Judge」タグアーカイブ

Judge Judy is the highest-paid TV host of 2018

Judge Judy had an incredibly lucrative year in 2018 and, as a result, topped the list of the highest-paid television hosts by a wide margin.

According to Forbes’ ranking, the stern courtroom personality, whose real name is Judy Sheindlin, reportedly pocketed $ 147 million pretax this year, making her the highest-grossing host. In second was Ellen DeGeneres, whose work on her daytime talk show earned her $ 87.5 million.

Forbes calculates its information based on a window between June 2017 and June 2018. The numbers are evaluated based on a number of sources including Nielsen ratings, IMDB, Box Office Mojo and interviews with other industry insiders.

While Sheindlin makes decent money for her work on “Judge Judy” and as a producer on “Hot Bench,” 2018 proved especially fruitful thanks to the sale of her back catalog of 5,200 episodes to CBS. The outlet estimates this earned her an extra $ 100 million on top of the $ 47 million she typically gets annually.

The extra influx of cash rockets Judge Judy to become Forbes’ 48th richest self-made woman in America with an estimated net worth of $ 400 million.

Daytime TV hosts took the top 5 spots on the list, despite many late-night and primetime hosts getting more media attention. Behind DeGeneres was Dr. Phil McGraw ($ 77.5 million) for his work on “The Bull,” “The Doctors” and “Daily Mail TV.”

Behind him was Ryan Seacrest ($ 74 million), who added “American Idol” back to his already-busy work schedule which includes producing “Keeping Up With The Kardashians” and hosting “Live with Kelly and Ryan.”

Steve Harvey ($ 44 million) rounded out the list thanks to his talk show “Steve,” which launched last year, as well as the growing popularity of “Family Feud.”

NYC jogger Karina Vetrano murder case declared mistrial by judge

A mistrial was declared Tuesday night in the trial of a man accused of beating and strangling a woman who was jogging in New York City more than two years ago.

Chanel Lewis, 22, pleaded not guilty to murder and sexual abuse charges in the death of Karina Vetrano, 30.

GRUESOME DETAILS OF NEW YORK CITY JOGGER’S MURDER REVEALED AT ACCUSED KILLER’S TRIAL

The woman was jogging in Howard Beach, Queens in August 2016 when she was attacked “until she could not struggle anymore.” Prosecutors said her body was left naked in a weed-covered patch of land before her attacker robbed her and fled the scene.

A judge on Tuesday declared a mistrial in Lewis’ case after the jury could not agree on a verdict following a two-week trial, the New York Post reported.

“After deliberating for the entire day we are split. It doesn’t seem like we can make progress,” the jury wrote in a note to the judge Tuesday. “We feel that we have exhausted all of our options.”

Lewis’ attorney reportedly moved for a mistrial, which the judge granted. Prosecutors said they plan to move to retry Lewis in court. The suspect is due back in court Jan. 22.

Authorities arrested Lewis in February 2017 after his DNA matched samples from the murder scene, officials said. He admitted to the murder in a taped confession, but Lewis’ lawyers said the statement was coerced.

FLASHBACK: MAN INDICTED IN RAPE AND MURDER OF NYC JOGGER KARINA VETRANO

In his closing statement on Monday, Queens Assistant District Attorney Brad Leventhal described to the jury Vetrano’s ordeal.

“[Lewis] went to the park — Spring Creek Park. It was that fateful day that he came across Karina Vetrano jogging,” Leventhal said, according to the Post. “He was angry, he was mad, and he took out his anger on Karina Vetrano, grabbing her, beating her, throwing her to the ground and strangling her until she was dead — his words.”

Leventhal added there was strong evidence linking Lewis to the case, alleging he is “the man whose hands were wrapped around [Karina Vetrano’s] neck, squeezing her neck, squeezing her throat, choking the life out of her body. He absolutely left something at the crime scene — his genetic fingerprint.”

Lewis, if found guilty, faced up to life in prison.

Fox News’ Katherine Lam contributed to this report.

Judge bars US from enforcing Trump administration’s asylum ban

A federal judge in San Francisco on Monday barred the Trump administration from refusing asylum to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally, likely prompting a legal challenge from the White House.

Trump issued a proclamation on Nov. 9 that said anyone who crossed the southern border would be ineligible for asylum.

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama in 2012 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order after hearing arguments in San Francisco.

The request was made by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which quickly sued after President Trump issued the ban this month in response to the caravans of migrants that have started to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Baher Azmy, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “Individuals are entitled to asylum if they cross between ports of entry. It couldn’t be clearer.”

Migrants who cross illegally are generally arrested and often seek asylum or some other form of protection.

On Monday, the U.S. closed off northbound traffic for several hours at the busiest border crossing with Mexico to install new security barriers, and also closed one of two pedestrian crossings at the San Ysidro crossing in a move apparently aimed at preventing any mass rush of migrants across the border.

U.S. border inspectors are processing only about 100 asylum claims a day at Tijuana’s main crossing to San Diego. Asylum seekers register their names in a tattered notebook managed by migrants themselves that had more than 3,000 names even before the caravan arrived.

Fox News’ Gregg Re  and the Associated Press contributed to this report

Ex-Ohio judge who violently assaulted wife in 2014, served less than year in prison, arrested in her murder

A disgraced former Ohio judge was arrested Saturday after allegedly stabbing his wife to death at her home — two years after he served time in prison for a brutal attack on her that was witnessed by his daughters and required reconstructive surgery.

The Shaker Heights police department said in a statement former judge Lance Mason, 51, was taken into custody Saturday in connection with the death of his ex-wife, 45-year-old Aisha Fraser. Mason has not yet been charged.

Authorities had responded to a domestic violence call involving Mason at the home just after 9 a.m. Saturday, FOX8 reported. After stabbing Fraser, Mason fled the scene and crashed his car into a police cruiser before being arrested, officials told Cleveland.com. An officer sustained non-life threatening injuries in the crash and had to be taken to a hospital.

Lance Mason, 51, was arrested after he stabbing his estranged wife to death, according to police. Aisha Fraser, 44, was killed in her home in Shaker Heights, just outside of Cleveland.

Lance Mason, 51, was arrested after he stabbing his estranged wife to death, according to police. Aisha Fraser, 44, was killed in her home in Shaker Heights, just outside of Cleveland.

The 51-year-old previously pleaded guilty to charges of domestic violence and attempted felonious assault for attacking his then-wife in 2014. In that incident, police said Mason viciously choked, punched 20 times, slammed and even bit his wife in front of his two daughters, according to FOX8.

Fraser was so severely injured in the assault she needed reconstructive surgery on her face. She filed for divorce two days after the incident, Cleveland.com reported.

Mason previously pleaded guilty to charges of domestic violence and attempted felonious assault for attacking his then-wife in 2014.

Mason previously pleaded guilty to charges of domestic violence and attempted felonious assault for attacking his then-wife in 2014. (FOX8)

Mason was sentenced to two years in prison, but was only behind bars from Sept. 2015 to June 2016 before being released. He then ended up being hired as Minority Business Development Administrator in Cleveland’s Office of Equal Opportunity, beating out 15 other candidates for the $ 45,000-per-year job.

NEW JERSEY COUPLE ON WAY TO WEDDING KILLED IN CHAIN REACTION CRASH

At the time of his hiring, city officials told FOX8 that Mason was “simply the most qualified candidate for this position,” and that his application did not include a criminal record. In 2011, Cleveland eliminated a box on its job applications to be checked by those convicted of crimes. He was terminated from the job on Saturday after he was taken into custody, FOX8 reported.

His estranged wife was a 6th grade teacher at Woodbury Elementary School in Shaker Heights, and news of her death drew an outpouring of grief from the community. The superintendent of the Shaker Heights City School District, Dr. Stephen Wilkins, called the killing a “difficult time” for the community.

Mason was sentenced to two years in prison, but was only behind bars from Sept. 2015 through June 2016 before he was released.

Mason was sentenced to two years in prison, but was only behind bars from Sept. 2015 through June 2016 before he was released.

“Aisha was a devoted mother and a longtime committed teacher to Woodbury students,” Wilkins said in a statement. “She touched so many of our children’s lives and will be deeply missed. Her loss is unexpected and the impact of this news on our entire school community is unimaginable and profound.”

NORTH CAROLINA TEACHER KILLED BY MEXICAN DRUG DEALER, OFFICIAL SAYS

Friends and colleagues echoed the sentiments about Fraser’s impacts on the community.

“Aisha had this special connection with every kid and I felt like she was a mother to everyone and anyone,” Brytnee Crenshaw told FOX8. “She was so special. She was never down. She was always so happy and cheerful and I feel like we lost a great person.”

A candlelight vigil is set to be held in her memory on Monday night at the school where she taught.

Reagan shooter, John Hinckley, can move out of mom’s house, judge rules

The man who tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan can move out of his mother’s house in Virginia and live on his own, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman granted John Hinckley Jr. the largest measure of freedom he’s had since shooting and wounding Reagan and three others outside a Washington hotel in 1981.

Hinckley was confined for decades to St. Elizabeths Hospital in the nation’s capital. Starting in 2006, he began to make trips to visit his mother, who is now in her 90s and lives in a gated community in Williamsburg. He moved in with her in 2016.

The judge wrote Friday that the 63-year-old Hinckley can now live within 75 miles of that city as long as Hinckley’s doctors give their approval on the location.

Hinckley still must live under a long list of conditions. They include meeting at least twice a month with a social worker, a psychiatrist and a therapist. He can’t own a gun or consume alcohol or drugs.

He’s also barred from contacting his victims’ families or traveling anywhere where there are former or current U.S. presidents, vice presidents and members of Congress. He must carry a GPS-enabled cellphone when he’s away from home.

Friedman, who is a judge in the District of Columbia, wrote that a forensic psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist supported the changes to the conditions of Hinckley’s release.

Friedman also wrote that “this court finds that Mr. Hinckley will not pose a danger to himself or others if he is permitted to continue residing full-time in Williamsburg, Virginia, on convalescent leave under the proposed conditions.”

It’s possible that Hinckley could be granted even more independence in the future. His attorney, Barry Levine, said he’ll request unconditional release for Hinckley. The next court date is scheduled for June.

Reagan shooter, John Hinckley, can move out of mom’s house, judge rules

The man who tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan can move out of his mother’s house in Virginia and live on his own, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman granted John Hinckley Jr. the largest measure of freedom he’s had since shooting and wounding Reagan and three others outside a Washington hotel in 1981.

Hinckley was confined for decades to St. Elizabeths Hospital in the nation’s capital. Starting in 2006, he began to make trips to visit his mother, who is now in her 90s and lives in a gated community in Williamsburg. He moved in with her in 2016.

The judge wrote Friday that the 63-year-old Hinckley can now live within 75 miles of that city as long as Hinckley’s doctors give their approval on the location.

Hinckley still must live under a long list of conditions. They include meeting at least twice a month with a social worker, a psychiatrist and a therapist. He can’t own a gun or consume alcohol or drugs.

He’s also barred from contacting his victims’ families or traveling anywhere where there are former or current U.S. presidents, vice presidents and members of Congress. He must carry a GPS-enabled cellphone when he’s away from home.

Friedman, who is a judge in the District of Columbia, wrote that a forensic psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist supported the changes to the conditions of Hinckley’s release.

Friedman also wrote that “this court finds that Mr. Hinckley will not pose a danger to himself or others if he is permitted to continue residing full-time in Williamsburg, Virginia, on convalescent leave under the proposed conditions.”

It’s possible that Hinckley could be granted even more independence in the future. His attorney, Barry Levine, said he’ll request unconditional release for Hinckley. The next court date is scheduled for June.

Judge postpones decision in CNN lawsuit over Jim Acosta’s press pass

(CNN)Lawyers for CNN and the Trump administration are awaiting an initial ruling on the network's federal lawsuit over press access to the White House. And they're going to have to wait a little while longer.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly heard nearly two hours of oral arguments about CNN's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on Wednesday. Then he said court would reconvene Thursday at 3 p.m.
But on Thursday afternoon, he rescheduled the next hearing for Friday at 10 a.m.
    If Kelly grants CNN's requests on Friday, CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta would get his press pass back for a short period of time. If it's denied, Acosta's pass will remain suspended.
    Either way, this is just round one. By filing for a temporary restraining order, CNN is seeking what's known as "emergency relief." CNN is arguing that Acosta's First Amendment rights are being violated every day he is banned from White House grounds.
    CNN is also asking for "permanent relief," meaning a declaration from the judge that President Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass was unconstitutional. This legal conclusion could protect other reporters from retaliation by the administration.
    But the judge will not be ruling on that yet. Kelly is only expected to weigh in on the temporary status of Acosta's press pass.
    Further hearings are likely to take place in the next few weeks, according to CNN's lawyers.
    The White House took the unprecedented step of suspending Acosta's access after he had a combative exchange with Trump at last week's post-midterms press conference. CNN sought a resolution for several days before filing suit on Tuesday.
    The resulting lawsuit by both CNN and Acosta alleges violations of the First and Fifth Amendments. The defendants are Trump and several of his top aides.
    The case was assigned to Kelly, a Trump appointee who has been on the federal bench just more than a year now. He was very inquisitive at Wednesday's hearing, asking tough questions of both sides, drilling particularly deep into some of CNN's arguments.
    Attorney Theodore Boutrous, representing CNN in court, called Trump's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness."
    "What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were, no one could have gone to the press conference."
    Boutrous also commented that Trump is "the most aggressive, dare I say rude, person in the room" at press conferences.
    After Boutrous spoke, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the Trump White House has the legal right to kick out any reporter at any time for any reason.
    Burnham, who's been tasked with defending Trump, was responding to a hypothetical from Kelly. Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's press pass if it didn't agree with their reporting. "As a matter of law... yes," he said.
    Burnham's comment in court made the stakes of CNN v. Trump crystal clear.
    On Thursday, the White House Correspondents' Association asked to file an amicus brief backing up CNN's suit. In the brief, lawyers for the association -- which represents the White House press corps -- write that the administration's stance is "wrong" and "dangerous."
      "Simply stated, if the President were to have the absolute discretion to strip a correspondent of a hard pass, the chilling effect would be severe and the First Amendment protections afforded journalists to gather and report news on the activities on the President would be largely eviscerated," the association says in the brief.
      More than a dozen major news outlets -- most of CNN's rivals -- have also filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting CNN's action.

      Judge orders White House to return Jim Acosta’s press pass

      (CNN)Federal judge Timothy J. Kelly sided with CNN on Friday, ordering the White House to reinstate chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass.

      The ruling was an initial victory for CNN in its lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides.
      The lawsuit alleges that CNN and Acosta's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the suspension of Acosta's press pass.
        Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order.
        This result means that Acosta will have his access to the White House restored for at least a short period of time. The judge said while explaining his decision that he believes that CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case overall.
        Kelly made his ruling on the basis of CNN and Acosta's Fifth Amendment claims, saying the White House did not provide Acosta with the due process required to legally revoke his press pass.
        He left open the possibility, however, that the White House could seek to revoke it again if it provided that due process, emphasizing the "very limited" nature of his ruling and saying he was not making a judgment on the First Amendment claims that CNN and Acosta have made.
        Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate.
        Acosta spoke briefly outside the court and thanked his colleagues in the press who supported the lawsuit. "Let's get back to work," he said.
        Ted Boutrous, an outside attorney representing CNN, said "This is a great day for the First Amendment and journalism."
        In a statement, CNN said, "We are gratified with this result and we look forward to a full resolution in the coming days. Our sincere thanks to all who have supported not just CNN, but a free, strong and independent American press."
        CNN has also asked for "permanent relief," meaning a declaration from the judge that Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass was unconstitutional. This legal conclusion could protect other reporters from retaliation by the administration.
        "The revocation of Acosta's credentials is only the beginning," CNN's lawsuit alleged, pointing out that Trump has threatened to strip others' press passes too.
        That is one of the reasons why most of the country's major news organizations have backed CNN's lawsuit, turning this into an important test of press freedom.
        But the judge will rule on all of that later. Further hearings are likely to take place in the next few weeks, according to CNN's lawyers.
        The White House took the unprecedented step of suspending Acosta's access after he had a combative exchange with Trump at last week's post-midterms press conference. CNN privately sought a resolution for several days before filing suit on Tuesday.
        The defendants include Trump, press secretary Sarah Sanders, and chief of staff John Kelly.
        Kelly heard oral arguments from both sides on Wednesday afternoon.
        Kelly, a Trump appointee who has been on the federal bench just more than a year now, was very inquisitive at Wednesday's hearing, asking tough questions of both sides, drilling particularly deep into some of CNN's arguments.
        Then he said he would issue a ruling Thursday afternoon. He later postponed it until Friday morning, leaving both sides wondering about the reason for the delay.
        In public, the White House continued to argue that Acosta deserves to be blacklisted because he was too aggressive at the press conference.
        Speaking with Robert Costa at a Washington Post Live event on Thursday, White House communications official Mercedes Schlapp said press conferences have a "certain decorum," and suggested that Acosta violated that. "In that particular incident, we weren't going to tolerate the bad behavior of this one reporter," she said. Schlapp repeated the "bad behavior" claim several times.
        When Costa asked if the White House is considering yanking other press passes. Schlapp said "I'm not going to get into any internal deliberations that are happening."
        In court on Wednesday, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the Trump White House has the legal right to kick out any reporter at any time for any reason -- a position that is a dramatic break from decades of tradition.
        While responding to a hypothetical from Kelly, Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's press pass if it didn't agree with their reporting. "As a matter of law... yes," he said.
          The White House Correspondents' Association -- which represents reporters from scores of different outlets -- said the government's stance is "wrong" and "dangerous."
          "Simply stated," the association's lawyers wrote in a brief on Thursday, "if the President were to have the absolute discretion to strip a correspondent of a hard pass, the chilling effect would be severe and the First Amendment protections afforded journalists to gather and report news on the activities on the President would be largely eviscerated."

          U.S. judge gives Florida voters until Saturday to resolve signature challenges

          A U.S. federal judge on Thursday gave voters in Florida whose signatures on ballots were rejected by county election officials until Saturday afternoon to resolve the challenges as a recount continues in close-fought races for a U.S. Senate seat and governor of the state.


          Read more…