In The Courts: October 18, 2026

Thanks for joining us in the courts this week. I'm Katie Barlow. Off the top, it's week two of the murder trial against Naresh Bhatt, accused of murdering his wife and the mother of their child, Momta Koffel. The jury was shown images of a slice of carpet from the couple's bedroom with suspected blood on it this week. A former Prince William County forensic investigator walked the jurors through how they're testing areas throughout the home with a blue reaction agent that lights up when it detects DNA evidence like blood. There was a trail of suspected blood from the couple's bedroom to the primary bedroom. Bhatt is charged with murder and dismembering and concealing a body, in part because Momta Koffel's remains have never been located. The trial is expected to continue now for the next three to four weeks. Also in Virginia this week, Attorney General Jay Jones announces an election protection unit, as we are now just 16 days out from the midterms. expect several election-related challenges in the courts leading up to and even after Election Day on November 3rd. Jones says the new unit is effectively meant to make up for the continued erosion of the Federal Voting Rights Act, he said. The Supreme Court has gutted key provisions of the landmark civil rights law in recent years. Just last May, the court severely limited Section 2 of the law that makes it much more difficult now to mount a challenge based on racial gerrymandering. This unit will do everything we can to enforce the laws of Virginia that help protect the right to vote and make sure that people who are going to cast their ballots will do so and will do it without any interference or do it freely. The White House responded calling Jones a radical Democrat and also accused him of pulling a political stunt with creating the unit. Meantime, in the district, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often referred to as the second most important court in the land, heard oral argument over Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in the nation's capital. A three-judge panel with an Obama, Biden, and Clinton, all Democratic appointees, heard argument for over two hours. Now, it was originally slated for just 15 minutes for each side, so that should give you a sense of some of the thorny legal issues that are lurking in that case. And the question at the heart of it is whether the president has the power to unilaterally order National Guard troops deployed in D.C. D.C. is not a state, so it doesn't have a governor in charge of the National Guard. That makes it a bit of a sticky situation. Legally speaking, the Trump administration argues that there could be major consequences if D.C. wins here, including that the National Guard could not be used going forward for important deployments that D.C. has relied on them for in the past, including natural disasters, inaugurations and major demonstrations. D.C. National Guard deployed during Hurricane Katrina to help with the disaster relief efforts. They've been deployed during pandemics. Mayor Bowser herself requested deployment of the D.C. National Guard during the COVID pandemic, and the Guard was activated to assist with the pandemic relief efforts. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed the lawsuit originally, and Mitchell Wright, arguing for D.C., argued that the president's decision to call in the Guard amounts to an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement. The president is not allowed to use the military to enforce our domestic laws under something called the Posse Comitatus Act. Also in D.C., a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from cutting down any more trees at East Potomac Golf Course after they chopped down over 400 trees last weekend without notifying the court or the D.C. Preservation League, which is a group currently suing over Trump's plans for the public golf course. Judge Honore Reyes, a Biden appointee, called an emergency hearing on Monday morning to this past Monday, which was a holiday, and told the government that she was furious with them for moving forward with these plans without notifying the court. She said she told everyone that they could trust the government and then the government violated that trust. Tomorrow morning, she will hold a follow-up hearing to take testimony from a senior official at the Department of Interior. And now she's called in the number three official at the Department of Justice to appear. The judge has also issued a separate order requiring the government to now provide three business days notice before making any irreparable modification to any permanent form or feature of the golf course. This morning, President Trump announced plans to rebuild the course. He says they're partnering with the designer Tom Fazio and says the project aims to turn the dilapidated course into a world-class venue capable of hosting major championships. Trump said work begins November 15th. The Justice Department also asked Judge Reyes to remove herself from the case, citing her, quote, hostility to the administration. Meantime, prosecutors responded to D.C. Councilmember Trayon White's motion to dismiss the bribery charge against him after a jury deadlocked last month. Recall, White's team told the judge that double jeopardy should apply, even though it doesn't typically apply when a jury can't reach a verdict. Now, prosecutors accuse White of overblown rhetoric and say the evidence clearly establishes that White agreed to bribery when he accepted tens of thousands of dollars in cash payments from former businessman turned FBI informant Alu Kamara. There is a rare exception that allows double jeopardy to apply, therefore preventing the government from trying someone for the same crime twice, even when there's a hung jury. And that exception occurs when there's evidence that the government tried to induce the defendant to ask for a mistrial. A mistrial is what happens when there's a hung jury. But prosecutors in White's case argue that not only is there no evidence that they tried to induce White to ask for a mistrial, the prosecution affirmatively opposed a mistrial, when the judge was deciding whether to push the jury to continue deliberations for a fourth day. Now the judge will decide whether to grant White's motion to dismiss or clear the way for a second trial. U.S. Attorney Janine Pirro has already vowed to try White again for bribery. Switching gears, October is Domestic Violence Prevention Month. The Montgomery County State's Attorney's Office spends enormous resources ensuring victims and survivors in the county have access to the justice system. oftentimes domestic violence cases actually never make it to the courtroom because the victim or survivor is afraid to testify against the abuser but sometimes they do and when that happens it's assistant state's attorney debbie feinstein's job to get the conviction she's joining us now to talk about the work the office does this month and really year round to protect survivors and get the word out montgomery county actually does a lot it's not just this month but i know you're highlighting things this month. Can you talk about some of the resources that are available to survivors in the county? Absolutely. We're so fortunate to have what we call a one-stop shop for victims of domestic violence, which is called the Family Justice Center, and it's located centrally in Rockville, a few blocks from the metro. And it is open and available to individuals to walk right in and learn about services that are available, safety planning, help with housing, food insecurity, their kids, and really to meet them where they are in whatever language they come, you know, they speak and to give them the support that they need. You just listed a long list of things that people need when they are in that situation. And it's maybe not top of mind for people that see these high profile cases involving domestic violence, but domestic violence affects more often than just the person who is being abused. And it affects their lives in so many other ways. And it is not just help in the courtroom. They need help getting out. They need help accessing food. They need help getting control of their own financial situation. So a huge part of this is also education of the public about some of those signs that are not, you know, what would be used in evidence at trial of what you would classically think of. Absolutely. You know, as prosecutors, we often get the case after the bad thing has already happened. But really, our goal is let's try to get out in front before anything happens at all. And one of the ways that we do that is talking to the public about red flags. If you have a friend that you're concerned about. You see that friend changing their behavior. They're more isolated. They have someone new in their life. They're wearing long sleeves in warm weather. Things like that to be aware of, or even changes in diet, changes in routine, not coming to usual groups that they're a part of. You might ask them, are you okay? What's going on? Is there something that I can help you with? Let me tell you about these resources that are available in the county. Not to tell them to leave a particular partner, but to say, look, I'm here with you and I'm going to walk by your side. We're talking in gender neutral terms, but the vast majority of cases affect women. But it's not just women. Men are also the subject of domestic violence. And so in this month where we're highlighting and talking about key educational components, I mean, we see these cases and headlines where men are being tried. You know, in Virginia, Naresh Bhatt is being accused of murdering his wife. We've seen that story time and again. But that story also is not the only one that should be in your head when you're thinking about your friends or thinking about who might need resources. It's not always who you think. Absolutely. Oftentimes, it's exactly who you wouldn't think because domestic violence happens behind closed doors and people go to great lengths to hide that that might be going on in their home or their apartment or wherever they are because they don't want other people to know that they're being treated like that. They don't want other people to know that this person is abusing them because they may fear for their own safety if that person is accused of domestic violence. So there's a lot of cover-up that goes on. And what we're hoping to do is say, look, we appreciate that you might be afraid. It's totally understandable, but let's figure out a way to get you safe resources so that maybe we can help change your situation when you're ready. And that's kind of the key part. When the person is ready, it oftentimes takes someone at least seven instances of physical abuse before they leave their abusive partner. And talking in Montgomery County, there is a lot of wealth in the county and there is a lot of highly educated people in the county. And most often those individuals are also loathe to come forward with something like this because it does not fit in the circles that they travel in. What message reaches that community and those people, particularly in Montgomery County, who would really hesitate to come forward given the lives that they have built and the reputations they have built for themselves? Absolutely. It definitely is harder, I think, for people that maybe feel even a heightened amount of shame. And, you know, I always think about the fact that more of our reports of domestic violence come from places where people are living in the same place from an apartment or a townhouse where people can hear through the walls single-family home you're not hearing through the walls and the message that i would give is the resources are free it's confidential we will treat you as well as we can to keep your secure you know keep your interests in mind and keep the things that you fear at the forefront so that we can help you get safe all right well you can find uh information online, but we also have the number that we can put back up on the screen as well. And the team over at the state's attorney's office will continue to highlight the work that you do throughout the county. But thank you for the work that you do and for highlighting this, not just this month, although it's important to talk about when we mark the month, but it happens year round. And we're heading into the holidays as well. When it gets colder, more people are spending more time at home, drinking more during the holidays, and sometimes those numbers go up. Absolutely. And I would just encourage people to come forward. We're waiting with open arms. All right. Thank you so much for joining us, Debbie. Thank you so much. We'll have more in the courts when we come back. Don't go ahead. Welcome back in. Prince George's County State's Attorney Tara Jackson is back with us, and she's joined by Sean Ambrose, the executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project. We've talked about it on the show before, but the Innocence Project reviews cases of people they believe who have been wrongfully convicted across our region and fight to get them freedom. Welcome to both of you. Thanks for joining the show. Thank you. You have an announcement to make, a new partnership. Something is happening in Prince George's County. What, when, why? We do. We are really excited. This summer, we entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project to make sure that persons are not wrongfully convicted for crimes they didn't commit. And what does that work look like on a daily basis, Sean? I mean, we've covered cases where people have eventually gotten their freedom, but the years leading up to that can't fit in a two and a half minute news story. They cannot. But what it takes, people write to us and we have to go from those letters to a legal claim, which requires getting answers to our questions from the clients, collecting every piece of paper we can, talking to every witness we can. And then finally, we're in a position to be able to file something in court. But the way these cases work is that there are so many procedural hurdles for people who claim innocence that it's a lot better for the clients. It's a lot better for everybody if we can go to the prosecutor and say, hey, we think we have a case where this person is innocent. Why don't you and I work together? We can talk to the witnesses together. We can present you with our case, And you can decide whether you think they're innocent. This kind of presents a critical part of the relationship between prosecution and defense. Your office has to admit that they got something wrong in order for somebody to be let out eventually, and that's no easy thing to do. And looking at the bigger picture conversation that we have about why we have certain rules in place, why prosecutors have to clear certain hurdles in order to get convictions, people are often loathe to believe that people are actually innocent once the prosecution has done their job. So talk about informing the public that this happens, but you still need to trust our office as well. Sure. Well, you know, we tell the public all of the time that we're in the business of truth. So we are wanting to find the truth in every circumstance, in every case that comes before us. And so if the truth is that person is actually innocent, then we want to make sure that we do everything we can to make sure someone again is not wrongfully convicted and then the right person that or the person that has actually committed a crime uh is brought to justice and how do you balance doing this work without making it seem as if the prosecution is kind of the big bad wolf because sometimes that is the message that gets sent um with certain ways that cases go with prosecutorial immunity that happens sometimes i mean they are law enforcement and sometimes get painted with a broad brush? At the end of the day, all of these systems are run by people, and people make mistakes. We are all fallible. And I'm fallible, the prosecutors are fallible, the police are fallible. And I think the important thing for us to remember is you don't necessarily have to find a person to blame when there's a wrongful conviction. And at the end of the day, nobody wants to convict the wrong person. And so I think it's not that hard to approach prosecutors and to talk about these cases within that framework because, again, nobody wants this to happen. You guys want to put the right guy in prison. The victims want their correct person to be convicted. And so I just don't think we have to be adversarial because at the end of the day, we want the same thing, which is the right guy in the right place the right way. Oftentimes, these individuals who are wrongfully convicted become experts in our criminal justice system and contribute back in some way when they do find freedom. We've talked to the folks. There's an institute at Georgetown that does the same thing. Talk a little bit about what this means to people. You've been in this space for a while. Talk about what this means to people who experience the wrong end of the justice system and what they do on the back end. Sometimes they certainly don't have to. but often because they are the voice of a broken system that is broken sometimes. Yeah. I mean, everyone who writes to us and gets exonerated, they're all extraordinary because they're all doing something really hard, which is continuing to fight instead of giving up. And so you're absolutely right that so many of them, when they get out, want to take what happened to them, which is so traumatic and horrible, and use it to try to keep that from happening again. So, you know, I think one of the best examples in Maryland, there is something known as the Walter Lomax Act, which is named after a wrongfully convicted man named Walter Lomax, who spent years advocating for better compensation for people who end up exonerated. So Walter led that charge along with a group of like 10 other exonerees who at that point had even been compensated and they worked their tails off in the General Assembly to make sure the people who came after them wouldn't have to fight the way they did. Well, remarkable work that your team does. Remarkable for you to have this partnership moving forward and for both of you to work together. Thanks for talking to us about it. And as these cases continue, of course, keep us posted. We will. Thank you. We'll have more to come on In the Courts right after this quick break. Don't go away. Now to stories ripped from the headlines this week. Dwayne Davis, the man convicted of orchestrating the murder of famed music artist Tupac Shakur, was sentenced to 40 years to life in prison on Tuesday. Davis is the former head of the Southside Compton Crips, and the judge told him that the world never forgot about Tupac, and even though it took 30 years for justice, it finally arrived. Sean Diddy Combs is in a new federal prison. he was transferred from New Jersey to Pennsylvania after reports that he was living the life of luxury behind bars, cognac, a contraband phone, and inmate-provided massages and housekeeping. TMZ reports Diddy was also injured in a prison fight, which officials deny. His release date is now March 2028, after he lost 41 days of good conduct credit. Actress Selma Blair appeared in court this week after she was arrested on assault charges related to an incident that happened on an airplane that left multiple people with injuries. A 90s movie star is accused of biting a flight attendant and leaving lacerations on another. She also allegedly kicked a law enforcement officer and a nurse, according to CNN. She pleaded not guilty and was released on bail. Time now for sports in the courts. Former NFL star David Bell filed a whopping $300 million lawsuit against a surgeon who Bell claims ended his NFL career, nearly ended his life. According to the New York Post, the one-time Cleveland Browns wide receiver underwent core repair surgery that he was told would be low risk, but ended up landing him in the emergency room for vascular reconstruction. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court heard oral argument over the NCAA's new 5-for-5 eligibility rule. Court watchers believe the panel of judges was skeptical of the athletes' argument that they should be able to play one more year of college ball. If so, the court would lift a nationwide injunction that right now allows Division I athletes who started playing in 2022 to play for a fifth year. Still ahead tonight, we'll reward this week's legal loser. Don't go away. Maryland's only Republican congressman, Andy Harris, is the legal loser this week for not knowing the law while accusing others of violating it. He accused journalist Kat Murphy of committing a crime when she was recording him in a press gaggle. Take a look. You do not have my permission to record. If you record, we will refer you to the prosecutor. Everyone in here is recording. But you are not allowed to. We are in a two-party state. You are not allowed to record. Take her camera. You're going to have to take her camera. She is violating the law. In fact, get an officer in here. She's violating the law on two-party recording. The officer. We need an officer. He's referring to Maryland as a two-party consent state, which is correct. And it requires both parties to consent to a private conversation being recorded. The key is private. There has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's a legal term of art for two-party consent to kick in. It doesn't apply in a public forum when a public official is answering questions from the press. When another journalist tried to inform the congressman, he said he was a lawmaker and he knows the law quite well. That turns out not to be the case. We'll be back the same time next week But until then, have a good night everyone