Three of the five former Memphis police officers charged and convicted in connection with the 2023 death of Tyré Nichols are getting a new federal trial, The Daily Memphian reports. U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman ruled that Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith will get a new trial based on comments U.S. District Judge Mark Norris made just days after their 2024 federal trial ended. Norris, who had presided over the case since its inception, recused himself in June. Lipman also granted a motion from the newspaper to unseal records in the case, including the reason for the recusal. The paper reports those records show that Norris said he could not meet with anybody from the Memphis Police Department about an investigation into the attempted murder of one of his law clerks because it is “infiltrated to the top with gang members.” Attorneys for Bean, Haley and Smith argued that comment violated their due process rights and that Norris should have recused himself from the case before the trial.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Two Hillsdale College students filed separate complaints that individual classmates sexually assaulted them. At the end of an allegedly inadequate discipline and investigation process, they sued Hillsdale for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and discrimination. The district court dismissed their complaint for failing to state a claim. We affirm.

The Defendant, Marcus Levon Somerville, appeals from his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his requests for judicial diversion and alternative sentencing. Additionally, he notes that the record is devoid of any proof that he affirmatively entered a guilty plea. After review, we agree that the Defendant never pled guilty to these offenses, rendering his convictions void as a matter of law. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are reversed, the Defendant’s convictions are vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Tennessee Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence has long provided legal help to immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking, assisting them in applying for special visas that are set aside for those who cooperate with police. As of June 30, however, the group’s immigrant legal clinic closed after the Tennessee Office of Criminal Justice Programs ended immigrant legal aid grants. Jennifer Escue, the coalition’s CEO, said the cut leaves already vulnerable victims with few legal alternatives. “They’re not going to get help, they’re not going to report and it’s one more thing their abusers can hold over them” she tells the Tennessee Lookout. Another Tennessee nonprofit, Justice for Our Neighbors, is trying to fill the gap but reports turning away a high volume of immigrant victims seeking help.

The Defendant, Michael Chad Owens, appeals his DeKalb County convictions for the sale and delivery of heroin and methamphetamine and resulting forty-five-year effective sentence. Specifically, the Defendant challenges that (1) the State failed to sufficiently establish the chain of custody for the narcotics; (2) the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his convictions due to chain of custody issues; (3) his right to confrontation was violated when the confidential informant (“CI”) involved in the controlled buys did not testify at trial; (4) the probative value of the admitted photograph of the CI was substantially outweighed by its danger of unfair prejudice; (5) the Defendant’s alleged impairment at trial prejudiced the jury against him; (6) his sentences are excessive; and (7) the fines imposed by the trial court are excessive. After review, we remand the case to the trial court for a hearing with regard to the fines and for entry of corrected judgment forms reflecting the sentence and fine for each conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Ladarrin Ceazer, of second-degree murder for which he received a sentence of twenty-five years with the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum within-range sentence. Upon our review of the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Defendant, Samantha Louise Bledsoe, was indicted by the Sullivan County Grand Jury for one count of driving under the influence ("DUI"), one count of DUI per se, one count of driving on a revoked license, and one count of DUI sixth offense. At the close of the State's proof, the trial court granted Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the charge of driving on a revoked license. A jury found Defendant guilty of the alternate DUI counts, and after a bifurcated proceeding, the DUI sixth offense count. The trial court merged the other offenses into the DUI sixth offense count and imposed an agreed upon four-year sentence. Defendant appeals her conviction and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of her identity as the driver of the vehicle. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the criminal court.

The appellant has filed a late notice of appeal together with a request to waive the late filing. Because the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal with the appellate court clerk is jurisdictional and cannot be waived, we deny the request to waive the late filing and dismiss the appeal.

Thirty-one days after entry of the trial court’s final order, Appellants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rules 59.02 and 59.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellants subsequently filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60.02, requesting that the court consider their untimely Rule 59 Motion due to their attorney’s excusable neglect or mistake. The basis for the alleged excusable neglect was Appellants’ counsel’s admitted calendaring error, which resulted in counsel filing the Rule 59 Motion one day late. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied Appellants’ Rule 60.02 Motion, determining that the circumstances did not constitute excusable neglect. Upon review of the parties’ briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The mother of the minor child at issue appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found that four grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the minor child’s best interest. Although we vacate the finding that the ground of persistence of conditions was established, we affirm the finding that three grounds for termination have been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the minor child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.