Washington
Ex-judge pleads guilty to sexual assaults at courthouse
ASOTIN, Wash. (AP) — A former judge in southeastern Washington state faces 13 to 27 months in prison after pleading guilty to allegations that he sexually assaulted two former court employees over several years.
Scott D. Gallina, the former Superior Court judge for Asotin, Garfield and Columbia counties, pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of assault with sexual motivation, one in the third-degree and one in the fourth-degree, Attorney General Bob Ferguson said.
The plea deal, which Ferguson said the victims supported, came as jury selection began in Gallina’s trial on more serious charges, including second-degree rape.
The Attorney General’s Office prosecuted the case at the request of the Asotin County prosecutor.
“This case represents a grotesque abuse of power by a public official,” Ferguson said. “It also represents a betrayal of trust, not only to Scott Gallina’s victims, but to the public he was supposed to serve. His victims’ remarkable courage made this outcome possible.”
The Washington State Patrol arrested Gallina in April 2019 at the Asotin County Courthouse on suspicion of raping and assaulting two female court employees as far back as 2014, soon after he was appointed to the bench.
The victims reported several instances of sexual assault, according to charging documents, and multiple women in the courthouse said Gallina also made inappropriate sexual comments or gave unwelcome shoulder rubs.
His trial was repeatedly delayed by the pandemic and by efforts to find a judge to hear the case.
As a result of the plea, Gallina must register as a sex offender for 10 years following his release from prison.
Gallina, 58, is due to be sentenced June 16. He did not seek re-election following his arrest.
Wisconsin
Judge refuses to delay trial in Christmas parade deaths
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A judge refused Monday to delay the trial for a man accused of killing six people and injuring dozens more when he allegedly drove his SUV through a Christmas parade in suburban Milwaukee, saying it’s important to resolve the case as quickly as possible.
Darrell Brooks Jr. faces more than 80 charges in connection with the incident in Waukesha in November 2021, including six homicide counts. His trial is scheduled to start Oct. 3 and expected to last all month.
His attorneys, public defenders Anna Kees and Jeremy Perri, filed a motion with Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow on Friday seeking to push the proceedings back until at least March 2023.
The attorneys argued in the motion they need at least six months to study more than 300 videos of the parade, break down the SUV’s speed throughout the incident, review the police interrogation of Brooks and reach out to potential expert witnesses. Perri added Monday that he has a five-week trial beginning in January, making it impossible for him to be present if Brooks’ trial began that month.
District Attorney Susan Opper urged the judge to stay on schedule. She said prosecutors have turned over almost all its evidence to the defense. The last pieces are results from DNA tests on samples taken from Brooks’ SUV and those should be ready within the next two weeks, she said.
The surviving victims and their families need closure as soon as possible, Opper added.
Dorow took 30 minutes to consider the arguments, then returned to the bench and denied the request to delay. She said that Brooks’ attorneys have almost all the evidence in hand and Perri won’t have any time to devote to the case come November because he has to prepare for his January trial.
“It is incredibly important to this court to make sure cases come to finality as quickly, as efficiently, as responsibly as possible,” she said.
Brooks squeezed his chest during the first part of the hearing and rocked back and forth in his chair throughout the second half.
Kees and Perri have filed another motion seeking to either move the trial out of Waukesha County or bring in a jury from another county. They argue publicity surrounding the case has been so overwhelmingly negative that Brooks can’t get a fair trial in Waukesha.
Dorow and attorneys from both sides worked last week to prepare a questionnaire for potential jurors to gauge whether they’ve formed any biases from media coverage of the case. Dorow said Monday that she wants the questionnaires mailed by April 15 and returned by May 13. She will decide the motion on June 20.
Ohio
Judge blocks Air Force discipline over vaccine objections
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the military from disciplining a dozen U.S. Air Force officers who are asking for religious exemptions to the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine.
The officers, mostly from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, along with a handful of airmen and reservists, filed a lawsuit in February after their exemption requests were denied.
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew McFarland in Cincinnati granted a preliminary injunction last Thursday that stops the Air Force from acting against the officers, airmen and reservists until their lawsuit is resolved.
The plaintiffs accuse the Air Force of using a double standard when it comes to approving exemption requests, saying it had allowed thousands of medical and administrative exemptions but only a handful for religious reasons.
Last week, a federal judge in Texas barred the Navy from taking action for now against sailors who have objected to being vaccinated on religious grounds.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor had, in January, issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Navy from disciplining or discharging 35 sailors who sued over the Navy’s vaccine policy while their case played out. A week ago, O’Connor agreed the case could go forward as a class action lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction covering about 4,000 sailors who have objected on religious grounds to being vaccinated.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin last year made vaccinations mandatory for service members, saying the vaccine is critical to maintaining military readiness and the health of the force. But members of Congress, the military and the public have questioned if the exemption reviews have been fair.
Those who refuse the vaccine can face discipline up to being discharged from the service.
The officers who filed the lawsuit in Ohio said they had followed their chain of command and each had talked with an Air Force chaplain to determine the sincerity of their beliefs.
