Minnesota
Prosecutors obtain long withheld evidence in investigation into protest shooting deaths
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota prosecutors announced Monday that they have obtained key evidence in their ongoing investigations into fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during pitched protests against a federal immigration enforcement crackdown in the state earlier this year.
“Through the cooperation of our federal partners we have obtained the hard drives of previously withheld evidence in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti and the shooting of Julio Sosa-Celis,” Hennepin County
Attorney Mary Moriarty said. “We have also obtained some of the physical evidence that was previously withheld, including Renee Good’s car.”
Statements, police body camera video and other evidence had previously been withheld by federal officials in the killings.
She said state and local investigators now also have in their possession Good’s damaged car.
Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot and killed in her car while leaving an anti-immigration enforcement protest in Minneapolis on Jan. 7 as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents surged through the region. Her death and that of Pretti, another protester, just weeks later sparked outrage across the country and calls to rein in immigration enforcement.
“The wonderful thing now is we have all the evidence,” Moriarty said.
Investigators are going through all the evidence, including hard drives with statements, hours of video recorded by body-worn cameras and the physical car Good was driving, Moriarty said.
“We need transparency. We need cooperation. Our community needs it,” she said. “Our democracy requires it.”
At the end of June, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Moriarty asked a federal judge to push out the deadlines in their lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice because they said they were in the midst of recently reinitiated “ongoing discussions” with the FBI about information sharing.
Those ongoing discussions with the FBI about information sharing are likely to affect Minnesota’s request for summary judgment in the case, Ellison and Moriarty wrote in their motion to the court.
The attorneys representing the federal government signed onto the motion.
Ellison said he remains “deeply troubled that the federal government spent more than half a year attempting to conceal this evidence from state investigators.”
“It should never have taken this long for Minnesota law enforcement to gain access to the federal government’s evidence,” he said in a statement. “I hope that this is the beginning of a major course correction on the part of the federal government.”
Massachusetts
U.S. citizen is found guilty of helping export tech to Iran
BOSTON (AP) — A Massachusetts man was found guilty Monday of conspiring to unlawfully export electronic components to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions.
Mahdi Mohammad Sadeghi, who worked at the global electronics company Analog Devices, was accused of helping an Iranian business associate get around American export control laws. U.S. prosecutors say the business associate’s Tehran-based company makes navigation systems for the military drone program of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Authorities say the scheme included the creation of a front company in Switzerland.
The second defendant, Mohammad Abedininajafabadi, called Abedini in court documents, was not on trial. He is believed to be in Iran after an apparent prisoner exchange for an Italian journalist.
Sadeghi was found guilty on three of the five charges. He showed no visible reaction to the verdict, which came early in the fourth day of jury deliberations. He and his lawyers did not comment as they left court, and he will remain free until sentencing Oct. 13.
Sadeghi, a 43-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, chose not to testify. A father of two, he lost his job at Analog Devices due to the charges. Although he was arrested in December 2024, long before the current war with Iran, his trial has unfolded during the conflict.
“At its core, this case is straightforward. You cannot send goods, especially the goods at issue in this case, to Iran. Period. Full stop,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Alathea Porter told the jury. “The defendant knew that, and conspired with Mr. Abedini to do that.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared Dolan, in his closing remarks, said documents, text messages and photos proved that the illegal acts were the “fruits of this relationship” between Sadeghi and Abedini.
“The evidence established that he knew what Abedini was doing because he told him in writing,” Dolan said. “He helped him anyway.”
Sadeghi’s attorney, William Fick, told jurors that the scheme laid out by the prosecution “makes no sense” and was full of holes. He said Sadeghi was only offering advice to a longtime friend about how to get business with the semiconductor company, and wasn’t responsible for procuring the parts for Abedini.
Fick said there was no proof the parts ended up in Iran, and he disputed that the Swiss company was a front.
“If you look at the world through dirty glasses, everything looks dirty,” Fick said. “That is fundamentally what the prosecution is asking you to do here.”
Fick also said prosecutors hadn’t shown Sadeghi gained anything from the alleged plan — although the prosecution pointed out that they didn’t need to prove a motive.
“He had nothing to gain and everything to lose,” Fick said. “He has lived in the country for decades. He was a well-regarded, respected employee on his way up in the company.”
Prosecutors had hoped to introduce evidence during the trial related to an Iranian drone used in a 2024 attack that killed three U.S. troops at a remote base in Jordan.
However, before the trial, defense attorneys sought to exclude any evidence related to Abedini’s role in drone manufacturing or attacks on American troops.
The judge agreed, ruling that prosecutors could only give general evidence about Abedini’s Iranian company and how its technology had potential military applications, including for drones. During a hearing in February, prosecutors acknowledged they didn’t have evidence that Sadeghi “knew anything” about the technology he was accused of exporting was allegedly used on the drone involved in the Jordan attack.
Both defendants have been charged with export control violations. Abedini is separately charged with conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization that resulted in the deaths of three service members.
Abedini was arrested at an airport in Italy on a U.S. warrant in December 2024, but was released a month later and returned to Iran. Three days after his arrest, Italian journalist Cecilia Sala was detained while reporting in Iran. Sala, who was believed held as a bargaining chip for Abedini’s release, returned home in January 2025.
New York
California, 11 other states sue to block Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros
NEW YORK (AP) — Twelve states challenged Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery on Monday, filing a lawsuit that argues the $81 billion mega merger would “extinguish competition” in Hollywood and threaten jobs across the industry.
The office of California’s attorney general, who is leading the case, said the states are asking Warner Bros. and Paramount to not close their merger “until after the judicial process concludes” — and if the companies do not agree, the coalition will then file a temporary restraining order.
“The unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the U.S.,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.
Paramount, which was bought by Skydance just last year, wants all of Warner. That would mean putting HBO Max, cult-favorite titles like “Harry Potter” and even CNN under the same roof with CBS, “Top Gun” and the Paramount+ streaming service. The states’ lawsuit could throw a wrench in those plans, at least for now. The antitrust case arrives at a pivotal time for the Paramount-Warner transaction — which, after months of what became a very public bidding war, received shareholders’ stamp of approval in April and then a blessing from the Trump administration just last month.
California
Meta appeals landmark jury verdict that found it to blame for social media addiction for young users
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has appealed the verdict of a landmark social media addiction lawsuit in Los Angeles, challenging the jury’s determination that the company designed its platforms to hook young users without concern for their well-being.
Lawyers representing Meta filed a notice of appeal Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawyers will provide their arguments related to the appeal in subsequent court filings.
The case centered on a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media as a child and that it worsened her mental health struggles. The jury found that negligence by both Meta and Google-owned YouTube, which was also a defendant in the case, was a substantial factor in causing harm to the young woman, identified in court only by her initials, KGM, and her first name, Kaley.
The jury awarded her $3 million in damages and recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages. Her lead attorney, Mark Lanier, said in a statement Friday that the legal team is expecting the appellate court to “continue the careful application of the law to this case, affirming the verdict of the trial court.”
A notice of appeal starts what can be a lengthy process. A Meta spokesperson provided a statement Friday that they also gave when the jury returned the verdict in March, saying that teen mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”
José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, said in a statement Friday that YouTube plans to appeal and that “these are standard motions for this case to move forward.”
Meta and Google had each filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict — a routinely filed motion by defense lawyers asking a judge to toss out the jury’s verdict — and for a new trial. The trial judge, Carolyn B. Kuhl, denied those motions in early June.
Tech companies like Meta and YouTube are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted by third parties, based on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. To get around those protections, the plaintiffs focused on the design features of the platforms like “infinite scroll,” or the endless nature of feeds on the platforms, and autoplay functions.
Questions about encroaching into content-related territory were the subject of many objections from the defendants throughout the five-week trial.
The verdict in this case came during a time of legal woes for Meta. A jury in New Mexico returned a verdict finding that Meta’s platforms harm children’s mental health and safety just one day before the California jury reached its decision. The New Mexico jury, siding with state prosecutors who brought the case, landed on a penalty of $375 million. Meta has said the company disagrees with the verdict and will also appeal in that case.
Kaley’s case was a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, and the verdict could influence the outcome of thousands of similar lawsuits accusing social media companies of deliberately causing harm. TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap Inc. were also initially named as defendants in the case, but each settled for undisclosed sums before the trial began.
Prosecutors obtain long withheld evidence in investigation into protest shooting deaths
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota prosecutors announced Monday that they have obtained key evidence in their ongoing investigations into fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during pitched protests against a federal immigration enforcement crackdown in the state earlier this year.
“Through the cooperation of our federal partners we have obtained the hard drives of previously withheld evidence in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti and the shooting of Julio Sosa-Celis,” Hennepin County
Attorney Mary Moriarty said. “We have also obtained some of the physical evidence that was previously withheld, including Renee Good’s car.”
Statements, police body camera video and other evidence had previously been withheld by federal officials in the killings.
She said state and local investigators now also have in their possession Good’s damaged car.
Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot and killed in her car while leaving an anti-immigration enforcement protest in Minneapolis on Jan. 7 as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents surged through the region. Her death and that of Pretti, another protester, just weeks later sparked outrage across the country and calls to rein in immigration enforcement.
“The wonderful thing now is we have all the evidence,” Moriarty said.
Investigators are going through all the evidence, including hard drives with statements, hours of video recorded by body-worn cameras and the physical car Good was driving, Moriarty said.
“We need transparency. We need cooperation. Our community needs it,” she said. “Our democracy requires it.”
At the end of June, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Moriarty asked a federal judge to push out the deadlines in their lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice because they said they were in the midst of recently reinitiated “ongoing discussions” with the FBI about information sharing.
Those ongoing discussions with the FBI about information sharing are likely to affect Minnesota’s request for summary judgment in the case, Ellison and Moriarty wrote in their motion to the court.
The attorneys representing the federal government signed onto the motion.
Ellison said he remains “deeply troubled that the federal government spent more than half a year attempting to conceal this evidence from state investigators.”
“It should never have taken this long for Minnesota law enforcement to gain access to the federal government’s evidence,” he said in a statement. “I hope that this is the beginning of a major course correction on the part of the federal government.”
Massachusetts
U.S. citizen is found guilty of helping export tech to Iran
BOSTON (AP) — A Massachusetts man was found guilty Monday of conspiring to unlawfully export electronic components to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions.
Mahdi Mohammad Sadeghi, who worked at the global electronics company Analog Devices, was accused of helping an Iranian business associate get around American export control laws. U.S. prosecutors say the business associate’s Tehran-based company makes navigation systems for the military drone program of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Authorities say the scheme included the creation of a front company in Switzerland.
The second defendant, Mohammad Abedininajafabadi, called Abedini in court documents, was not on trial. He is believed to be in Iran after an apparent prisoner exchange for an Italian journalist.
Sadeghi was found guilty on three of the five charges. He showed no visible reaction to the verdict, which came early in the fourth day of jury deliberations. He and his lawyers did not comment as they left court, and he will remain free until sentencing Oct. 13.
Sadeghi, a 43-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, chose not to testify. A father of two, he lost his job at Analog Devices due to the charges. Although he was arrested in December 2024, long before the current war with Iran, his trial has unfolded during the conflict.
“At its core, this case is straightforward. You cannot send goods, especially the goods at issue in this case, to Iran. Period. Full stop,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Alathea Porter told the jury. “The defendant knew that, and conspired with Mr. Abedini to do that.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared Dolan, in his closing remarks, said documents, text messages and photos proved that the illegal acts were the “fruits of this relationship” between Sadeghi and Abedini.
“The evidence established that he knew what Abedini was doing because he told him in writing,” Dolan said. “He helped him anyway.”
Sadeghi’s attorney, William Fick, told jurors that the scheme laid out by the prosecution “makes no sense” and was full of holes. He said Sadeghi was only offering advice to a longtime friend about how to get business with the semiconductor company, and wasn’t responsible for procuring the parts for Abedini.
Fick said there was no proof the parts ended up in Iran, and he disputed that the Swiss company was a front.
“If you look at the world through dirty glasses, everything looks dirty,” Fick said. “That is fundamentally what the prosecution is asking you to do here.”
Fick also said prosecutors hadn’t shown Sadeghi gained anything from the alleged plan — although the prosecution pointed out that they didn’t need to prove a motive.
“He had nothing to gain and everything to lose,” Fick said. “He has lived in the country for decades. He was a well-regarded, respected employee on his way up in the company.”
Prosecutors had hoped to introduce evidence during the trial related to an Iranian drone used in a 2024 attack that killed three U.S. troops at a remote base in Jordan.
However, before the trial, defense attorneys sought to exclude any evidence related to Abedini’s role in drone manufacturing or attacks on American troops.
The judge agreed, ruling that prosecutors could only give general evidence about Abedini’s Iranian company and how its technology had potential military applications, including for drones. During a hearing in February, prosecutors acknowledged they didn’t have evidence that Sadeghi “knew anything” about the technology he was accused of exporting was allegedly used on the drone involved in the Jordan attack.
Both defendants have been charged with export control violations. Abedini is separately charged with conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization that resulted in the deaths of three service members.
Abedini was arrested at an airport in Italy on a U.S. warrant in December 2024, but was released a month later and returned to Iran. Three days after his arrest, Italian journalist Cecilia Sala was detained while reporting in Iran. Sala, who was believed held as a bargaining chip for Abedini’s release, returned home in January 2025.
New York
California, 11 other states sue to block Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros
NEW YORK (AP) — Twelve states challenged Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery on Monday, filing a lawsuit that argues the $81 billion mega merger would “extinguish competition” in Hollywood and threaten jobs across the industry.
The office of California’s attorney general, who is leading the case, said the states are asking Warner Bros. and Paramount to not close their merger “until after the judicial process concludes” — and if the companies do not agree, the coalition will then file a temporary restraining order.
“The unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the U.S.,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.
Paramount, which was bought by Skydance just last year, wants all of Warner. That would mean putting HBO Max, cult-favorite titles like “Harry Potter” and even CNN under the same roof with CBS, “Top Gun” and the Paramount+ streaming service. The states’ lawsuit could throw a wrench in those plans, at least for now. The antitrust case arrives at a pivotal time for the Paramount-Warner transaction — which, after months of what became a very public bidding war, received shareholders’ stamp of approval in April and then a blessing from the Trump administration just last month.
California
Meta appeals landmark jury verdict that found it to blame for social media addiction for young users
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has appealed the verdict of a landmark social media addiction lawsuit in Los Angeles, challenging the jury’s determination that the company designed its platforms to hook young users without concern for their well-being.
Lawyers representing Meta filed a notice of appeal Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawyers will provide their arguments related to the appeal in subsequent court filings.
The case centered on a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media as a child and that it worsened her mental health struggles. The jury found that negligence by both Meta and Google-owned YouTube, which was also a defendant in the case, was a substantial factor in causing harm to the young woman, identified in court only by her initials, KGM, and her first name, Kaley.
The jury awarded her $3 million in damages and recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages. Her lead attorney, Mark Lanier, said in a statement Friday that the legal team is expecting the appellate court to “continue the careful application of the law to this case, affirming the verdict of the trial court.”
A notice of appeal starts what can be a lengthy process. A Meta spokesperson provided a statement Friday that they also gave when the jury returned the verdict in March, saying that teen mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”
José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, said in a statement Friday that YouTube plans to appeal and that “these are standard motions for this case to move forward.”
Meta and Google had each filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict — a routinely filed motion by defense lawyers asking a judge to toss out the jury’s verdict — and for a new trial. The trial judge, Carolyn B. Kuhl, denied those motions in early June.
Tech companies like Meta and YouTube are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted by third parties, based on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. To get around those protections, the plaintiffs focused on the design features of the platforms like “infinite scroll,” or the endless nature of feeds on the platforms, and autoplay functions.
Questions about encroaching into content-related territory were the subject of many objections from the defendants throughout the five-week trial.
The verdict in this case came during a time of legal woes for Meta. A jury in New Mexico returned a verdict finding that Meta’s platforms harm children’s mental health and safety just one day before the California jury reached its decision. The New Mexico jury, siding with state prosecutors who brought the case, landed on a penalty of $375 million. Meta has said the company disagrees with the verdict and will also appeal in that case.
Kaley’s case was a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, and the verdict could influence the outcome of thousands of similar lawsuits accusing social media companies of deliberately causing harm. TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap Inc. were also initially named as defendants in the case, but each settled for undisclosed sums before the trial began.
