faces

A number of witnesses have taken to the stand in the trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is facing allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking during his time as head of an entertainment empire.

Testimony in the trial began on Monday after the final phase of jury selection and opening statement from lawyers. Combs, donning a light-grey sweater, gave a thumbs-up to supporters in the courtroom in New York City in the United States.

“For 20 years, the defendant, with the help of his trusted inner circle, committed crime after crime,” Assistant US Attorney Emily Johnson told the court. “That’s why we are here today. That’s what this case is about.”

A number of witnesses testified that they had experienced physical violence, intimidation, and manipulation by Combs, while the rapper’s lawyers said that he has been charged with the wrong categories of crimes and “his kinky sex and his preferences for sex” were being portrayed as nefarious.

Attorney Teny Geragos told jurors that they may end up thinking Combs was a “jerk” or “kind of mean”, but that he is not being charged “with being mean or a jerk”.

“This case is about voluntary choices made by capable adults in consensual relationships,” Geragos said during her opening statement.

Johnson, the US attorney, said that Combs “viciously attacked” women who refused to participate in the parties that were called “freak offs”.

“They will tell you about some of the most painful experiences of their lives. The days they spent in hotel rooms, high on drugs, dressed in costumes to perform the defendant’s sexual fantasies,” Johnson told jurors of testimony from victims in the case.

‘She was shaking’

The courtroom became audibly silent as a video of Combs beating and kicking his former girlfriend Casandra Ventura in 2016 was shown.

A stripper named Daniel Phillip testified that Combs had thrown a liquor bottle towards Ventura before grabbing her by the hair and dragging her screaming into another room, where Phillip says he heard Combs yelling and beating Ventura.

“She literally jumped into my lap and she was shaking, like literally her whole entire body was shaking. She was terrified,” Phillip testified of Ventura.

Geragos conceded that Combs is prone to jealousy and had committed an act of “horrible, dehumanising violence” in the video shown to jurors, but that it was evidence of domestic abuse, not alleged acts of sex trafficking or racketeering that are at the centre of the case.

Prosecutors say that Combs, who faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison if convicted of all five felony counts to which he had pleaded not guilty, pushed women to engage in drug-fuelled parties and then blackmailed them with videos of their encounters.

Combs’s status as a high-profile entertainer has brought substantial attention to the trial, as well as larger debate about how powerful figures in sectors such as entertainment, business, sports, and politics often evade accountability for acts of abuse.

As the case began, the jury and alternates – 12 men and six women – were seated in the courtroom. Opening arguments started after the judge finished explaining the law as it relates to this trial, along with incidentals such as that a light breakfast will be provided to the jury in addition to lunch.

The jury for this case is essentially anonymous, meaning their identities are known to the court and the prosecution and defence, but will not be made public.

“We will keep your names and identities in confidence,” Subramanian told jurors.

It’s a common practice in federal cases to keep juries anonymous, particularly in sensitive, high-profile matters where juror safety can be a concern. Juror names also were kept from the public in US President Donald Trump’s criminal trial last year in state court in New York.

Subramanian urged jurors to judge the case only based on the evidence presented in court. It’s a standard instruction, but it carried added significance in this high-profile case, which has been the subject of intense media coverage.

“Anything you’ve seen or heard outside the courtroom is not evidence,” the judge said. “It must be disregarded.”

The California State Bar’s botched roll out of a new exam — a move that the cash-strapped agency made in the hopes of saving money — could ultimately end up costing it an additional $5.6 million.

Leah T. Wilson, executive director of the State Bar, told state lawmakers at a Senate Judiciary hearing Tuesday that the agency expects to pay around $3 million to offer free exams to test takers, an additional $2 million to book in-person testing sites in July, and $620,000 to return the test to its traditional system of multiple-choice questions in July.

Wilson, who announced last week she will step down when her term ends this summer, revealed the costs during a 90-minute hearing called by Sen. Thomas J. Umberg (D-Orange), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to find out what went so “spectacularly wrong.”

Chaos ensued in February when thousands of test takers seeking to practice law in California sat for the new exam. Some reported they couldn’t log into the exam because online testing platforms repeatedly crashed. Many experienced screen lags and error messages, struggled to finish and save essays and complained of multiple-choice questions that were worded improperly and included typos.

“The question is, how did we come to this place?” Umberg said at the beginning of the hearing. “And how do we make sure we never ever come back to this place?”

Last year, the State Bar was on the verge of a financial crisis when it announced a plan to develop a new bar exam: its 2024 budget forecast a deficit of $3.8 million in its admissions fund, which deals with fees and expenses related to administering the bar exam. The fund, it warned, faced insolvency in 2026.

The agency made plans to ditch the traditional national bar exam, which requires test takers sit in-person, and develop its own exam that would allow for remote testing. The State Bar promoted its plan as a “historic agreement” that would save up to $3.8 million a year.

It’s unclear how much the State Bar could pay next year if it goes back to experimenting with its own exam. Its expenses are likely to shift as it pursues a lawsuit against Meazure Learning, the vendor that administered the February test.

But the cost to the State Bar is not just financial. After the exam debacle, the agency faces the embarrassment of reverting to traditional in-person exams in July and the prospect of more scrutiny.

After hearing from February test takers, law school deans and leaders of the State Bar, the Senate committee approved an independent review of the exam by the California State Auditor.

Test taker Andrea Lynch told lawmakers she faced constant disruptions during the exam from proctors, technical glitches and computer crashes. Near the end, as she prepared to begin a final section of the exam, a message popped up telling her her exam had been submitted before she’d even seen the questions.

“This was just not a technical failure,” Lynch told lawmakers. “It was a systemic failure, a breakdown in the integrity, accessibility and fairness of one of the most important professional milestones in the legal profession. I urge this committee to consider what it means when a test intended to uphold justice fails to deliver it to its own applicants.”

The State Bar has filed a civil complaint against Meazure Learning in Los Angeles Superior Court, accusing the vendor of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract by claiming it could administer a remote and in-person exam in a two-day window.

But critics of the State Bar argue that agency leadership bears responsibility for failing to take enough time to develop the new test.

Jessica Berg, Dean of UC Davis School of Law, told lawmakers that the State Bar’s rush to roll out of the bar exam and lack of transparency throughout the process caused financial and emotional harm to the test takers and significant financial and reputational harm to the State Bar and the state of California.

“The problems that we saw with the bar exam were absolutely predictable and they rest on two pieces of what was going on here — problems with the substance of the exam and problems with the administration of the exam,” Berg said.

The hearing explored problems with the exam’s multiple-choice questions.

Two weeks ago, the State Bar revealed that its independent psychometrician — who measures the reliability of exams and recommends scoring adjustments, but is not a lawyer — drafted a subset of 29 multiple-choice questions using artificial intelligence.

Under questioning by Umberg, Wilson, the State Bar’s executive director, admitted “no lawyer assisted in the initial drafting.” She said she did not find out until after the exam that some questions were drafted by Chat GPT.

Wilson also admitted that the State Bar did not copy edit test questions ahead of the exam.

Asked when she learned that some multiple-choice questions had typos, Wilson said after the exam “when I saw it on Reddit.”

Then, Sen. Umberg raised a new concern: the fairness of exam grading.

The State Bar announced Monday that the pass rate for the February exam was 55.9%, the highest spring pass rate since 1965. Last February, the pass rate was significantly lower at 33.9%.

“I don’t think anyone here has any interest in going back and revisiting this issue for those who pass the bar, but what it tells me is that there are issues with respect to grading,” Umberg said.

“How do you account for this huge disparity between what happened in the February bar in terms of passage rate and what’s happened historically?” he asked.

Alex Chan, an attorney who serves as chair of the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners, said that despite the bar exam’s problems, the grading process remained rigorous and consistent with previous administrations. He attributed the high passing score to the California Supreme Court’s approval of his committee’s petition to lower the total raw passing score for general bar exam takers to 534 points or higher on the essay, performance test and multiple-choice questions.

“The scoring adjustments were not designed to be lenient in any way,” Chan said. “They were designed to be fair and measured in light of the circumstances and the unprecedented and well documented technical failures.”

Wilson also noted that the February 2025 test takers had a higher average raw score on the written section of the bar exam than their 2024 or 2023 cohorts. “This is without any psychometric adjustment,” she said. “So looking apples to apples, these 2025 test takers performed better.”

“So this deviation was because they were smarter,” said Umberg. “What would the passage rate have been if the score wasn’t lowered?”

Donna S. Hershkowitz, the State Bar’s chief of admissions, said the overall pass rate would have been 46.9% — still significantly higher than normal— if the minimum raw passing score had not been lowered.

“I’ll be curious as to what happens next year when we use the old format,” Umberg said. “In any event — again to assure those who pass — we’re not going to go back.”

BOXER Tyson Fury’s dad faces trial next year over claims he drove down a closed motorway lane.

Ex-bare knuckle fighter John, 59, is accused of ignoring signs it was shut for safety reasons.

2

2

His 1992 Mercedes 190E was picked up by a camera on a smart section of the M6 between Keele and Stoke last July.

Smart motorways, which operate without a hard shoulder, have displays above each lane indicating if it is open.

If it is closed, the screen displays a red ‘X’, with all traffic forced to move across.

He was charged via post but is said to have failed to give details to Staffordshire Police about who was driving.

Mr Fury, of Wilmslow Cheshire, did not appear at North Staffordshire Justice Centre yesterday.

But the prosecution said he had submitted a hand-written plea of not guilty to two offences.

A trial date was set for February 23 next year.

Fury was in his son’s corner when Tyson lost his first world titles fight with Ukraine’s Oleksandr Usyk last May.

Washington, DC – A bill in the United States Congress that aims to penalise the boycotting of countries friendly to the US is facing opposition from allies of President Donald Trump over free speech concerns, putting its passage in jeopardy.

According to Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a vote in the House of Representatives on the proposal, previously scheduled for Monday, has been cancelled.

Although Trump’s Republican Party has been leading legislative efforts to crack down on boycotts of Israel, over the past days, several conservatives close to the US president voiced opposition to the bill, dubbed the International Governmental Organization (IGO) Anti-Boycott Act.

“It is my job to defend American’s rights to buy or boycott whomever they choose without the government harshly fining them or imprisoning them,” Greene said in a social media post on Monday.

“But what I don’t understand is why we are voting on a bill on behalf of other countries and not the President’s executive orders that are FOR OUR COUNTRY???”

Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing activist and commentator, also said that the bill should not pass.

“In America you are allowed to hold differing views. You are allowed to disagree and protest,” Kirk wrote on X on Sunday. “We’ve allowed far too many people who hate America move here from abroad, but the right to speak freely is the birthright of all Americans.”

Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser and influential right-wing media personality, backed the comments of Kirk and Greene, writing on the social media platform Gettr, “Fact check: True” and “Agreed” in response to their statements, respectively.

IGO Anti-Boycott Act

The proposed legislation was introduced by pro-Israel hawks in the US Congress, Republican Mike Lawler and Democrat Josh Gottheimer, in January, and it has been co-sponsored by 22 other lawmakers from both major parties.

The bill would expand a 2018 law that bans coercive boycotts imposed by foreign governments to include international governmental organisations (IGOs).

The original legislation prohibits boycotting a country friendly to the US based on an “agreement with, a requirement of, or a request from or on behalf” of another nation. It imposes penalties of up to $1m and 20 years in prison for violations.

Expanding the legislation to include IGOs risks penalising individuals and companies in the US that boycott firms listed by the United Nations as doing business in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

While the bill itself does not explicitly mention Israel, its drafters have said that it targets the UN and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, which calls for economic pressure on the Israeli government to end its abuses against Palestinians.

“This change targets harmful and inherently anti-Semitic BDS efforts at IGOs, such as the UN, by extending protections already in place for boycotts instigated by foreign countries,” Lawler’s office said in January.

States and the federal government have been passing anti-BDS laws for years, raising the alarm about the violation of free speech rights, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Numerous legal cases have challenged these laws, and some judges have ruled that they are unconstitutional, while others have upheld them.

Rights groups and Palestinian rights advocates have argued that anti-boycott laws aim to shut down the debate about Israel and criminalise peaceful resistance against its violations of international law.

Anti-BDS crackdown

Over the years, leading UN agencies and rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including imposing apartheid on Palestinians.

But supporters of anti-BDS laws say the measures are designed to combat discrimination against Israel and regulate trade, not speech.

Such laws have mainly faced opposition from progressive Democrats, but the IGO Anti-Boycott Act has generated anger from right-wing politicians, too.

“Americans have the right to boycott, and penalizing this risks free speech. I reject and vehemently condemn antisemitism but I cannot violate the first amendment,” Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, wrote on X.

I agree with @RepMTG .
I’ll be voting No on this bill as well. https://t.co/YOPga59Xyc

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) May 4, 2025

The right-wing rejection of the Lawler-Gottheimer bill comes as the Trump administration continues with its push to target criticism of and protests against Israel, especially on college campuses.

Since Trump took office, the US government has revoked the visas of hundreds of students for activism against Israel’s war on Gaza.

Several students, including legal permanent residents, have been jailed over allegations of anti-Semitism and “spreading Hamas propaganda”.

Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish graduate student at Tufts University, has been detained since March, and the only known allegation against her is co-authoring an op-ed calling on her college to honour the student senate’s call for divesting from Israeli companies.

Trump has also frozen and threatened to freeze federal funding for several universities, including Harvard, over pro-Palestine protests.

In his first meeting with his players since being appointed Gareth Southgate’s successor, Tuchel told his players they only have a minimal period working together before next summer’s World Cup.

Tuchel and the FA’s decision over releasing players could impact as many as 12 players.

Chelsea contingent Cole Palmer, Reece James, Levi Colwill and Noni Madueke could be selected by Tuchel.

Players from Manchester City, Chelsea, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid – who are all involved in the inaugural Club World Cup – could all be selected in Tuchel’s squad for the international double-header.

Captain Harry Kane is at Bayern Munich while Jude Bellingham plays for Real Madrid and fellow midfielder Conor Gallagher for Atletico Madrid.

Should all players remain with the England squad, Chelsea could be the worst hit.

Teams competing at the Club World Cup are required to arrive in the USA no later than three days before their opening tie.

With that in mind, Enzo Maresca’s side face a potential Europa Conference League final in Poland on 28 May – three days after the final day of the Premier League season – before joining up for international duty.

Their first game of the Club World Cup is against Leon on 16 June – six days after the clash versus Senegal.

Manchester City’s first game of the tournament is on 18 June versus Wydad AC.

Bayern play Auckland City and Atletico face Paris St-Germain on on 15 June while Real are up against Al Hilal on 18 June.

Speaking in March, Tuchel hinted towards his reluctance to do favours for club managers saying: “I take care of the players. We take care about the schedule. But it would be the wrong signal to tell players now ‘hey, you have tough [club] matches coming up so I rest you now’.

“We do what’s good for us. We monitor them, we are in contact with the clubs, we are in high-level monitoring where the statuses are known and we won’t take any unprofessional risks. Because first of all I feel responsible for the players. I don’t want the player to be injured.

“So this is where it is and in the end we take care of ourselves and the clubs take care of themselves, and the main focus is taking care of the players.

“I experienced it many, many times in clubs that players from South American countries don’t even think about dropping one minute because they want to play for their country, they’re proud to play for their country. This is also something that we have to understand and accept.

“I always accepted it as a club manager. I never got involved in line-ups. I never pushed any national coach because I was hoping that my players get picked. I was also hoping that they are proud to play.”

Cardinals will gather on May 7 in a conclave in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope.

United States President Donald Trump has faced backlash, including from Catholics, after he posted an artificial intelligence-generated photo showing himself as the pope days in advance of a conclave to elect the next pontiff.

Trump, who is not a Catholic and does not attend church regularly, posted the image on his Truth Social platform late on Friday, less than a week after attending the funeral of Pope Francis, who died last month at the age of 88. The White House then reposted it on its official X account.

The image shows an unsmiling Trump seated in an ornate chair, dressed in white papal vestments and headdress, with his right forefinger raised.

It came after Trump joked to reporters this week that he would like to be the next pope, just days before cardinals are due to start the conclave to elect the successor of Pope Francis.

pic.twitter.com/x2HrR939tn

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) May 3, 2025

Asked who he would like to succeed Francis, Trump said: “I’d like to be pope, that would be my number one choice.”

Trump went on to say he did not have a preference, but said there was a cardinal in New York who was “very good”.

He appeared to be referring to the archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, a theological conservative and fiercely opposed to abortion.

‘Blatant insult to Catholics’

The irreverent posting, however, drew instant outrage on X, including from Republicans against Trump, a group that describes itself as “pro-democracy conservative Republicans fighting Trump & Trumpism”. The group reposted the image, calling it “a blatant insult to Catholics and a mockery of their faith”.

The New York State Catholic Conference, which says it represents bishops of the state in working with the government, voiced sharp criticism of the picture.

“There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President,” it wrote in a post on X.

“We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us.”

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni declined to comment on the image during a briefing with journalists about the process of electing a new pope, which begins on May 7.

Former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi wrote on X: “This is an image that offends believers, insults institutions and shows that the leader of the global right enjoys being a clown. In the meantime, the American economy risks recession and the dollar loses value.”

Italy’s left-leaning La Repubblica also featured the image on its homepage on Saturday with a commentary accusing Trump of “pathological megalomania”.

When asked to respond to the criticism, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: “President Trump flew to Italy to pay his respects for Pope Francis and attend his funeral, and he has been a staunch champion for Catholics and religious liberty.”

Pope Francis had arguably been one of the most powerful moral voices on the world stage critical of Trump.

When Trump first ran for president in 2016, Francis was unsparing on his signature promise to build a border wall to seal off Mexico.

Francis had told reporters: “Anyone, whoever he is, who only wants to build walls and not bridges is not a Christian.”

Cardinals will gather on May 7 in a conclave in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope.