A Utah mother of three who authorities say fatally poisoned her husband then wrote a children’s book about grieving has been scheduled for a bail hearing

Russia has threatened not to extend the deal allowing Ukraine's Black Sea grain exports despite the war.

Now that the PGA Tour and European tour have a deal with the Saudis, one step is deciding how players can return from LIV Golf if they so choose

In a historic ruling, Panama’s Supreme Court declared that legislation granting a mining concession to a subsidiary of Canadian mining company First Quantum Mineral was unconstitutional

Convicted killer Alex Murdaugh has accused a South Carolina court clerk of tampering with the jury at his high-profile double murder trial – because she was driven by fame and a desire to secure a book deal. The disgraced legal scion and double murderer filed a motion on Tuesday requesting a new trial on the basis that Walterboro Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill allegedly pressured jurors on the case. In the motion, Murdaugh’s attorneys Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin claim that Ms Hill “tampered with the jury by advising them not to believe Murdaugh’s testimony and other evidence presented by the defense, pressuring them to reach a quick guilty verdict, and even misrepresenting critical and material information to the trial judge in her campaign to remove a juror she believed to be favorable to the defense”. Specifically, they claim that the clerk instructed jurors not to be “misled” by evidence presented by the defence and told jurors not to be “fooled by” his testimony. The motion also claims that Ms Hill had frequent private conversations with the jury foreperson – with the pair often disappearing to private rooms for five to 10 minutes at a time. “During the trial, Ms Hill asked jurors for their opinions about Mr. Murdaugh’s guilt or innocence,” the motion reads. “Ms Hill invented a story about a Facebook post to remove a juror she believed might not vote guilty. “Ms Hill pressured the jurors to reach a quick verdict, telling them from the outset of their deliberations that it ‘shouldn’t take them long.’” Murdaugh’s attorneys claim that she “betrayed her oath of office for money and fame” and, off the back of her work on the case, secured a deal for a book titled “Behind the Doors of Justice”. “She did these things to secure for herself a book deal and media appearances that would not happen in the event of a mistrial,” the motion claims. Just hours after they returned a guilty verdict, his attorneys allege Ms Hill flew with jurors to New York as some of the panellists waived their anonymity to appear on NBC’s Today show. In conclusion, they claim that the court clerk’s actions violated “Murdaugh’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury”. Further details are expected to be shared by Murdaugh’s attorneys at a press conference on the grounds of the South Carolina State House in Columbia at 2.30pm local time on Tuesday afternoon. The duo – who are longtime friends of the killer and represented him at his high-profile murder trial – had announced on Monday that new evidence had come to light since his March conviction over the brutal 7 June 2021 slayings. Murdaugh is currently behind bars at the McCormick Correctional Institution in South Carolina where he is serving two life sentences for his wife and son’s murders. Last week, it emerged that Murdaugh had lost some of his prison privileges after he fed information to a Fox Nation documentary without permission. South Carolina Corrections Department officials said on Wednesday that, during a jailhouse phone call on 10 June, Mr Griffin had recorded him reading aloud entries from the journal he had kept during his double murder trial. Mr Griffin had then handed over the recordings to producers working on the new Fox Nation documentary about his high-profile case titled “The Fall of the House of Murdaugh”. Prison policy prohibits inmates from talking to the media without permission because the agency “believes that victims of crime should not have to see or hear the person who victimized them or their family member on the news,” state prisons spokesperson Chrysti Shain said in a statement. The media interview violation, along with another violation for using a different inmate’s password to make a telephone call, are prison discipline issues and not a crime, Ms Shain said. As a result, the disgraced legal scion has had his phone privileges revoked and his prison tablet computer confiscated. Murdaugh also lost his ability to buy items in the prison canteen for a month. He will now have to get permission from prison officials to get another tablet, which can be used to make monitored phone calls, watch approved entertainment, read books or take video classes, the prison spokesperson said. Mr Griffin was also issued a warning from prison officials that if he knowingly or unknowingly helps Murdaugh violate rules again, he could lose his ability to talk to his client. Phone calls between lawyers and prisoners are not recorded or reviewed because their conversations are considered confidential. But prison officials said they began investigating Murdaugh after a warden reviewing other phone calls heard Murdaugh’s voice on a call made in a different inmate’s account. Murdaugh claimed that his phone password had not been working. He also told the prison investigators about the recorded journal entries, according to prison records. Murdaugh’s use of a jailhouse tablet previously hit headlines when selfie images he took on the device were obtained in a Freedom of Information request by FITS News. In many of the images, the convicted family killer appeared topless. South Carolina prison officials later clarified that the photos are automatically taken as an inmate uses their tablet that is individually assigned to them – as part of inmate monitoring. Now, Murdaugh has lost the use of his tablet indefinitely due to his unauthorised communication with the documentarymakers – which marks his first media interview of sorts since his conviction. His eldest – and now only surviving – son Buster Murdaugh also broke his silence speaking out in his first TV interview as part of the three-part series. In the interview, Buster insisted that he still believes his father is innocent of the murders of his mother and brother – but admitted that he may be a psychopath. Maggie and Paul were found shot dead on the family’s 1,700-acre Moselle estate back on 7 June 2021. Alex Murdaugh had called 911 claiming to have found their bodies. During his high-profile murder trial, jurors heard how Paul was shot twice with a 12-gauge shotgun while he stood in the feed room of the dog kennels on the affluent family’s 1,700-acre Moselle estate. The second shot to his head blew his brain almost entirely out of his skull. After killing Paul, prosecutors said Murdaugh then grabbed a .300 Blackout semiautomatic rifle and opened fire on Maggie as she tried to flee from her husband. During the dramatic six-week trial, Murdaugh confessed to lying about his alibi on the night of the murders but continued to claim his innocence of the killings. The jury didn’t agree and the disgraced legal scion was convicted in March of the brutal murders. Beyond the murder charges, Murdaugh, 55, is also facing a slew of financial fraud charges for stealing millions of dollars from his law firm clients and his dead housekeeper’s family. He is expected to plead guilty on 21 September to federal charges – marking the first time he has pleaded guilty to a crime in court. Murdaugh is also facing around 100 financial charges in state court as well as charges over a botched hitman plot where he claims he paid an accomplice to shoot him dead. Murdaugh’s high-profile conviction also shone a spotlight on some other mystery deaths tied to the South Carolina legal dynasty. Following Maggie and Paul’s murders, investigations were reopened into the 2018 death of the Murdaugh’s longtime housekeeper Gloria Satterfield and the 2015 homicide of gay teenager Stephen Smith. Meanwhile, at the time of his murder, Paul was also awaiting trial for the 2019 boat crash death of Mallory Beach. Read More Alex Murdaugh’s attorneys to unveil ‘mystery evidence’ as he demands new murder trial – live updates Buster Murdaugh breaks silence on Stephen Smith killing – and calls father Alex a ‘psychopath’ Convicted killer Alex Murdaugh loses prison privileges over recorded phone call for documentary

The historic downtown of Savannah, Georgia, boasts nearly two dozen public squares

Following a five-year federal investigation, a grand jury has indicted President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden on three charges connected to a gun purchase in 2018, a time period during which the president’s son has admitted to using drugs. Federal law prohibits people who use drugs from buying firearms, but questions surrounding the constitutionality of that law could throw the case into jeopardy following a landmark US Supreme Court decision that opened a wave of litigation under the court’s expansive Second Amendment lens. That’s if the case survives the political maelstrom targeting the Biden family, with congressional Republicans eager to prosecute the president’s son and impeach his father in parallel probes separate from a US Department of Justice special counsel investigation facing GOP pressure. That partisan scrutiny comes as the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination for president faces four sprawling criminal trials of his own, including charges for serious crimes allegedly committed while serving as 45th president. Republican officials and campaigns are eager to draw a false equivalence and dominate airtime with investigations surrounding the younger Biden instead. Ironically, a Supreme Court decision celebrated by Republicans last year may have set a precedent that could protect Hunter Biden from prosecution. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits people who use drugs from possessing firearms, a ban that applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs within 12 months before buying a gun, according to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Violating that provision could land an offender with a 15-year prison sentence. But the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen – decided by the court’s six conservative justices – argues that such restrictions be historically consistent with the Second Amendment. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition.” The decision created an absurdly high new burden to test the constitutionality of restrictions and other safety measures to combat the proliferation of high-powered firearms and keep them out of the hands of people who could be a danger to themselves or others in the American era marked by daily mass shootings and surging rates of gun violence, analysts and advocates have argued. President Biden has said the decision “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.” Within a year after that decision, more than a dozen state and federal gun laws have been challenged, with 30 per cent of civil cases and nearly 4 per cent of criminal cases citing the Bruen decision in challenges that have invalidated gun control measures, according to research in Duke Law Journal. This year, federal judges in several cases have ruled that banning someone who uses drugs from owning a firearm is “inconsistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” “In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” Ronald Reagan-appointed US District Judge Jerry Smith wrote for a federal appeal courts panel in August. “Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users.” Hunter Biden is charged with illegally owning a gun as a drug user, and with allegedly lying on a form when he bought the firearm. If convicted, he could face up to 25 years in prison, though it is highly unlikely he would face such a sentence. Jacob Charles, a professor at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law and a constitutional law scholar focusing on the Second Amendment, said Mr Biden’s attorneys likely have a viable Second Amendment case. It might be more difficult to challenge federal law against lying on a firearms form, which is not directly tied to Second Amendment rights, “so it’s possible that an appeals court or the Supreme Court would agree with the defense on both of the questions, and say it’s unconstitutional, and since it’s unconstitutional, you also can’t be punished for lying about the other category,” Mr Charles told The Independent. Essentially: if one count is on unconstitutional grounds, there’s a chance the other counts wouldn’t stand up either. “It’s not always the case that the higher profile the defendant, the more likely you’re going to get Supreme Court review,” he said. “Sometimes it seems to happen lately. But there are other cases that are farther along in the process that are challenging this same law, that if the court really wanted to answer this question, it wouldn’t have to use the Hunter Biden vehicle to do it.” Mr Charles says the case has underscored the “disruptive effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen” and the chaotic new landscape for the nation’s myriad gun laws, which now have an apparent historical analogy regardless of the urgency for such laws in the first place. This year, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a major Second Amendment test that further magnifies the chasm between the new historical test and current realities, when justices will hear a case involving a man who possessed firearms and allegedly repeatedly shot at people while subject to a domestic violence restraining order. It is also unclear what evidence prosecutors are reviewing to determine that Hunter Biden was using drugs at the time; those details are publicised in his memoir, in which he describes his struggle with abuse and his relapse in 2018, the year he bought the gun. Mr Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell believes the case will be tossed out altogether. “The only change that has occurred between when they investigated [this alleged crime] and today is that the law changed,” he told ABC’s Good Morning America on 15 September. “But the law didn’t change in favour of the prosecution. The law changed against it.” ‘I’ve never heard of this charge. Never’ Mr Lowell and others have also questioned the timing of the case, parallel to growing threats of impeachment from far-right members of Congress against President Biden and adjacent investigations from House Republicans seeking criminal prosecutions against the president and his family. “The US Attorney’s Office has known about this for years,” Mr Lowell said. “What changed? Not the facts, not the law, but all the politics that have now come into play.” The younger Biden was prepared to plead guilty to charges stemming from the firearms purchase as well as separate tax-related misdemeanours earlier this year, though a plea agreement appeared to fall apart under scrutiny from a federal judge. Justice Department special counsel David Weiss, who as US Attorney for Delaware has been investigating Hunter Biden for roughly five years, said he would seek a grand jury indictment in the case by the end of September. Mr Weiss was appointed by Mr Trump and initially requested by congressional Republicans to lead a special counsel probe. Following the collapse of that plea deal, Mr Lowell stressed to CBS Face the Nation that Mr Weiss is “a Republican US attorney appointed by a Republican president and attorney general who had career prosecutors working this case for five years looking at every transaction” in which Hunter Biden was involved. “If anything changes from his conclusion,” he added, “the question should be asked, what infected the process that was not the facts in the law?” Outside of the constitutional scrutiny in Mr Biden’s case is the unusual stand-alone charge for lying on a form, which is typically charged in connection with a more serious underlying crime. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 – supported by then-Senator Joe Biden as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee – made a federal form for firearms purchases a key part of a package of anti-crime legislation. According to prosecutors, Hunter Biden lied on the form when he was asked whether he is an “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” But the chance of being prosecuted for lying on that form is exceedingly rare among the millions of background checks performed each year. Within the fiscal year that Mr Biden bought the gun and filled out that paperwork, federal prosecutors received 478 referrals for charges – and filed cases in roughly half of them. Mr Biden likely did receive so-called “special treatment” from federal prosecutors, as Republican officials have claimed. But it was in the opposite direction. His prosecution appears especially more severe than that facing a typical defendant. “Can anyone tell me how many people have been federally indicted for purchasing a gun while dealing with substance abuse issues?” asked Keisha Lance Bottoms, a former senior adviser to President Biden. “I don’t know the answer, but in my over 29 years as an attorney, I have never heard of it.” According to former Justice Department inspector general Michael Bromwich, these kinds of charges simply do not happen. “I’ve been involved in law enforcement both as a prosecutor and a defense lawyer for 40 years. I’ve never heard of this charge being brought. Never,” according to Mr Bromwich, who served as Justice Department inspector general from 1995 to 1999 and previously served as a federal prosecutor in New York. He is currently a senior counsel at Steptoe & Johnson LLP. “I think it’s extremely unusual to bring, if not unprecedented to bring, this set of charges,” he told The Independent. “These charges were brought as a result of the unrelenting political pressure brought by Republicans in Congress to bring a heavy hand down on Hunter Biden as a way of trying to get to Joe Biden, and I think the prosecutor, Mr Weiss … has succumbed to political pressure,” he said. A plea agreement like the one reached this summer “is much more in keeping with what an ordinary prosecutor would do,” according to Mr Bromwich. Should Mr Weiss seek a plea arrangement like the one prosecutors sought earlier this year, his office is “going to invite criticism from the very Republicans who will put the pressure on him right now who now feel great that there are these very serious charges against Hunter Biden,” he told The Independent. “Given all the forces at play, all the political pressure exerted from the Republican members of Congress, it’s very hard to predict where this is going to go, and how.” Read More Trump denies pushing for Biden impeachment inquiry in secret meetings with MAGA Republicans Hunter Biden indicted: What are the charges and what could happen next? Will House Republicans put up or shut up on Hunter Biden? Should domestic abusers have the right to be armed? The Supreme Court could upend protections for survivors Trump, January 6 and a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election: The federal investigation, explained

Nineteen large platforms have to start complying with new rules as soon as Friday or risk big fines.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose on Monday formally entered the state's Republican primary to take on Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown next year.

Oil-dependent Iraq has been warned its economy risks going into "intensive care" unless it diversifies in line with worldwide efforts to tackle the impact of...

Cities including Phoenix and El Paso are expected to see an unusually long stretch of intense heat.

About an hour and a half into its voyage, a missing submersible on an expedition to view the wreckage of the Titanic lost communications