The bodies of two missing persons are found in a car trunk, and the BAU suspects that an interstate human trafficking ring is at work. Also, Hotch warns the team of possible changes, and they are surprised when a beloved team member returns, on the sixth season finale of CRIMINAL MINDS, Wednesday, May 18 (9:00-10:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
EL PASO, Texas – A well-known San Antonio criminal defense attorney will be representing 21-year-old Patrick Crusius, the man suspected of shooting dozens of people in El Paso.
Mark Stevens on Monday confirmed to our ABC affiliate KSAT in San Antonio that he was appointed by the court to Crusius’ case. Crusius is charged with capital murder after the mass shooting on Saturday at an El Paso Walmart. El Paso County District Attorney Jaime Esparza previously said he will seek the death penalty in the case.
Stevens has defended multiple murder and capital murder suspects in Texas, and he is ranked as one of the top 50 lawyers in west and central Texas by Key Professional Media, Inc.
ABC-7 caught up with Stevens when he flew into El Paso Internal Airport from San Antonio on Monday evening, but he declined to comment on the case.
According to his website, Stevens graduated from law school in 1979 and was board certified in criminal law in 1984.
His new client Crusius is currently being held without bond at the El Paso County jail.
In his application for a public defender, Crusius said he has been unemployed for five months and has no income, assets or expenses.
He also said that he had been living with his grandparents, according to the document filed with the El Paso County district clerk’s office which indicates that Crusius qualifies for a court-appointed attorney.
Police shut down streets around Crusius’ grandparents’ home in the Dallas suburb of Allen in the hours after the mass shooting more than 600 miles away. The FBI said agents searched their home and two other homes where Crusius had stayed.
Larry and Cynthia Brown said in a statement read by a family friend that their grandson moved out six weeks ago.
(The Associated Press contributed background to this report.)
- The US government is warning that attempting to change the $5 billion FTC settlement with Facebook could result in a far worse deal.
- Critics have savaged the settlement, arguing it is ineffectual, and non-profit EPIC has sought to get involved in the legal process.
- US attorneys counter that there’s no guarantee that the ultimate outcome of this could produce better results than the FTC managed.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
The US government has a warning for critics of the Federal Trade Commission’s $5 billion settlement with Facebook over privacy issues: Don’t be so sure a better outcome is possible.
The FTC recently reached a multi-billion dollar settlement with the Californian social media giant over alleged violations of a 2011 consent order concerning its handling of users’ data. It’s a record-breaking fine — but critics have argued that it is ultimately ineffectual, amounting to only a fraction of Facebook’s annual profits, and it’s not accompanied by any more fundamental structural changes to the company’s business model.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a privacy-focused non-profit organization, is one such critic. It filed a motion to intervene in the case, arguing the settlement “is not adequate, reasonable, or appropriate” — and now US government lawyers are hitting back.
In a court filing on Monday, US attorneys argue that EPIC is seeking “to intervene to place itself in the government’s shoes because it wishes the Stipulated Order were different.” They argue that EPIC doesn’t have proper grounds to get involved in the case, and also make an interesting argument as to the risks of any such meddling from third parties.
“Contending that ‘[t]he proposed settlement fails to safeguard the interests of Facebook users’ … EPIC presumably wants the Court to reject the proposed settlement in favor of some other penalty against Facebook that would—in EPIC’s opinion—safeguard Facebook users’ interests,” the filing reads.
“But it is pure conjecture that rejecting the proposed settlement would lead to a different or better outcome that would ‘safeguard the interests of Facebook users’ in the manner EPIC’s prefers. Indeed, rejecting the settlement could yield multiple other outcomes in litigation or later settlement far worse for consumers.”
In other words, the US government is arguing: If the settlement went to court the ultimate outcome might be significantly worse for ordinary consumers than it is now.
To be sure, there’s always a risk when you choose to litigate a matter in court. But it’s worth noting that the settlement the FTC ultimately struck with Facebook is markedly weaker than options that were at one point being considered. The FTC explored the possibility of fining Facebook tens of billions of dollars, and holding CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally accountable, but that did not ultimately happen.
Got a tip? Contact this reporter via encrypted messaging app Signal at +1 (650) 636-6268 using a non-work phone, email at firstname.lastname@example.org, Telegram or WeChat at robaeprice, or Twitter DM at @robaeprice. (PR pitches by email only, please.) You can also contact Business Insider securely via SecureDrop.
- Mark Zuckerberg’s personal security chief accused of sexual harassment and making racist remarks about Priscilla Chan by 2 former staffers
- Facebook says it ‘unintentionally uploaded’ 1.5 million people’s email contacts without their consent
- Years of Mark Zuckerberg’s old Facebook posts have vanished. The company says it ‘mistakenly deleted’ them.
- Car-bomb fears and stolen prototypes: Inside Facebook’s efforts to protect its 80,000 workers around the globe