Richard Glossip: Oklahoma: Major (Welcome) Development: The Oklahoman (Staff Writer Nolan Clay) reports that he was released from jail earlier today on a $500,000 bond - a major victory for the former death row inmate who has come so close to execution that he has had three last meals, noting that: "Glossip has always maintained he is innocent of murder in the 1997 beating death of his boss at an Oklahoma City motel. His lead attorney, Don Knight, said Glossip "now has the chance to taste freedom while his defense team continues to pursue justice on his behalf." The attorney said the judge, in setting bail, "rejected the State’s claim that there is a strong case for guilt."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "Historically, Oklahoma County judges have almost never let a defendant out of jail while awaiting trial in a murder case. Mai wrote that in granting bail, she was following a clear mandate in the Oklahoma Constitution and a 1998 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decision. She wrote she could only deny Glossip bail if there was clear and convincing evidence that "proof of guilt is evident, or the presumption thereof is great." She pointed in her order to issues with the key witness against Glossip."

----------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Justin Sneed, a motel maintenance man, confessed to killing Van Treese with a baseball bat in the motel room. He said Glossip pressured him into doing it and offered him $10,000 as payment. Sneed was the key witness against Glossip at the first two trials and is expected to testify again at the third trial. Glossip's attorneys claim Sneed actually killed the motel owner during a botched robbery for drug money. They claim he incriminated Glossip to avoid getting the death penalty himself and later considered recanting his testimony."

----------------------------------------------

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Judge Mai noted in her order that the Court of Criminal Appeals in 2001 described the evidence at the first trial, corroborating Sneed's testimony as "extremely weak." She noted the Court of Criminal Appeals was closely divided about the corroborating evidence in a 2007 opinion upholding his second conviction. She also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court determined last year that Sneed gave false testimony about why he was prescribed lithium after his arrest and that prosecutors did not correct it. She wrote that the Supreme Court found that "had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered." Finally, she pointed out that Drummond himself told the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board in a 2023 letter that "the record ... does not support that he is guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt."

--------------------------------------------

STORY: "Former Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip goes free on $500k bond," by Staff Writer Nolan Clay, published by The Oklahoman, on May 14, 2025.

GIST: Richard Glossip was released from jail Thursday, May 14, on a $500,000 bond, a major victory for the former death row inmate who has come so close to execution that he has had three last meals.

Glossip, 63, is awaiting his third trial in his 1997 murder-for-hire case.

He walked out the front door of the Oklahoma County jail, holding hands with his wife, Lea Glossip, as a stiff Oklahoma breeze whipped his hair. "I'm just thankful for my wife and my attorneys," he told reporters. "I'm just happy."

His release came hours after Oklahoma County District Judge Natalie Mai set bail in a 13-page order that pointed to issues with the key witness against him.

"It is the bedrock principle of Oklahoma law that bail is not used as a form of punishment," the judge wrote. "Rather, bail is simply the means to ensure that a defendant will appear to face the charges pending against him."

Glossip had been expected to be able to post bond because he has had support both nationally and internationally, including from celebrities like Kim Kardashian. His financial status has not been disclosed, but eight attorneys appeared on his behalf at a hearing in April.

Glossip has always maintained he is innocent of murder in the 1997 beating death of his boss at an Oklahoma City motel.

His lead attorney, Don Knight, said Glossip "now has the chance to taste freedom while his defense team continues to pursue justice on his behalf."

The attorney said the judge, in setting bail, "rejected the State’s claim that there is a strong case for guilt."

Glossip is out of custody for the first time since January 1997. Much of his time locked up has been at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester. He has been held in the Oklahoma County jail for more than a year.

The judge's order was filed around 10 a.m. Thursday. Glossip was released from jail at 3:36 p.m. He walked out the jail's front door after 5 p.m. after an issue with his ankle monitor was addressed.

His attorneys had asked for a fair bond and said he would live in Oklahoma County with his wife. Prosecutors with the attorney general's office had asked the judge to deny bond.

Glossip and his wife wed on March 29, 2022, while he was confined at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

The judge ordered Glossip to reside only at the marital home, wear an ankle monitor, observe a nightly curfew and not travel outside the state.

She also ordered him not to use any alcohol, illegal drugs or marijuana.

Historically, Oklahoma County judges have almost never let a defendant out of jail while awaiting trial in a murder case.

Mai wrote that in granting bail, she was following a clear mandate in the Oklahoma Constitution and a 1998 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decision.

She wrote she could only deny Glossip bail if there was clear and convincing evidence that "proof of guilt is evident, or the presumption thereof is great." She pointed in her order to issues with the key witness against Glossip.

Prosecutors said they remain focused on retrying the case.

"Ultimately, the question of the defendant's guilt or innocence will be decided by a jury of Oklahoma citizens − not a judge," Attorney General Gentner Drummond's press secretary, Leslie Berger, said.

For years, Glossip was the state's highest-profile death row inmate because of the celebrity support for his innocence claim, his close calls and a 2017 documentary about his case.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed his 2004 murder conviction on prosecutorial misconduct grounds.

In an unusual move, Drummond joined Glossip's attorneys in asking the high court for that relief.

In June, Drummond said Glossip will be prosecuted again for murder. However, he said the death penalty will no longer be sought.

In July, his original judge for the third trial denied Glossip bond.

A month later, District Judge Heather Coyle stepped down from the case after defense attorneys raised concerns about her. Mai took over the case in December after five other Oklahoma County district judges also recused.

In April, Mai rejected Glossip's request to enforce a "plea deal" that might have resulted in his release.

Drummond in 2023 had discussions with Knight about a deal. The AG claimed the deal was never finalized and is now off.

The judge agreed the deal was not complete, in part because the murder victim's family had not been consulted about it.

Had the deal gone through, Glossip would have been sentenced to 45 years in prison after pleading guilty to accessory after the fact to first-degree murder. His attorneys believed he would have been released immediately under credits for time served.

Background of Richard Glossip's case

Glossip is accused of having his boss, Barry Van Treese, an Oklahoma City motel owner, killed in 1997 to keep from being fired for embezzlement. Glossip was the motel manager.

Van Treese was found beaten to death in Room 102 of the Best Budget Inn on Jan. 7, 1997. The victim was 54 and lived in Lawton.

Justin Sneed, a motel maintenance man, confessed to killing Van Treese with a baseball bat in the motel room. He said Glossip pressured him into doing it and offered him $10,000 as payment. Sneed was the key witness against Glossip at the first two trials and is expected to testify again at the third trial.

Glossip's attorneys claim Sneed actually killed the motel owner during a botched robbery for drug money. They claim he incriminated Glossip to avoid getting the death penalty himself and later considered recanting his testimony.

Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death the first time in 1998. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals threw out that conviction in 2001 because of issues with his defense attorney. He was convicted and sentenced to death the second time at a 2004 retrial.

Judge Mai noted in her order that the Court of Criminal Appeals in 2001 described the evidence at the first trial, corroborating Sneed's testimony as "extremely weak."

She noted the Court of Criminal Appeals was closely divided about the corroborating evidence in a 2007 opinion upholding his second conviction.

She also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court determined last year that Sneed gave false testimony about why he was prescribed lithium after his arrest and that prosecutors did not correct it.

She wrote that the Supreme Court found that "had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered."

Finally, she pointed out that Drummond himself told the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board in a 2023 letter that "the record ... does not support that he is guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt."

Glossip came the closest to being executed on Sept. 30, 2015. He was three hours away from execution when a doctor realized a pharmacist had supplied the wrong drug for the lethal injection. The execution ended up being called off.

The mistake contributed to a hiatus in executions in Oklahoma that lasted years.

Near the end of her order, Mai wrote, "The Court hopes that a new trial, free of error, will provide all interested parties, and the citizens of Oklahoma, the closure they deserve.""

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/local/2026/05/14/richard-glossip-has-been-behind-bars-since-1997-on-murder-for-hire-case-he-may-go-free-on-bond/90073272007/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

Forensic Lab Debacles: Aftermath: Motherisk: The now-shuttered (thank goodness! HL) drug testing lab at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children: Harm Reduction Advocate Cassandra Smith's chilling reminder that, "It’s been 10 years since Canadians learned that a trusted children’s hospital had been supplying child welfare agencies and courts with junk science that was used to tear families apart—including my own."

d decisions with lifelong consequences. My youngest child was apprehended from the hospital at just two days

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "For decades, the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children ran hair-strand drug tests to assess whether pregnant people and parents—mostly mothers—were fit to care for their children. These tests were later found to be unreliable and far below forensics standards, lacking basic safeguards like proper validation, quality control and independent oversight. Motherisk was no marginal operation. Between 2005 and 2015 alone, the lab tested more than 16,000 people for “child protection” purposes. More than 100 child welfare agencies across five provinces relied on its results. Millions of public dollars were spent on inadequate testing that shaped decisions with lifelong consequences.  My youngest child was apprehended from the hospital at just two days old, based on compromised and unreliable drug tests."

------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The lesson of Motherisk is not that we need “better” tests. It is that we must end our over-reliance on the child welfare system as a primary response for ensuring family safety. Families are safer when they are supported with housing, health care, and trusted community-based support—not torn apart by systems that surveil, punish and separate. Skilling up social service and health care workers to learn about alternative responses to mandated reporting should be a first-line prevention strategy."

--------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The science is settled. The unresolved question is why our institutions continue to cling to the same moral judgments that allowed junk science to shatter so many families in the first place."

--------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTARY:  "Ten years after Motherisk, parents who use drugs still punished," by harm reduction advocate and researcher Cassandra Smith.  Anne-Rachelle Boulanger, a lawyer and policy analyst at the HIV Legal Network, and Kathleen Kenny, a postdoctoral research fellow at the College of Global and Community Health at the University of Manitoba, contributed to this article. ('Filter' Magazine says its mission is to advocate through journalism   for rational and compassionate approaches to drug use, drug policy and human rights. Check out the site at filtermag.org...)

GIST: "It’s been 10 years since Canadians learned that a trusted children’s hospital had been supplying child welfare agencies and courts with junk science that was used to tear families apart—including my own.

For decades, the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children ran hair-strand drug tests to assess whether pregnant people and parents—mostly mothers—were fit to care for their children. These tests were later found to be unreliable and far below forensics standards, lacking basic safeguards like proper validation, quality control and independent oversight.

Motherisk was no marginal operation. Between 2005 and 2015 alone, the lab tested more than 16,000 people for “child protection” purposes. More than 100 child welfare agencies across five provinces relied on its results. Millions of public dollars were spent on inadequate testing that shaped decisions with lifelong consequences. 

My youngest child was apprehended from the hospital at just two days old, based on compromised and unreliable drug tests.

I became involved with the Children’s Aid Society, Toronto’s primary child welfare organization, due to allegations related to marijuana use while breastfeeding, resulting in years of drug testing and restricted access to my children. In 2008, my youngest child was apprehended from the hospital at just two days old, based on compromised and unreliable drug tests from the Motherisk program.

These faulty results were used to justify decisions that led to me losing custody of my children for more than a decade. Even after the testing failures were acknowledged and apologies were offered, the stigmatizing narratives in court records and case notes were never corrected. I continued to be portrayed as an unfit parent.

A 2018 review largely focused on “fixing” flawed testing methods and oversight. But by framing the problem as a technical failure, we avoided a harder conversation about the deep-seated biases—the moral judgments about drug use and parenting—that made this junk science so easy to believe in the first place.

Motherisk thrived because it replaced human uncertainty with apparent objectivity. It allowed drug use to become a shortcut to judge parental fitness, equating abstinence with good parenting and any drug use with so-called abuse. This was despite decades of medical experts saying that drug testing cannot assess parenting capacity, and Ontario law not even listing drug use on its own as a reason for children’s aid involvement. 

This impulse to “catch” parents rather than support families remains institutionalized today.

Nevertheless, biases and racism of social workers and other professionals continue to drive the reporting of families for drug use, scaring parents and their children away from seeking the very care and support they need. 

This impulse to “catch” parents rather than support families remains institutionalized today through “duty to report” rules. In shelters and other social and health services, staff often feel pressured to call children’s aid even when there is no imminent risk, simply because they are not trained in alternatives and fear legal penalties. 

In Ontario, there were roughly 125,000 calls to children’s aid in 2024-2025, leading to over 63,000 investigations. This surveillance disproportionately targets Indigenous and racialized families.

Framing drug use as a proxy for parenting capacity shields decision-makers from many of the real issues harming families: poverty, inadequate housing, and structural inequality. 

The lesson is not that we need “better” tests. It is that we must end our over-reliance on the child welfare system.

I have experienced the trauma that comes from this firsthand, which caused lasting psychological harm and permanently damaged my sense of safety within health care and child protection systems. Even now that my children are young adults, this painful chapter remains central to my family history.

The lesson of Motherisk is not that we need “better” tests. It is that we must end our over-reliance on the child welfare system as a primary response for ensuring family safety. Families are safer when they are supported with housing, health care, and trusted community-based support—not torn apart by systems that surveil, punish and separate. Skilling up social service and health care workers to learn about alternative responses to mandated reporting should be a first-line prevention strategy.

The science is settled. The unresolved question is why our institutions continue to cling to the same moral judgments that allowed junk science to shatter so many families in the first place."

The entire story can be read at: 

 motherisk-parents-use-drugs-punished

 PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

May 14: Stefon Morant: New Haven; Connecticut: Federal Civil-Rights Wrongful Conviction case: Most Unusual Development: U.S. District Judge Sarala Nagala ordered Mayor Justin Elicker into her Hartford courtroom on Wednesday afternoon and issued an order prohibiting him from speaking to the public about an ongoing wrongful-conviction trial..."If reporters ask questions about the case, Nagala told Elicker, “You’re going to say, ‘You’ve been ordered by the court to not make any public statements about this case for the duration of the trial, pertaining to the settlement or anything else.’

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Brustin, one of Morant’s attorneys, said he was “happy to discuss” the reasons why he believes Elicker’s statement was false.  “Unfortunately, despite the court’s very strict guidance, we know as trial lawyers that some jurors do not follow the admonition not to look at the press,” he said. For that reason, he continued, he believes Elicker’s comment could “put into the jury’s mind that the city has been reasonable, and the only reason we are here is because we have not [been].”

--------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: After the jury left the courtroom at 4 p.m., another one of Morant’s attorneys, Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann, said, “I understand why the mayor felt he needed to respond because I think there has been a lot of press coverage, and the position the city is taking in this case is politically and morally reprehensible.” “But,” she continued, “that doesn’t justify making statements about what we believe to be confidential discussions…that are false, and we are in a position where we can’t respond without violating confidentiality.” Benvenutti Hoffmann made two requests of the judge: first, to issue an order precluding any further discussion of the parties’ settlement talks. Second, to either require the mayor to issue a formal retraction of his statement, or to allow the plaintiffs to issue a limited statement themselves."

-------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Judge Gags Mayor" by Reporter Mona Mahadevan, Published by The New Haven Independent on May 13, 2026.

GIST:  U.S. District Judge Sarala Nagala ordered Mayor Justin Elicker into her Hartford courtroom on Wednesday afternoon and issued an order prohibiting him from speaking to the public about an ongoing wrongful-conviction trial. 

If reporters ask questions about the case, Nagala told Elicker, “You’re going to say, ‘You’ve been ordered by the court to not make any public statements about this case for the duration of the trial, pertaining to the settlement or anything else.’”

The case in question is Stefon Morant v. City of New Haven. Morant is suing New Haven and a group of former city detectives for allegedly framing him and Scott Lewis for the 1990 double murder of former alderman Ricardo Turner and his partner Lamont Fields.

The trial is now in its third week of being heard before a ten-person jury in Nagala’s Hartford federal courtroom.

Wednesday’s gag order was prompted by a quote printed in an article written by Nathaniel Rosenberg of Heast Connecticut earlier in the day. Rosenberg wrote that Elicker described Morant’s settlement request as “well beyond what is reasonable.” Nick Brustin, an attorney representing Morant, discovered Rosenberg’s piece at around 10:45 a.m. Brustin then asked Nagala to summon Elicker to Hartford, describing the mayor’s remarks as “a lie.” 

Nagala ordered Elicker into her courtroom at 4:15 p.m. After the jury left the courtroom at 4 p.m., another one of Morant’s attorneys, Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann, said, “I understand why the mayor felt he needed to respond because I think there has been a lot of press coverage, and the position the city is taking in this case is politically and morally reprehensible.”

“But,” she continued, “that doesn’t justify making statements about what we believe to be confidential discussions…that are false, and we are in a position where we can’t respond without violating confidentiality.”

Benvenutti Hoffmann made two requests of the judge: first, to issue an order precluding any further discussion of the parties’ settlement talks. Second, to either require the mayor to issue a formal retraction of his statement, or to allow the plaintiffs to issue a limited statement themselves. 

Thomas Gerarde, the attorney representing the City of New Haven in this civil-rights trial, agreed with the first request and questioned the second.

He also said the problem had less to due with violating confidentiality and more to do with trial publicity. The conversation presently occurring in the courtroom, he pointed out, would attract even more coverage. “Now that’s all public, [and] the mayor’s been called a liar,” said Gerarde.

“The mayor put himself in this position,” rebutted Nagala. “I’m not sympathetic to the position that [the trial is] now being covered more” as a result. 

She then asked Gerarde specifically about Elicker’s statement that Morant’s demands were “so far beyond what any other case has settled for.” 

“From your perspective, and to your knowledge,” she asked, “is that statement false?”

“We debated that,” responded Gerarde. “It depends.”

Nagala pressed, “Has the city ever settled a case for larger than the amounts” that may be at hand here?

Gerarde responded affirmatively. The judge inquired into which case. Gerarde said it involved a quadriplegic. “The Randy Cox case?” asked Nagala. Gerarde responded in the affirmative.

The case of Randy Cox, who suffered paralyzing injuries while in police custody in 2022, was settled by the City of New Haven for $45 million. According to a press conference, Cox initially sought $100 million in damages.

Brustin, one of Morant’s attorneys, said he was “happy to discuss” the reasons why he believes Elicker’s statement was false. 

“Unfortunately, despite the court’s very strict guidance, we know as trial lawyers that some jurors do not follow the admonition not to look at the press,” he said. For that reason, he continued, he believes Elicker’s comment could “put into the jury’s mind that the city has been reasonable, and the only reason we are here is because we have not [been].”

Later on in court on Wednesday, Gerarde raised additional concerns related to trial publicity. “Mr. Lewis [told the Independent that] the city should pay $100 million in this case. When all that’s out there, I think it’s easy to fall into a trap,” said Gerarde. “Everyone should be admonished to not say anything, no matter how hard it is.”

Nagala was not receptive to that point. “Mr. Lewis is not a party [in the case], and he’s not the mayor of New Haven.”

At one point, the judge read directly from one of the Independent’s articles, where Elicker is quoted as saying, “I work really hard to be transparent and answer questions from the press,” and “I haven’t talked with the judge. I want to make sure I don’t make comments before hearing about the concerns from the judge.”

“That’s astonishing,” exclaimed Brustin. “How is he still making public statements?”

Gerarde characterized the comment as “following the court’s order” not to make statements to the press. 

“The only conceivable right answer to [questions about the case] was, ‘No comment,’” said Brustin. 

Nagala was clearly frustrated. “I’m highly disappointed and annoyed that I have to” stress to the jury that they should not look at the press “because of the comments” made by “the mayor of New Haven.”

Elicker Stands By Settlement Statement

In court on Wednesday afternoon, Elicker walked to the witness stand and took the oath to tell the truth. The judge began her questioning of the mayor by reading directly from news articles published by the New Haven Register and the New Haven Independent. 

In an article published by the Register, “You are quoted as having said that in the context of settlement negotiations in this case, the settlement demand made by the plaintiff, Mr. Morant, was ‘well beyond what is reasonable.’” Nagala asked if that was an “accurate quote.”

“Yes,” replied Elicker. She went through two other quotes published by the Register.

She then read a quote from Elicker that was printed in an Independent article last week and that stated, “Oftentimes, both parties want to reach a settlement agreement, but sometimes different parties have very different expectations as to what’s an appropriate settlement agreement.” She then asked if that quote was accurate. 

“I was clear with the reporter that I was speaking in generalities and not specific in this case,” Elicker responded. He later added, “The Independent frequently doesn’t include all of what I said, and I was specific with that statement that I was speaking in generalities.” (Click here to read the full article, which first quotes Elicker as saying, “I can’t make comments on a specific case.”) 

Nagala grilled Elicker on why he decided to speak about the settlement discussions in the Morant case. 

“Do you understand that if the jury learns of these comments, it could undermine the integrity and fairness of this lengthy trial?” asked Nagala. 

“I didn’t intend for these comments to be received in the way they’re being received,” responded Elicker. “I am doing my best as mayor to respond to the press in a way that is transparent and open,” he added. He also said he is trying to follow guidance from his attorneys. 

“Do you stand by” the comment that Morant’s settlement request is far beyond the amounts that the city has settled in previous cases? Nagala asked.

“I do, based on what my attorneys have told me,” responded Elicker.

Nagala ordered the parties to come up with a statement that could “neutralize” or “counteract” Elicker’s comments. Since she is a trial judge, she said she was in a challenging spot to determine the accuracy of Elicker’s statements. 

“I hope you take this seriously, Mr. Elicker,” she said. Elicker then left the witness stand. 

When the proceedings concluded, Brustin, one of Morant’s attorneys, went up to Elicker and asked, “Do you have anything to say to Mr. Morant?” His co-counsel, Benvenutti Hoffmann, and Gerarde intercepted the two men and told Brustin to stop. Elicker did not respond."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/2026/05/13/judge-orders-mayor-to-court-over-settlement-comment/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;