By JENNIFER PELTZ and MICHAEL R. SISAK, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — As jury selection started on Tuesday in Harvey Weinstein’s New York City rape retrial, some prospective jurors made clear they couldn’t be fair in judging the one-time Hollywood mogul-turned-#MeToo pariah.

Mark Axelowitz, an actor who plays a Manhattan prosecutor in the new Robert De Niro film “The Alto Knights,” was one of more than a dozen candidates who raised a hand when the judge asked if anyone felt they couldn’t be impartial.

“I don’t like the guy, he is a really bad guy,” Axelowitz told a reporter after being dismissed from consideration.

Another dismissed prospective juror disqualified herself because she had previously been sexually assaulted. Yet another said, “I don’t see how anyone can be impartial.”

Former film producer Harvey Weinstein appears in court for his retrial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (Steven Hirsch/New York Post via AP, Pool)

Weinstein is being tried again after New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, last year overturned his 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence and ordered a new trial, finding that improper rulings and prejudicial testimony tainted the original one.

That ruling gave Weinstein a second chance to fight the charges, with his new trial playing out in a different atmosphere than his first trial, which was held in the middle of a global reckoning over sexual misconduct.

Weinstein, 73, who has pleaded not guilty and denies that he raped or sexually assaulted anyone, is older and more frail, in and out of the hospital regularly for a variety of health problems. He’s now far removed from when he was among the most powerful men in the movie business.

Even if he is acquitted, he will not walk free.

Weinstein is also appealing a 2022 rape conviction in Los Angeles. His 16-year prison sentence in that case still stands, though his lawyers said he needs to be resentenced because the since-vacated New York conviction factored into how his punishment was calculated.

Weinstein is being retried on two charges from his original trial. He is accused of raping an aspiring actor in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and performing a criminal sex act by forcing oral sex on a movie and TV production assistant in 2006.

He is also charged with one count of criminal sex act based on an allegation from a woman who was not a part of the original trial. That woman, who has asked that she not be named publicly, alleges that Weinstein forced oral sex on her at a Manhattan hotel.

Speaking outside the courthouse on Tuesday, that accuser’s lawyer, Lindsay Goldbrum, said one thing would become “crystal clear” from her client’s upcoming testimony at the trial: “This was not consensual. This was sexual assault with force.”

“I am confident that there will be justice in this case,” Goldbrum told reporters, adding that her client was resolved to testify. “It is important for women everywhere and for people who are victims of sexual assault everywhere that others pave the way and show their dedication in this fight against sexual assault.”

Judge Curtis Farber has set aside at least four days for jury selection and expects opening statements and the start of testimony next week.

The judge, prosecution and defense will work to whittle a massive pool of potential jurors down to the 18 people — 12 jurors and six alternates — needed for the trial by asking questions and seeking to eliminate anyone they feel can’t judge the case fairly.

Selecting a jury will involve bringing in around 80 potential jurors at a time for two basic screening questions. The first group was brought in late Tuesday morning after defense lawyers and prosecutors ironed out some last-minute loose ends.

Along with the question about impartiality, the judge is also asking each group of prospective jurors for a show of hands from anyone who has work, family or other obligations that will prevent them from serving.

Anyone who raises a hand to either question will be sent home, Farber has said.

Those who remain will be seated in or near the jury box, 24 at a time, and asked additional questions about things like their education, work, and whether anyone they know is in law enforcement or has been a victim of a crime.

Prosecutors and Weinstein’s lawyers will each have 40 minutes to question each subset of 24 potential jurors. Often, lawyers will use that time to follow up on things raised in earlier questioning or zero in on concerns about potential biases.

Either side can ask the judge to dismiss a potential juror. If too many jurors are dismissed, another group will be brought in and the process will repeat until the full jury is seated.

By NICHOLAS RICCARDI

President Donald Trump on Monday reiterated that he’d like to send U.S. citizens who commit violent crimes to prison in El Salvador, telling that country’s president, Nayib Bukele, that he’d “have to build five more places” to hold the potential new arrivals.

Trump’s administration has already deported immigrants to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison CECOT, known for its harsh conditions. The president has also said his administration is trying to find “legal” ways to ship U.S. citizens there, too.

Trump on Monday insisted these would just be “violent people,” implying they would be those already convicted of crimes in the United States, though he’s also floated it as a punishment for those who attack Tesla dealerships to protest his administration and its patron, billionaire Elon Musk. But it would likely be a violation of the U.S. Constitution for his administration to send any native-born citizen forcibly into an overseas prison. Indeed, it would likely even violate a provision of a law Trump himself signed during his first term.

Here’s a look at the notion of sending U.S. citizens to prison in a foreign country, why it’s likely not legal and some possible legal loopholes.

If it’s legal to do to immigrants, why not citizens?

Immigrants can be deported from the United States, while citizens cannot. Deportation is covered by immigration law, which does not apply to U.S. citizens. Part of being a citizen means you cannot be forcibly sent to another country.

Immigrants can be removed, and that’s what’s been happening in El Salvador. The country is taking both its own citizens that the United States is sending as well as those from Venezuela and potentially other countries that will not take their own citizens back from the U.S. The Venezuelans sent there last month had no opportunity to respond to evidence against them or appear before a judge.

That’s the deal the Trump administration signed with Bukele. The U.S. has sent people to El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama and elsewhere even when they are not citizens of those countries. But, under international agreements, people cannot be sent to countries where they are likely to be persecuted or tortured.

Prisoners look out from their cell at the Terrorist Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, Friday, April 4, 2025, during a tour by the Costa Rica Justice and Peace minister. (AP Photo/Salvador Melendez)

Why does the Trump administration want to send people to El Salvador?

Bukele calls himself “the world’s coolest dictator” and has cracked down on human rights during his administration. He’s also turned El Salvador from one of the world’s most violent countries into a fairly safe one. Trump has embraced that example, including during the Oval Office visit Monday.

Sending immigrants from countries like Venezuela to El Salvador sends a message to would-be migrants elsewhere about the risks of trying to make it to — or stay in — the United States.

Related Articles

Core Democratic groups are preparing to be targeted by the Trump administration

Joe Biden will speak about Social Security in his return to the national stage

US moves ahead on tariffs with investigations into computer chips, pharmaceuticals

A Palestinian activist expecting a US citizenship interview is arrested instead by ICE in Vermont

Judge in Vermont considers whether he has jurisdiction of detained Tufts University student’s case

There’s a second benefit to the administration: People sent to El Salvador are outside the jurisdiction of United States courts. Judges, the administration argues, can’t order someone sent to El Salvador to be released or shipped back to the U.S. because the U.S. government no longer has control of them.

It’s a potential legal loophole that led Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to issue a grim warning in her opinion in a 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court finding that the administration could not fly alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador with no court hearing, even after Trump invoked an 18th century law last used during World War II to claim wartime powers.

“The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress,” Sotomayor warned. She was writing to dissent from the majority taking the case from the federal judge who had initially barred the administration from any deportations and had ordered planes en route to El Salvador turned around — an order the administration apparently ignored.

A second case highlights the risks of sending people to El Salvador. The administration admits it sent a Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, erroneously to El Salvador. A Salvadoran immigrant, Abrego Garcia, who has not been charged with a crime, had an order against deportation but was shipped to CECOT anyway. On Monday Bukele and Trump scoffed at the idea of sending him back, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return.

President Donald Trump, left, greets El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele as Bukele arrives at the White House, Monday, April 14, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Wait, so can they send citizens to El Salvador?

Nothing like this has ever been contemplated in U.S. history, but it seems unlikely. There are other legal barriers besides the fact that you cannot deport U.S. citizens. The United States does have extradition treaties with several countries where it will send a citizen accused of a crime in that country to face trial there. That appears to be the only existing way a U.S. citizen can be forcibly removed from the country under current law.

The Constitution also prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” and one of CECOT’s selling points is that conditions there are far harsher than in prisons in the U.S. As noted above, federal courts have no jurisdiction there, and that may deprive people sent there of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.

“It is illegal to expatriate U.S. citizens for a crime,” wrote Lauren-Brooke Eisen of the Brennan Center for Social Justice in New York.

She noted that even if the administration tries to transfer federal prisoners there, arguing they’re already incarcerated, it could run afoul of the First Step Act that Trump himself championed and signed in 2018. The provision requires that the government try to house federal inmates as close to their homes as possible so their families can visit them — and indeed transfer anyone housed farther than 500 miles from their home to a closer facility.

One last loophole?

There is one potential loophole that the administration could use to send a small group of citizens to El Salvador. They can try to strip the citizenship of people who earned it after immigrating to the United States.

People who were made U.S. citizens after birth can lose that status for a handful of offenses, like funding terrorist organizations or lying on naturalization forms. They would then revert to green card holders, and would be potentially eligible for deportation if convicted of other, serious crimes.

That’s a small, but real, pool of people. Perhaps the most significant thing about it is that it would require loss of citizenship first. In other words, there’s still likely no legal way to force a citizen out of the country. But a few could end up in legal jeopardy anyway.

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has begun maintenance projects involving temporary runway closures that may mean more airplane noise for some areas nearby.

The first phase started on Monday and is expected to continue through May 23, according to the Metropolitan Airport Commission. The second part will be from Aug. 18 to Sept. 26. By doing the project in two phases, the runway — known as R12-30L — will be open to all aircraft for the majority of the peak summer season.

“This work ensures that critical airport infrastructure maintains the highest level of safety for handling aircraft operations and conforms to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) specifications,” according to MAC officials.

Residents may hear increased air traffic activity overhead due to the change in runway use. Once the work is complete, “the FAA will return MSP to its pre-construction operational patterns,” according to the MAC.

Additional information and updates on the project can be found at the MSP Noise Oversight Committee web page and at the MAC website.

Also, runway use information and flight activity are available on the MAC FlightTracker. And, information about runway closures can be found at metroairports.org/msp-runway-closures.

Those with questions on airfield or aircraft noise or runway closures due to construction can contact the Community Relations Office at 612-726-9411.

Related Articles

Have a REAL ID? If not, prepare for travel delays, MAC says.

Passenger flight to MSP and Air Force jet diverted from potential collision at DC airport

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport upgrading snow removal equipment

FBI: Hoax by two young children responsible for diverted Sun Country flight to Mexico

MSP Sun Country Airlines flight diverted, no threat found

By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press

Fewer people crossed state lines to obtain abortions in 2024 than a year earlier, a new survey has found.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, estimates in a report released Tuesday that the overall number of clinician-provided abortions in states where it’s legal rose by less than 1% from 2023 to 2024.

But the number of people crossing state lines for abortions dropped by about 9%.

The report, based on a monthly survey of providers, is the latest look at how the abortion landscape in the U.S. has evolved since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022 in a ruling that eliminated a national constitutional right to abortion and opened the door to state bans and restrictions.

The total number of abortions continued to rise

Guttmacher estimates there were 1.04 million abortions in 2024, up about 1% from its total the previous year.

Multiple studies have found that the total number of abortions in the U.S. has risen since Dobbs, despite some states implementing bans.

Twelve states currently enforce abortion bans with limited exceptions at all stages of pregnancy. Four more have bans that kick in after about six weeks, which is before many women know they’re pregnant.

Guttmacher’s tally does not capture self-managed abortions such as people obtaining abortion pills from community networks, foreign pharmacies or through telehealth from medical providers in states that have laws intended to protect those who send pills into places with bans. There’s a court battle over the constitutionality of such laws. But another survey found that the number of telehealth pills being sent into states with bans has been growing and accounted for about 1 in 10 abortions in the U.S. by the summer of 2024.

Isaac Maddow-Zimet, a data scientist at Guttmacher, said even though the number of abortions is up, it’s likely some people who would like to end their pregnancies are not able to.

“We know that some people are accessing abortion through telehealth,” he said. “And we know it’s not an option for everybody.”

Travel for abortions declined

The number of people crossing state lines for abortions dropped to about 155,000 from nearly 170,000.

The year-to-year impact varies by state.

For instance, about 1 in 8 abortions in Florida in the first half of 2023 were provided to people coming from out of state. By the second half of 2024 — when a ban on abortions after the first six weeks of pregnancy took effect — only about 1 in 50 were for people from another state.

More people traveled to states including Virginia and New York after the Florida law took hold.

A drop in people traveling to Minnesota could be linked to abortions being offered again in clinics in Wisconsin.

Most abortions in Kansas are provided to people from elsewhere and the number grew as clinic capacity expanded.

Obstacles under bans affect some women more than others

A working paper released in March provided different insight into the impact of the bans.

It found that birth rates rose from 2020 to 2023 in counties farther from abortion clinics. Rates rose faster for Black and Hispanic women, those with lower education levels, and people who are unmarried.

“The takeaway is that distance still matters,” said Caitlin Myers, a Middlebury College economic professor and one of the authors of the working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. “It really wasn’t obvious that that would be the case.”

“These bans are more than just policies; these are direct attacks on bodily autonomy,” said Regina Davis Moss, president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda.

The bans also exacerbate the huge disparities in maternal mortality for Black women in the U.S, she said. Black women died around the time of childbirth at a rate nearly 3.5 times higher than white women in 2023.

“We’re going to be faced with increasing numbers of births, which is going to increase the maternal mortality rate, the infant mortality rate and inequities in care,” she said. “It’s very upsetting and sad.”

Bree Wallace, director of case management at the Tampa Bay Abortion Fund in Florida, which helps with the logistics and costs of abortions, said people who consider getting an abortion don’t always know their options.

“Many people don’t know their choices or think that it’s just not possible to go out of state,” she said. “A lot of people hear ‘ban’ or ‘six-week ban’ in their state and that’s it.”

Associated Press science writer Laura Ungar contributed from Louisville, Kentucky.