This Day in Legal History: Bruno Hauptmann Indicted
On October 8, 1934, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was indicted for the murder of 20-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr., the son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The case, often referred to as the “Crime of the Century,” began in March 1932 when the child was kidnapped from the Lindbergh home in Hopewell, New Jersey. Despite a ransom being paid, the boy’s body was found weeks later, less than five miles from the house, sparking a national outcry and a complex investigation.
The break in the case came in 1934 when marked ransom money was traced to Hauptmann, a German carpenter living in the Bronx. A search of his home turned up over $14,000 of the ransom cash, along with tools and wood experts claimed matched the homemade ladder used in the abduction. Though Hauptmann maintained his innocence, insisting the money belonged to a now-deceased friend, the evidence was enough for a grand jury to indict him for kidnapping and murder.
His trial, which began in January 1935, was a media sensation, held in Flemington, New Jersey under intense public scrutiny. The prosecution leaned heavily on circumstantial evidence, handwriting analysis, and expert testimony regarding the ladder construction. The defense challenged much of the state’s forensic claims, but Hauptmann was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. He was executed in the electric chair in 1936, despite appeals and ongoing doubts about the strength of the case.
The Hauptmann trial shaped public perceptions of forensic science, media influence, and due process, and contributed to the passage of the Federal Kidnapping Act, also known as the Lindbergh Law, which made kidnapping a federal crime when victims are taken across state lines.
Former FBI Director James Comey is set to appear in federal court this Wednesday on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The case, viewed by many as politically motivated, is the first brought by the Trump-aligned Justice Department against one of Trump’s high-profile critics. Comey is accused of lying during a 2020 Senate hearing by denying he authorized FBI employees to anonymously leak information about an unspecified federal investigation, which is believed to be connected to Hillary Clinton.
The charges were filed after Trump installed Lindsey Halligan—a former insurance attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience—as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan reportedly proceeded despite career prosecutors advising against it due to lack of evidence. Two outside prosecutors were assigned to handle the case, suggesting internal pushback.
Comey maintains his innocence and has demanded a trial. Legal observers and over 1,000 former DOJ officials from both parties have condemned the prosecution, calling it a politically driven attack on the rule of law. The indictment comes after years of Trump publicly demanding prosecutions of his political enemies, including Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and John Bolton. Comey was previously fired by Trump while leading the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election—an action that led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Ex-FBI chief Comey to face charges brought under pressure from Trump | Reuters
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who previously blocked a Trump administration plan for mass federal layoffs, will now preside over a new lawsuit challenging potential layoffs tied to the ongoing partial government shutdown. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) successfully argued that this new case involves the same legal issues and parties as their earlier suit, warranting Illston’s continued oversight.
The unions argue that laying off federal workers during a shutdown is unlawful and not an “essential government service.” They’re seeking to block such layoffs, warning that allowing the administration to move forward without court intervention could result in conflicting legal rulings if handled by different judges. Illston’s previous ruling in May held that President Trump could not reorganize or downsize federal agencies without congressional approval, but that decision was paused by the Supreme Court in July. In response, the administration scaled back the layoffs after many workers accepted early retirement or buyouts.
In the current case, the unions claim new memos from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unlawfully permit agencies to lay off staff during the shutdown. The Trump administration has not yet implemented the threatened firings, but has blamed Democrats for the funding lapse. The White House and DOJ have not commented on the ongoing litigation.
US judge who blocked Trump’s mass firings will hear case over shutdown layoffs | Reuters
In September 2025, during a meeting at the White House, Turkish officials proposed a $100 million settlement to resolve the U.S. criminal case against state-owned Halkbank, sources told Reuters. The settlement offer reportedly included a key condition: Halkbank would not have to admit guilt. The bank is facing serious charges in the U.S., including fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy, for allegedly helping Iran evade economic sanctions by funneling billions through illicit financial channels.
The case, brought in 2019, has long strained U.S.-Turkey relations, which were already damaged after Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems led to U.S. sanctions and its removal from the F-35 fighter jet program. While the Trump-Erdogan meeting signaled warmer diplomatic ties, it’s unclear how U.S. officials responded to the settlement offer, or whether discussions have continued.
On October 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Halkbank’s appeal, allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed. In response, the bank stated it was still pursuing a diplomatic resolution and emphasized ongoing talks aimed at reconciliation between the U.S. and Turkey. Erdogan has publicly denounced the charges and raised the issue during his recent visit with Trump.
Prosecutors allege Halkbank transferred over $20 billion in restricted Iranian funds, disguised transactions through front companies, and fabricated documents to mask oil-for-gold trades as food shipments. Although the floated settlement amount is far lower than previous penalties levied against European banks for similar offenses, legal experts suggest a final deal, if reached, could involve a much larger payment.
