ATLANTA (AP) — A judge on Monday rejected an attempt by attorneys for a man accused of killing four women at Atlanta massage businesses to keep a jury from hearing statements he made after his arrest.
Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Ural Glanville made his ruling at the end of a motions hearing for Robert Aaron Long, who faces the death penalty in the March 2021, killings in Atlanta. Long is already serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for killing four people at a massage business in suburban Cherokee County just hours earlier.
Long’s attorneys were trying to keep prosecutors from using statements Long made to police after he was arrested later that night. The judge said those statements, as well as statements from his guilty plea in Cherokee County, can be used at trial, though he said he would consider defense objections to parts of the statements.
Long, 25, killed four people at Youngs Asian Massage in Cherokee County on March 16, 2021: Xiaojie “Emily” Tan, 49; Daoyou Feng, 44; Delaina Yaun, 33; and Paul Michels, 54. Authorities say he then drove about 30 miles (48 kilometers) south to Atlanta, where he killed three women — Suncha Kim, 69; Soon Chung Park, 74; and Hyun Jung Grant, 51 — at Gold Spa and then crossed the street and killed Yong Ae Yue, 63, at Aromatherapy Spa.
Two of the Cherokee County victims and all of the Atlanta victims were women of Asian descent. Prosecutors in Fulton County are seeking the death penalty and a hate crimes sentencing enhancement in the Atlanta killings. Prosecutors in Cherokee County didn’t seek the death penalty, and Long pleaded guilty there just months after the killings.
Daran Burns, a Cherokee County defense attorney, testified that he was appointed to represent Long shortly after Long’s arrest in Crisp County. He said he immediately texted the Cherokee County sheriff to say he had been appointed and wanted to be present for any interviews law enforcement did with Long. He said Cherokee County’s district attorney at the time, Shannon Wallace, called him and seemed to question the validity of his appointment.
Burns said it was clear to him from his conversation with Wallace that investigators were either talking to Long or about to start talking to him. According to court testimony, law enforcement officers from Cherokee County and Atlanta interviewed Long several hours after his arrest.
Jerilyn Bell, an attorney for Long in Fulton County, said there was time for Burns to drive to Crisp County before investigators began interviewing Long hours after his arrest, but that Burns didn’t even try because Wallace had led him to believe questioning was imminent or had already begun. That effectively violated Long’s right to an attorney under the Sixth Amendment, Bell argued.
Prosecutor Kevin Armstrong argued that it was his understanding from Burns’ testimony that Wallace did not believe Burns had been properly appointed and that Long hadn’t asked for appointed counsel or demonstrated that he needed it. Long’s statements were “voluntarily, willingly and intelligently made,” Armstrong said.
The killings sparked outrage and fear among Asian American, who were already facing hostility linked to the coronavirus pandemic. Many were particularly upset when authorities suggested that Long’s crimes weren’t racially motivated and instead stemmed from a sex addiction, which isn’t recognized as an official disorder.
Long told investigators he struggled with pornography and sex and believed he was an addict. When he viewed porn or engaged in sexual acts at massage businesses, he felt tremendous guilt, Wallace said during Long’s sentencing hearing in Cherokee County.
The charges against Long in Fulton County include murder, aggravated assault and domestic terrorism. No trial date has been set.
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration’s plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training, finding that cuts are already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun sided with the eight states that had requested a temporary restraining order. The states argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from President Donald Trump’s administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Trump, a Republican, has said he wants to dismantle the Education Department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.
The plaintiffs argued the federal Education Department abruptly ended two programs — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — without notice in February. They said the two programs provided upwards of $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas, such as math, science and special education. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.
Joun, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, found that the cancelations violated administrative law by failing to give a clear explanation and that the states are at risk of lasting harm because they’re already having to cancel teacher training programs and lay people off.
Laura Faer, arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs for California, told Joun on Monday that a temporary restraining order was urgently needed because the freeze on grants was already leading to staff being laid off and program being halted.
“The situation is dire right now,” she told the court. “As we speak, our programs across the state are facing the possibility of closure, termination.”
California is joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.
Adelaide Pagano, representing Massachusetts, argued the Education Department lacked the authority to cancel the grants and its move was not in accordance with the law. The form letters to grantees, she said, failed to provide a clear and reasonable explanation for the cancellations and wrongly changed the criteria in the middle of the grant process, something they could consider for future funding but not money already allocated.
Michael Fitzgerald, representing the government, insisted the Education Department was well within its authority to cancel the grants over the programs suspected of violating federal anti-discrimination laws and no longer aligning with the department’s priorities. He also argued there was no need for immediate relief, since grantees could recoup their frozen funds if they prevail in their lawsuit.
