The attorney for a Northern California woman who was charged along with her husband in the killing of their son-in-law said Thursday that she plans to plead not guilty and focus her defense on the abuse allegedly perpetrated by the victim.

Shili Chen and her husband Shouyong Zhang, both 77, appeared in court briefly to ask the judge for more time before entering formal pleas. They were both charged Wednesday with murder after authorities say they both shot their son-in-law, Jonathan McKinsey, to death Saturday in a public park. The killing came days before he and the couple's daughter were set for a hearing in a bitter divorce and custody case.

Curtis Briggs, a court-appointed attorney assigned Thursday to Chen's defense, said the court documents he has reviewed raised concerns that McKinsey was rageful and could not control his temper.

"Court documents show Mr. McKinsey was extremely violent and dangerous to his family," he said.

Jennie Otis, a public defender representing Zhang, asked the judge on Thursday that he be medically evaluated, though she did not say for what. Otis declined to comment.

Both required Mandarin interpreters in the courtroom.

McKinsey, a 40-year-old gaming engineer for The New York Times, was killed in the parking lot of a sports complex in Dublin, a city east of San Francisco. A police sergeant was driving nearby and saw him on the ground as witnesses began calling 911 and pointing out the couple in their vehicle, who were still near the scene, Dublin Police Services said in a news release.

Police detained the couple as they were driving away in the parking lot and found a gun in Chen's possession. Prosecutors said Zhang admitted to shooting McKinsey during a later interview, and another firearm was found in the car that he admitted to using during the crime. Prosecutors also said surveillance video was recovered showing both Chen and Zhang shooting the victim.

Court records show McKinsey's killing came during a contentious divorce with his wife, Candice Jang, and a custody battle over the couple's three young children. In petitions for restraining orders filed last year, the couple accused each other of physical, emotional and psychological abuse going back more than a decade. McKinsey, who is transgender, alleged that both Jang and her parents were verbally and physically abusive regarding a gender transition he underwent years ago.

McKinsey was arrested last October and charged with misdemeanor child abuse for allegedly hitting their oldest son. Police said he acknowledged having slapped the child. Prosecutors also charged him with endangering their youngest child after deputies responded to the family's home to talk with him and found their 2-year-old had been left home alone, according to court documents.

McKinsey pleaded not guilty to the charges and alleged in court records that he had been set up by his wife, who had left the house without telling him the child was sleeping in a crib upstairs. He was released from jail on the condition that he complete 12 parenting classes. At the time of his killing, McKinsey was out on bail and had been trying to enter a mental health diversion program.

Every time I use San Antonio Airport, I notice that the parking fees accumulate significantly when parking at the airport terminal for long periods.

The close and expensive spots, just a 3-minute walk from the terminal, can easily cost $150 for 3 days and 4 nights.

So, if you are planning a trip to another area for more than 2-3 days, managing parking fees is essentially managing your travel budget.

Today, based on 2026, I will summarize how to use the Green Parking Lot, the most cost-effective parking method at San Antonio Airport.

First, regarding the SAT Green Parking Lot rates, if you book online at least 7 days in advance, it costs about $7 to $9 per day. If you don't book, the long-term parking rate is about $10 per day. This is the cheapest parking option when using San Antonio Airport.

The Green Parking Lot is located deep within the airport grounds, but it is quite convenient because a free shuttle runs 24 hours. When entering the airport, you can follow the GPS directions for Economy Parking or Green Lot, and if you have a reservation, the gate will open automatically by recognizing your license plate. If you haven't made a reservation, you will need to take a ticket at the entrance. Make sure to keep the ticket visible in your car.

When you park, the most important thing is to record your zone number. You should take a photo of the zone number, like G-3, or note it in a parking app. I can assure you that you won't remember it after 2 days. If you forget where you parked after your trip, it can be really frustrating. By the way, the parking lot is very large, so there are separate shuttle stops numbered 1, 2, and so on. I'm not sure how many there are, but I've heard of up to 4.

If you wait at the Bus Stop shelters located throughout the parking lot, the white shuttles usually arrive every 10 to 15 minutes. It takes about 5 to 10 minutes to get to the terminal by shuttle. They come frequently, so you won't have to wait long.

Upon arrival at the airport, the shuttle drops you off near the baggage claim areas of Terminals A and B. When you return from your trip, you can take the Green Lot shuttle from the same Ground Transportation area, and the driver will drop you off near your zone number if you tell them.

As mentioned earlier, to save even more on parking fees, it is advisable to make a reservation in advance. Booking through the official San Antonio Airport website is often cheaper than paying on-site, and during peak seasons, there may not be any spots available, making it practically essential.

Read the full article here

Donald Trump’s lawyers are imploring a New York judge to overturn his hush money conviction and dismiss the case, arguing his historic trial was “tainted” by evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed because of the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling.

The former president’s lawyers laid out their case for reversing the guilty verdict in a court filing made public Thursday, denouncing Manhattan prosecutors for rushing to try Trump while the high court was still considering his immunity claims. Trump was convicted in May of falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal. He is the first ex-president convicted of a crime.

Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove urged the trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, to vacate the jury’s verdict and dismiss the indictment, which would prevent prosecutors from retrying the case. Merchan has said he’ll rule on the defense’s requests on Sept. 6 and will sentence Trump on Sept. 18, “if such is still necessary.” Prosecutors have until July 24 to respond to the defense’s arguments.

“Rather than wait for the Supreme Court’s guidance, the prosecutors scoffed with hubris at President Trump’s immunity motions and insisted on rushing to trial,” Blanche and Bove wrote. Addressing Merchan directly, they said: “Your Honor now has the authority to address these injustices, and the court is duty-bound to do so in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The Supreme Court released its immunity decision on July 1, giving broad protections to presidents and insulating them from prosecution for official acts. It also restricted prosecutors from citing any official acts as evidence in trying to prove a president’s unofficial actions violated the law.

Hours later, Trump’s lawyers wrote a letter to Merchan asking him to set aside the verdict and to delay Trump’s sentencing, which had been scheduled for Thursday. The Supreme Court did not define what constitutes an official act, leaving that to lower courts.

Trump’s trial began April 15. The Supreme Court didn’t hear arguments on his immunity claims until April 25.

Trump was convicted on May 30 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.

Daniels claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump has repeatedly denied that claim, saying at his June 27 debate with President Joe Biden, “I didn’t have sex with a porn star.” He has vowed to appeal the conviction but would not be able to do so until he is sentenced.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a settlement between Western states over the management of one of North America’s longest rivers.

The 5-4 decision rebuffs an agreement that had come recommended by a federal judge overseeing the case over how New Mexico, Texas and Colorado must share water from the Rio Grande. The high court found that the federal government still had claims about New Mexico’s water use that the settlement would not resolve.

U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Melloy had called the proposal a fair and reasonable way to resolve the conflict between Texas and New Mexico that would be consistent with a decadeslong water-sharing agreement between the two states as well as Colorado.

The federal government, though, lodged several objections, including that the proposal did not mandate specific water capture or use limitations within New Mexico.

New Mexico officials have said implementing the settlement would require reducing the use of Rio Grande water through a combination of efforts that range from paying farmers to leave their fields barren to making infrastructure improvements. Some New Mexico lawmakers have voiced concerns, but the attorney general who led the state’s negotiations had called the agreement a victory.

Farmers in southern New Mexico have had to rely more heavily on groundwater wells over the last two decades as drought and climate change resulted in reduced flows and less water in reservoirs along the Rio Grande. Texas sued over the groundwater pumping, claiming the practice was cutting into the amount of water that was ultimately delivered as part of the interstate compact.

The proposed settlement would recognize several measurements to ensure New Mexico delivers what’s owed to Texas. New Mexico, meanwhile, agreed to drop its challenges against Texas in exchange for clarifying how water will be accounted for as it flows downstream. The agreement also outlined transfers if not enough or too much water ended up in Texas.