National Roundup

California
PG&E pleading guilty to involuntary manslaughter in wildfire
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Pacific Gas & Electric said Monday it will plead guilty to 84 counts of involuntary man­slaugh­ter in connection with the 2018 fire in Northern California that killed 84 people and decimated three towns.

The utility said in a statement will also admit to a single count of unlawfully starting a fire.

According to a plea agreement with the Butte County district attorney’s office, PG&E will pay the maximum fine of about $4 million.

The company has agreed to fund efforts to restore access to water for the next five years for residents impacted by the loss of a canal destroyed by the fire.

Florida
Threats against judges lands man back in jail
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — Broward Sheriff’s officials say a South Florida man went before a judge for the third time in a week for threatening county judges.

Records show 56-year-old Todd Edward Watson is being held in the Broward County Jail without bond on several charges that include aggravated stalking,

According to his latest arrest report Saturday, Watson twice left “obscene, filthy, vulgar, indecent and threatening” voicemails on the phones of three judges, in violation of the terms of his probation.

“This is the third time I’ve arrested him,” said Det. Joseph Kessling at a court hearing Wednesday. “He basically has been terrorizing the judges and their families here in the Broward County courthouse for several years.”

At least 10 other Broward judges and a few prosecutors have received similar threats and abuse, detectives said.

The Sun-Sentinel reports the situation stems from an additional 30 years tacked on to the end of Watson’s six year sentence for a drug trafficking conviction. He won an appeal while acting as his own attorney but spent an additional two years in prison awaiting a ruling and his freedom. Part of his plea deal and probation conditions included no contact with the judges which he continues to violate, records show.

New Jersey
In wake of virus, state orders county inmates released
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey’s Supreme Court has ordered that some county jail inmates be released in an effort to stem the spread of the new coronavirus.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner signed an order late Sunday that allows inmates serving in county jails to be released this week. Prosecutors can file objections to the release of specific inmates.

More drive-through testing facilities were to open on Monday in New Jersey, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy announced the total number of deaths in the state had risen to 20 and more than 1,900 people had tested positive.

Rabner’s order came after the state public defender’s office petitioned the court, arguing that keeping inmates detained posed a public health threat. Officials in Hudson County said Sunday that two inmates had tested positive for the coronavirus, prompting a modified lockdown of the facility.

The Supreme Court order allows inmates serving in county jails on municipal court convictions or as part of probationary sentences to be released this week.

Prosecutors can file objections to the release of specific inmates, and those who are released will have to abide by any restrictions as part of their probation. The order doesn’t apply to inmates serving in state prison on more serious crimes.

Outstanding warrants for inmates currently serving in county jails will be suspended during the current health emergency, according to the order.

Inmates who have already tested positive for COVID-19 won’t be released until a plan for isolation or mandatory self-quarantine is approved.

New Mexico
Fight over jaguar habitat in Southwest heads back to court
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A federal appeals court is ordering a U.S. district judge in New Mexico to reconsider a case involving a fight over critical habitat for the endangered jaguar in the American Southwest.

Groups representing ranchers had sued, arguing that a 2014 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to set aside thousands of acres for the cats was arbitrary and violated the statute that guides wildlife managers in determining whether certain areas are essential for the conservation of a species.

With the order released this week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an earlier ruling that had sided with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Jaguars are currently found in 19 countries. Several individual male jaguars have been spotted in Arizona and New Mexico over the last two decades but there’s no evidence of breeding pairs establishing territories beyond northern Mexico.

Shrinking habitats, insufficient prey, poaching and retaliatory killings over livestock deaths are some of the things that have contributed to the jaguar’s decline in the Southwest over the past 150 years.

Under a recovery plan finalized last year, Mexico as well as countries in Central and South America would be primarily responsible for monitoring jaguar movements within their territory. Environmentalists have criticized the plan, saying the U.S. government is overlooking opportunities for recovery north of the international border.

At issue in the latest legal battle is more than 170 square miles that span two desert mountain ranges in Arizona and New Mexico.

Greater scrutiny is required when including in the critical habitat designation those areas that aren’t occupied by the endangered species. In order to do so, wildlife officials have to determine that those areas occupied by the jaguar when it was first listed as an endangered species would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.

The appellate court said the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to make that argument.

The court also said there was no evidence in the record of jaguars being present in the two areas around the time of the initial listing in 1972 or at any time before 1995.

“The Service’s reliance on sightings in 1995, 1996, and 2006 to support a conclusion of occupation in 1972 is not based on expert opinion and is purely speculative,” the court said.

While the Fish and Wildlife Service was accused of not following its own regulations regarding the habit designation, the court said the areas in question could be considered essential for the species if it were to expand its existing range.