-year-old boy’s “good family” and high test scores in a case accusing the teen of sexual assault.
Judge James Troiano denied a waiver in 2018 that would allow the teen, who court documents refer to as “G.M.C.” to be tried as an adult. His decision was overturned by an appellate court, whose ruling was made public in June.
According to court documents, in 2017, G.M.C. attended a party along with close to 30 others. Areas of the basement where the party was held were blocked off, and G.M.C. took a 16-year-old girl referred to as Mary to one of those sections. The documents said that the two had been drinking, and Mary was visibly drunk, slurring her words, and stumbling.
“A group of boys sprayed Febreze on Mary’s bottom and slapped it with such force that the following day she had hand marks on her buttocks,” the court document said.
“Mary and G.M.C. had intercourse in the darkened room,” the document continued. “G.M.C. filmed himself penetrating Mary from behind on his cell phone, displaying her bare torso, and her head hanging down. He forwarded the clip to several friends.”
G.M.C. also sent a text to his friends that read, “[w]hen your first time having sex was rape.”
After the incident, Mary was on the floor vomiting, and G.M.C.’s friends told Mary’s friends that she was ill and should be checked on. The next morning, Mary noticed the markings on her body and that her clothes had been torn. She told her mother she was afraid something had happened to her.
Over the next couple of months, she learned that G.M.C. had recorded the incident and tried to communicate with him so she could put the situation in her past. However, G.M.C. denied that such a video existed.
Mary’s mother contacted authorities and investigators told G.M.C. and his friends to delete the video, which they did. Mary and her family then pursued charges.
A prosecutor said there was probable cause to charge G.M.C. with aggravated sexual assault, invasion of privacy and endangering the welfare of a child. They also sought to elevate the charges to adult criminal court.
“[G.M.C.’s] conduct as it relates to the charged offenses was both sophisticated and predatory,” the prosecutor wrote in a waiver. “Filming a cell phone video while committing the assault was a deliberate act of debasement. And, in the months that followed, he lied to [Mary] while simultaneously disseminating the video and unabashedly sharing the nature of his conduct therein. This was neither a childish misinterpretation of the situation, nor was it a misunderstanding.[G.M.C.’s] behavior was calculated and cruel.”
Judge Troiano’s Statements
Judge Troiano issued a denying waiver. He said he did not think this was a “traditional case of rape.” When describing a traditional case he gave the example of “two or more generally males involved, either at gunpoint or weapon, clearly manhandling a person.”
Judge Troiano also said he found it unclear if Mary was really so drunk that she was unaware of what was going on. He later described the text message G.M.C sent as “just a 16-year-old kid saying stupid crap to his friends.”
“[T]his young man comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school where he was doing extremely well,” he later said, before citing that G.M.C. was also involved with Eagle Scouts. “He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college. His scores for college entry were very high.”
Judge Troiano later added that Mary and her family need to consider what effects this would have on G.M.C.’s life.
The June appeal that overturned his decision allows for G.M.C. to be tried as an adult and moves the case out of family court. The appeal criticized the way Judge Troiano assessed the case saying it “sounded as if he had conducted a bench trial on the charges rather than neutrally reviewed the State’s application.”
“That the juvenile came from a good family and had good test scores we assume would not condemn the juveniles who do not come from good families and do not have good test scores from withstanding waiver applications,” the appeal added.
Reactions to Case
Once major outlets like the New York Times picked the story up, many were upset with the comments Judge Troiano had made regarding the case. Many criticized him for favoring a young man for the privilege he came from.
Others pointed out that Judge Troiano has been retired for several years, and according to the Times, is 70 years old. While in retirement, he has been asked to fill vacancies.
He is also not the only judge in New Jersey family courts that has been criticized for the way they handled sexual assault cases. In a very similar case, Judge Marcia Silva denied charging a 16-year-old boy accused of assaulting a 12-year-old girl as an adult.
She said that the “offense is not an especially heinous or cruel offense.”
“Beyond losing her virginity, the State did not claim that the victim suffered any further injuries, either physical, mental or emotional,” Judge Silva wrote.
In this case, as well, the appellate court was able to overturn her decision. Many expressed frustrations with her actions.
See what others are saying (New York Times) (The Hill) (NJ.com)
Supreme Court Rejects Third Challenge to Affordable Care Act
In the 7-2 decision, the justices argued the Republican-led states that brought the challenge forth failed to show how the law caused injury and thus had no legal standing.
SCOTUS Issues Opinion on Individual Mandate
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the third Republican-led challenge to the Affordable Care Act to ever reach the high court.
The issue at hand was the provision of the law, commonly known as Obamacare, that requires people to either purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty: the so-called individual mandate.
The individual mandate has been one of the most controversial parts of Obamacare and it has already been before SCOTUS, which upheld the provision in 2012 on the grounds that it amounted to a tax and thus fell under Congress’ taxing power.
However, as part of the sweeping 2017 tax bill, the Republican-held Congress set the penalty for not having health care to $0. As a result, a group of Republican-led states headed by Texas sued, arguing that because their GOP colleagues made the mandate zero dollars, it no longer raised revenues and could not be considered a tax, thus making it unconstitutional.
The states also argued that the individual mandate is such a key part of Obamacare that it could not be separated without getting rid of the entire law.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected that argument in a 7-2 decision, with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.
Majority Opinion Finds No Injury
In the majority decision, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the Republican states had no grounds to sue because they could not show how they were harmed by their own colleagues zeroing out the penalty.
“There is no possible government action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs’ injury — the costs of purchasing health insurance,” he wrote, adding that the states “have not demonstrated that an unenforceable mandate will cause their residents to enroll in valuable benefits programs that they would otherwise forgo.”
Breyer also argued that because of this, the court did not need to decide on the broader issue of whether the 2017 tax bill rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional and if that provision could be separated from the ACA.
The highly anticipated decision will officially keep Obamacare as the law of the land, ensuring that the roughly 20 million people enrolled still have health insurance. While there may be other challenges to the law hard-fought by conservatives, this latest ruling sends a key signal about the limits of the Republican efforts to achieve their agenda through the high court, even with the strong conservative majority.
While the court has now struck down challenges to Obamacare three times, Thursday’s decision marked the largest margin of victory of all three challenges to the ACA.
For now, the ACA appears to be fairly insulated from legal challenges, though it will still likely face more. In a tweet following the SCOTUS decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) vowed to keep fighting Obamacare, adding that the individual mandate “was unconstitutional when it was enacted and it is still unconstitutional.”
See what others are saying: (Axios) (The Washington Post) (The Associated Press)
Utah Student With Down Syndrome Left Out of Cheer Squad’s Yearbook Photo
The move marks the second time in three years that Morgyn Arnold has been left out of the school’s yearbook. Two years ago, it failed to include her in the class list.
Two Photos Take, One Without Morgyn Arnold
A Utah school has apologized after a student with Down syndrome at Shoreline Junior High was excluded from her cheerleading squad’s yearbook photo.
The squad took two official team portraits this year. The first included 14-year-old Morgyn Arnold, who had been working as the team manager but attended practices and cheered alongside her other teammates at every home game. The second imsgr did not include her and ended up being the photo the school used across social media and in its yearbook.
Arnold was heartbroken by the decision and her family believed it was made because of her disability.
In social media posts about the move, Arnold’s sister, Jordyn Poll, noted that Arnold “spent hours learning dances, showing up to games, and cheering on her school and friends but was left out.”
“I hope that no one ever has to experience the heartbreak that comes when the person they love comes home from school devastated and shows them that they’re not in the picture with their team,” she continued.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Poll also said this marked the second time in three years that her sister has been left out of the yearbook. Two years ago, the school failed to include her in the class list.
School Apologizes After Backlash
After Poll’s public call out picked up attention, the school said it was “deeply saddened by the mistake.”
“Apologies have been made to the family, and we sincerely apologize to all others impacted by this error,” it added. “We are continuing to look at what has occurred, and to improve our practice.”
The district issued a similar statement, claiming it was looking into why this occurred to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
But Poll said this isn’t the same response her family received when they initially contacted school administrators. Instead, Poll told the Tribune that an employee at the school “blatantly said they didn’t know what we were expecting of them and there was nothing they could do.”
The school has since contacted them again “to make the situation right.”
Meanwhile, Poll stressed that her sister’s teammates had nothing to do with the decision, defending the girls as amazing friends who have done everything to make Arnold feel included.
In fact, they too were disappointed to see that she was not featured in the image or even named as a member of the team in the yearbook.
Arnold’s family decided to speak up about the issue so that this school and others can improve the ways they interact with and include students with disabilities. Different forms of exclusion happen at schools across the country, and this story has prompted other parents of kids with disabilities to share similar experiences.
This kind of thing happens all the time. I can't count the number of times our son has been excluded, or nearly excluded, from events and pictures and related social activities in his 8 years of school. I know this fury.— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) June 16, 2021
A staff attorney at the Disability Law Center of Utah told the Tribune that it receives about 4,000 complaints each year. Some complaints stemmed from students with disabilities being separated into other classrooms without their peers. Others include name-calling or not allowing students on a team or in a club.
Thankfully, Arnold has not let this situation bring her down. According to her family, she has already forgiven everyone involved and plans to continue cheering alongside her friends.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Salt Lake Tribune) (NBC News)
Ex-Shake Shack Manager Sues NYPD Over False Milkshake Poisoning Allegations
The former manager is accusing the police department and its unions of false arrest and defamation relating to the viral incident last summer.
Former Shack Shack Employee Sues One Year Later
The former manager of a New York City Shake Shack restaurant who was falsely accused of poisoning several law enforcement officers’ milkshakes last summer is now suing the city’s police department, its unions, and individual officers.
On June 15, 2020, three officers monitoring the anti-racism protests in Lower Manhattan entered a Shake Shack location for milkshakes, which they later claimed had been poisoned, likely by bleach.
By the end of the night, investigators determined that no one had tampered with the drinks, and the New York Police Department declared there was “no criminality.” Police later said the officers were possibly sickened by a cleaning solution that had not been properly cleaned out of the machines, though Shake Shack claimed it did not find leaks of any foreign substances.
Before that lack of criminality was determined and while the inquiry was ongoing, the police unions and their leaders accused the Shake Shack workers of launching a targeted attack in a series of tweets, which were then shared and discussed widely on social media by prominent conservatives.
The resulting outcome was widespread condemnation and deleting of tweets. Now, almost exactly a year later, the former manager of that Shake Shack, Marcus Gilliam, has accused the parties involved of false arrest and defamation.
According to his lawsuit, the three officers — who are referred to as Officers Strawberry Shake, Vanilla Shake, and Cherry Shake — ordered the drinks via mobile app, meaning the employees could not have known cops placed the order.
Additionally, the documents state the order was “already packaged and waiting for pickup” when the officers arrived, making it impossible for Gilliam or any other employee to have added anything to the shakes when they saw the officers come in to claim them.
After the officers complained about the taste of the milkshakes and threw them out, Gilliam said he apologized and offered them vouchers for free replacements, which they accepted. However, they still told their Sergeant that Gilliam had put a “toxic substance” in their drinks, even though they had disposed of any evidence.
Claims of Wrongful Detainment
The court documents go on to say that another officer arrived and detained the employees, who cooperated with the officer’s investigation. That process included interviews, searches, and tests, which showed no evidence of bleach or other toxins.
The NYPD also conducted a review of security footage, which independently determined that none of the employees put any kind of toxic substances in the officer’s drinks.
Despite all that, and even after the three officers were released from a hospital “without ever showing symptoms,” the NYPD still arrested Gilliam and brought him into the precinct, the suit stated.
Once in the precinct, the former manager was allegedly “interrogated for approximately one to two hours” and detained for around three hours, putting the total time he was detained by police in both the store and the precinct at approximately five to six hours.
Gilliam’s attorney is arguing that the officers had no probable cause or warrants for his arrest. An arrest that the lawsuit says caused him to suffer “emotional and psychological damages and damage to his reputation,” as well as economic damages from legal fees and missed wages, for which he is seeking both punitive and monetary damages.
None of the defendants have responded to requests for comment from the media.