U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston set an Oct. 21 trial date for Rui Jiang of Falls Church after holding a competency hearing Wednesday in federal court in Alexandria.

Alston had placed the case on hold earlier this year and ordered the competency hearing. The findings of his competency evaluation are under seal, but Alston ruled after Wednesday’s hearing that Jiang could stand trial.

Prosecutors say Jiang intended to shoot congregation members of the Park Valley Church in Haymarket in September 2023. He was arrested during Sunday services at the church, armed with a handgun and other weapons, after a former girlfriend called police and alerted them to disturbing social media posts he made.

According to authorities, Jiang had recently joined to the church but indicated that he was mad at God and at men for blocking him from having having romantic relationships with women. He left behind a “final letter” in which he said he intended to only shoot and kill men and apologized in advance for any women who might be “collateral damage.”

In interviews with police after his arrest, Jiang acknowledged officers he was mad at God but denied planning to kill anyone, according to court documents. He admitted he was armed inside the church but said he has a concealed carry permit and is frequently armed.

He was initially charged in state court, but federal prosecutors took over the case earlier this year. The indictment charges him with attempted obstruction of religious beliefs, transmission of interstate threats and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence.

The indictment also includes special findings that Jiang selected his victims because of their religious beliefs.

Police touted his arrest last year as an example of fast-moving interagency cooperation between at least three police departments in Maryland and Virginia to apprehend Jiang before any violence occurred. Security personnel at the church had also noticed Jiang’s odd behavior and had begun to question him.

The federal public defender’s office, which is representing Jiang, declined comment Thursday.

The ruling issued Thursday from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema overturns three of the 10 counts of conviction against Ali Al-Timimi. But she upheld other counts that could leave him with decades of prison time beyond the 15 years he already served.

Al-Timimi, 60, was indicted in 2004, and convicted and sentenced in 2005. Prosecutors said the U.S.-born scholar, who grew up in the nation’s capital and had earned his doctorate in computational biology shortly before his arrest, enjoyed rockstar status among his small group of followers.

At a private gathering a few days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Al-Timimi told his followers — some of whom trained for jihad by playing paintball in the Virginia woods — that an apocalyptic battle between Muslims and the West loomed, and that Muslims were obliged to defend the Taliban if they had the ability to do so, according to trial testimony.

Several members did travel as far as Pakistan and received military training from a militant group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, but none ever actually joined the Taliban.

After Thursday’s ruling from Brinkema, what happens next for Al-Timimi is unclear. He was released from prison in 2020 and placed on home confinement, partly because of the coronavirus pandemic and partly because his appeals have been bogged down in delays for nearly 20 years.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond still has not heard Al-Timimi’s initial appeal of his conviction, but it’s expected the appeal can now proceed. Among other issues, Al-Timimi’s lawyers have contended that his conviction violates the First Amendment by punishing him for his speech.

Al-Timimi would presumably remain on home confinement while the appeal is heard unless prosecutors or the judge sought to have him returned to prison.

The counts that were overturned relate to whether they were based on an unconstitutionally vague “crime of violence.” The issue stems from Supreme Court cases over the last nine years that have affected many criminal cases across the country.

Prosecutors had contended the convictions should stay in place, but Brinkema said soliciting treason is not inherently a crime of violence and could be accomplished “through aiding and comforting the enemies, which does not necessarily require the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force.”

She rejected allegations that prosecutors failed to disclose information that the government sought to use another northern Virginia cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, against Al-Timimi as an informant, and that al-Awlaki tried unsuccessfully to lure Al-Timimi into illegal conduct as part of a government sting.

Al-Awlaki later left the U.S. and became a leader in al-Qaeda before he was killed in a U.S. drone strike.

Prosecutors have long argued that they disclosed everything they were supposed to disclose about the meeting between the two clerics. Brinkema, in her ruling Thursday, confirmed that she reviewed the documents in question years ago and had also concluded that the defense was not entitled to any of the information because it did nothing to suggest al-Timimi’s innocence.

Neither the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia nor Al-Timimi’s lawyers responded to emails seeking comment Friday.

FALLS CHURCH, Va. (AP) — One of America’s most conservative congressmen was locked in a tight renomination battle against an opponent endorsed by former President Donald Trump in Virginia’s primary election Tuesday.

Rep. Bob Good, who chairs the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, is seeking a third term representing Virginia’s 5th Congressional District, but state Sen. John McGuire has mounted a strong challenge that highlights frictions in the party.

Ballots remained to be counted, and the close margin made the race too early to call. Virginia observes the Juneteenth holiday and isn’t expected to count votes Wednesday as a result. McGuire led Good by 327 votes, or 0.52 percentage points, out of 62,495 ballots counted as of 12 a.m. Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Democrats in northern and central Virginia chose nominees to replace popular incumbents who aren’t seeking reelection. In House District 7, Eugene Vindman won a crowded Democratic primary to try to hold the seat being vacated by U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, who is running for governor in 2025, while Republicans chose Derrick Anderson.

And in House District 10, voters chose Suhas Subramanyam from a field of 12 Democrats to try to hold the seat held by U.S. Rep. Jennifer Wexton, who is not seeking reelection to her northern Virginia seat after being diagnosed with a rare, incurable neurological illness. Republican voters nominated Mike Clancy for that seat.

Statewide, voters selected Hung Cao as the Republican nominee to the U.S. Senate to take on Democrat Tim Kaine.

Here’s a look at the major battles on the ballot:

House District 5

Conventional politics might suggest a congressman with the conservative credentials of Good would be safe in a primary. But he earned the wrath of Trump when he endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for president. He switched back to Trump after DeSantis dropped out, but Trump is endorsing McGuire and portraying Good as a backstabber.

Trump continued to bash Good as he campaigned for McGuire in a telephone rally Monday night.

“Unlike Bob Good, John McGuire will not let you down,” Trump said, adding that McGuire is “strong on the border” and “will always defend your under-siege Second Amendment.”

Good says he considers Trump the best president in his lifetime and only endorsed DeSantis because Trump is constitutionally limited to only one more term.

McGuire, for his part, claimed victory late Tuesday and thanked Trump for “believing in me.” No winner has been called by The Associated Press.

“There are still a few votes left to count, but it’s clear that all paths end with a victory,” McGuire said in a written statement.

Good, meanwhile, posted a statement on social media saying his campaign “implemented the best early voting operation that the 5th District has ever seen.”

“We are still waiting for the results of mail-in ballots and provisional ballots,” he said. “We are doing what we can to ensure we have teams of observers and legal counsel to ensure all the votes are properly counted in the coming days.”

Good also alienated Republican insiders by voting to oust House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, throwing the party into a measure of chaos.

Seeking to capitalize is McGuire, a state legislator and former Navy SEAL who has echoed Trump’s attacks on Good, calling him a “never Trumper.”

Good has bashed McGuire as a serial campaigner who announced his congressional bid just one week after winning election to a four-year term in the state Senate.

If Good loses, he would be the first House incumbent to go down to a primary challenge this year, with the exception of one race in which two incumbents faced off due to redistricting.

The winner will face Democrat Gloria Tinsley Witt, who defeated Gary Terry and Paul Riley.

The 5th Congressional District stretches from Charlottesville in the north, past the far western suburbs of Richmond, through Lynchburg and down to Danville and the North Carolina border.

House District 7

Vindman, a political newcomer who was nonetheless familiar to voters for his role in Trump’s first impeachment, has won the Democratic nomination in the 7th Congressional District for what will be a closely watched congressional seat in November.

Vindman, who crushed his opponents in fundraising, won in a crowded seven-person field that included four women of color who were all current or former officeholders in Prince William County, a suburban area outside the nation’s capital that constitutes the largest portion of the district.

The former Army officer gained a measure of fame when he and his twin brother, Alex, reported their concerns about Trump’s 2019 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump sought an investigation of Biden and his son, Hunter.

Vindman highlighted his opposition to Trump in his campaign and in a victory statement issued Tuesday evening said, “our grass-roots movement is coming for the extreme MAGA agenda. Virginia voters are first and foremost values driven, and want to elect leaders with integrity who preserve fundamental rights and freedoms and not extremists.”

He faced criticism from some local officials who said he was unconnected to the region’s political dynamics.

In a battle between a former Army Green Beret and a former Navy SEAL, Republican voters chose the Army man, Anderson, over Navy veteran Cameron Hamilton.

Anderson and Hamilton were the top two fundraisers in a six-person field. Anderson drew support from House GOP leadership in Washington, while Hamilton had support from members of the House Freedom Caucus.

The district, which stretches from Prince William County south to Fredericksburg and west past Culpeper, tilts just slightly toward Democrats.

House District 10

Subramanyam defeated fellow Democratic candidates former Virginia House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn, state Sens. Dan Helmer and Jennifer Boysko, and former Virginia Education Secretary Atif Qarni. Wexton endorsed Subramanyam.

Republican voters chose Clancy from a field of four candidates.

House District 2

In Virginia’s coastal 2nd Congressional District, Missy Cotter Smasal, a Navy veteran who runs a nonprofit that honors fallen servicewomen, defeated Jeremiah “Jake” Denton IV, a constitutional law and civil rights attorney, in the Democratic primary.

She’ll face Republican U.S. Rep. Jen Kiggans in November.

In a statement Tuesday evening, Smasal took aim at Kiggans and “the MAGA extremism she supports in Congress.”

“I will protect abortion rights and access for all and fight for resources for veterans and military families,” Smasal said. “I will always defend democracy and reject party extremism.”

U.S. Senate

In the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, Navy veteran Cao prevailed over his four opponents for a chance to try to unseat Kaine, a Democrat who is seeking his third term as the state’s junior U.S. senator.

Cao had the most money and previous campaign experience running for higher officer among the Republican primary contenders. He also had Trump’s endorsement.

In a victory post on Facebook, Cao immediately criticized President Joe Biden’s decision on Tuesday to allow certain U.S. citizens’ spouses without legal status to apply eventually for citizenship.

“Tomorrow, we begin our campaign to save the country that saved my life,” Cao stated. “I spent twenty-five years in the Navy, while Tim Kaine spent thirty years in elected office.”

Cao defeated Scott Parkinson, a former congressional staffer for DeSantis, as well as Jonathan Emord, an author and lawyer who often cites his court battles against the Food and Drug Administration. The other Republican candidates were Eddie Garcia, a U.S. Army veteran who owns a mobile app that serves veterans, and Chuck Smith, a former Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps commander and an attorney.

___

Finley contributed to this report from Norfolk.

Dozens of bottles of cherries and berries — impossibly preserved in storage pits uncovered from the cellar of his mansion on the banks of the Potomac River — were discovered during an archaeological dig connected to a restoration project.

Jason Boroughs, Mount Vernon’s principal archaeologist, said the discovery of so much perfectly preserved food from more than 250 years ago is essentially unprecedented.

“Finding what is essentially fresh fruit, 250 years later, is pretty spectacular,” Boroughs said in an interview. “All the stars sort of have to align in the right manner for that to happen.”

Whole pieces of fruit, recognizable as cherries, were found in some of the bottles. Other bottles held what appear to be gooseberries or currants, though testing is underway to confirm that.

Mount Vernon is partnering with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is conducting DNA testing on the fruit. They are also examining more than 50 cherry pits recovered from the bottles to see if any of them can be planted.

Records at Mount Vernon show that George and Martha Washington were fond of cherries, at least when mixed with brandy. Martha Washington’s recipe for a “cherry bounce” cocktail survives, and Washington wrote that he took a canteen of cherry bounce with him on a trip across the Alleghenies in 1784.

These cherries, though, were most likely bottled to be eaten simply as cherries, Boroughs said.

The quality of the preservation reflect a high caliber of work. Slaves ran the plantation’s kitchen. The kitchen was overseen by an enslaved woman named Doll, who came to Mount Vernon in 1758 with Martha Washington, according to the estate.

“The enslaved folks who were taking care of the trees, picking the fruit, working in the kitchen, those would have been the folks that probably would have overseen and done this process,” Boroughs said. “It’s a highly skilled process. Otherwise they just wouldn’t have survived this way.”

The bottles were found only because Mount Vernon is doing a $40 million revitalization project of the mansion that they expect to be completed by the nation’s 250th birthday in 2026.

“When we do archaeology, it’s destructive,” Boroughs said. “So unless we have a reason to disturb those resources, we tend not to.”

“In this case, because of these needed structural repairs to the mansion, the ground was going to be disturbed. So we looked there first,” he continued. “We didn’t expect to find all this.”

They know the bottles predate 1775 because that’s when an expansion of the mansion led to the area being covered over with a brick floor.

Mount Vernon announced back in April, at the start of its archaeological work, that it had found two bottles. As the dig continued, the number increased to 35 in six distinct storage pits. Six of the bottles were broken, with the other 19 intact. Twelve held cherries, 16 held the other berries believed to be currants and gooseberries, and one larger bottle held both cherries and other berries.

Boroughs believes they have now uncovered all the cherries and berries that survived.

“There is a lot of information that we’re excited to get from these bottles,” he said.

A civil trial earlier this year ended with a hung jury and mistrial, with the eight-person panel split on whether contractor CACI bore responsibility for abuse of the three Abu Ghraib survivors who filed suit. Two jurors told The Associated Press after the mistrial that a majority of the jury wanted to hold CACI liable. A unanimous jury verdict is required in federal civil cases.

CACI supplied civilian interrogators to the prison in 2003 and 2004 to supplement a lack of military interrogators. The lawsuit alleged that those interrogators conspired with soldiers there to abuse detainees as a means of “softening them up” for questioning.

At a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she’d “gone back and forth” over whether a new trial is merited, but ultimately decided the plaintiffs were within their rights to retry the case.

After she declared the mistrial last month, Brinkema had questioned from the bench whether a new trial would be a good idea.

It took a massive effort and 16 years of legal wrangling to bring case to trial in the first place. The trial was the first time a U.S. jury heard claims brought by Abu Ghraib survivors in the 20 years since photos of detainee mistreatment — accompanied by smiling U.S. soldiers inflicting the abuse — shocked the world during the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

The trial itself lasted only a week but the jury deliberated for eight days.

In court papers opposing a retrial, CACI argued that “Plaintiffs received their day in court, a day in court that shined a light on the Abu Ghraib scandal as brightly as the state secrets privilege will allow. The evidence presented at trial demonstrates beyond doubt that a jury … could not reasonably return any verdict other than a verdict in CACI’s favor.”

CACI said it was hampered in defending itself because the government asserted that large swaths of evidence were classified and could not be presented in a public trial. The judge on Friday said the government’s use of the state secrets privilege caused difficulties for the plaintiffs as well.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, who were represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, had argued that they were entitled to a retrial by right, and that the judge could only preclude it if CACI could show that no reasonable jury would hold it liable.

During the trial, the jury asked questions that demonstrated they were divided and unsure how to apply a legal principle called the “borrowed servants” doctrine. CACI, as one of its defenses, argued it shouldn’t be liable for any misdeeds by its employees if they were under the control and direction of the Army.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers tried to bar CACI from making that argument at trial, but Brinkema allowed the jury to consider it.

Both sides argued about the scope of the doctrine. Fundamentally, though, if CACI could prove its interrogators were under the command and control of the Army at the time any misconduct occurred, then the jury was instructed to find in favor of CACI.

While it took 16 years to bring the first case to trial, it should not take nearly as long to conduct a retrial. Brinkema said she wants the retrial to be held this year, and both sides indicated that they were initially amenable to an October trial date.

Many of the witnesses at the trial testified by recorded deposition, including several of the soldiers who guarded the prison and were convicted in courts-martial of abusing detainees. As a result, it’s likely that their testimony could just be replayed to a new jury.

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP) — Bob Good is fighting a two-front battle to hold his seat in Virginia’s 5th Congressional District and with it his role as leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. And that doesn’t even count his opponent in the June 18 GOP primary, state Sen. John McGuire.

Good, who played a key role in the ouster of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, has drawn the ire of establishment Republicans, who are bankrolling a campaign to oust him.

More significantly, he’s also lost the support of former President Donald Trump, who is endorsing McGuire. Good fell out of favor with Trump when he endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for the 2024 presidential nomination.

Good switched his endorsement to Trump after DeSantis dropped out, but that failed to assuage the former president. On social media, Trump called Good “BAD FOR VIRGINIA, AND BAD FOR THE USA.” Trump acknowledged that Good eventually gave him an endorsement, but it was too late: “The damage has been done.”

Trump has escalated the attacks in recent days. He issued a video endorsing McGuire and warning that Good “will stab you in the back like he did me.”

McGuire has echoed the attacks, calling Good a “never Trumper,” putting Good on the defensive.

Good, for his part, says he considers Trump “the best president of my lifetime.” He says he endorsed DeSantis because he wanted a candidate who could serve two terms, and Trump is constitutionally eligible to serve only one more term.

He attacks McGuire as a serial campaigner who always has his eye on the next job.

McGuire ran for the state Senate in 2023, and within a week of winning a four-year term there announced he was running for Good’s seat in Congress. In 2022, he ran for Congress in another district, the 7th, but later withdrew. In 2021, he ran for the House of Delegates and won. In 2020, he lost a primary race for the 7th District.

“He’s literally a perpetual candidate in search of a race,” Good said.

Good, on the other hand, has a relatively short political resume. He served on the Campbell County Board of Supervisors, and then took on incumbent Republican congressman Denver Riggleman in 2020. He defeated Riggleman at a nominating convention as Riggleman faced blowback among social conservatives for officiating a same-sex wedding.

Good is facing payback for his efforts in McCarthy’s ouster. The Republican political action committee Defending Main Street, which almost always spends money to support GOP incumbents, launched a $450,000 ad campaign against Good.

“We spend 99% of our money protecting incumbents and adding more mainstream conservatives to the House, but this was a unique situation,” said Sarah Chamberlain, the group’s president and CEO.

Good said he believes the massive ad campaigns against him are the only reason the race is close but that voters don’t care he voted for McCarthy’s ouster.

He said McCarthy “is on his revenge tour now, and I’m his biggest target.”

It might have seemed inconceivable that an incumbent with the conservative record of Good could be vulnerable in a primary, but Alex Keena, political science professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, said the race “has just captured the dynamics in the Republican Party right now really well.”

He said Good has “put himself on an island,” alienating mainstream Republicans by ousting McCarthy. And he lost the Trump voters because, “I guess he betrayed Trump, which is really easy to do.”

Good put it simply: McGuire, he said, “is not running to the right of me. He’s running to the Trump of me.”

McGuire and his campaign did not respond to multiple calls and emails seeking an interview.

The race has splintered the far-right Freedom Caucus, for which Good serves as chairman. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz has come to the district to support Good, while Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene campaigned for McGuire.

At a rally last week in Charlottesville — the most liberal part of the district — a few dozen McGuire supporters were outnumbered by 75 to 100 protesters who swarmed around McGuire and Greene when they got off a campaign bus.

Any efforts by McGuire and Greene to speak were drowned out by protestors chanting “Go Home!” and waving signs that said “No hate in our state.”

Neither McGuire nor Greene seemed to mind, with McGuire smiling through the chaos and Greene blowing kisses to her detractors as they responded with middle fingers.

McGuire, asked what he made of the scene, smiled and said, “Freedom!” as he retreated back to his bus.

McGuire supporters at the rally indicated that their support for the candidate stems primarily from their disappointment with Good.

“Good is a backstabber,” said Nelson County resident Kerry Williams Thornton. ”I was with Good two years ago. … But you cannot go with DeSantis and think that Trump is going to have your back.”

Prosecutors said the penalties amount to the largest ever levied in an animal-welfare case.

The plea deal also bars the company that operated the facility, Envigo RMS, as well as parent company Inotiv, from breeding or selling dogs in the future.

The federal investigation of Envigo drew national attention in May 2022 when federal authorities conducted a search of the breeding facility in Cumberland County, Virginia, and found nearly 450 animals in acute distress.

The company later agreed to relinquish all 4,000 beagles at the facility, which were sent around the country for adoption.

U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Christopher Kavanaugh, whose office prosecuted the case, said Monday after a plea hearing at federal court in Charlottesville that Envigo and Inotiv “prioritized profits and convenience over following the law.”

He said the company generated $16 million in revenue between 2019 and May 2022, when the search occurred, through the sale of 15,000 beagles over that time.

But he said the company refused to make the investments necessary to provide for the animals’ basic care. Cages were cleaned twice a month rather than every day as required. Animals were euthanized, including by direct injections to their heart, without sedation, he said. Dogs were routinely injured by getting their paws caught in flooring composed of metal grates that left space for paws to easily fall through. Food and water were lacking and unclean

Court records show that 300 puppies died over a seven-month stretch around 2021 for what was described as “unknown causes.”

He said the company continued to employ a veterinarian who had botched surgeries and oversaw numerous violations because executives believed it would be too difficult to find a replacement.

Todd Kim, assistant attorney general for the environment and natural resources division of the Justice Department, said Envigo “unlawfully enriched itself by failing to spend the necessary money for upgrades and by failing to hire enough trained and competent staff.”

The Cumberland facility, which employed nearly 40 people, has been shuttered. Kavanaugh said it was woefully understaffed to care for thousands of dogs.

The plea deal calls for an $11 million fine for violating the Animal Welfare Act and an $11 million fine for violating the Clean Water Act. The deal also requires Inotiv to spend $7 million over the next three years to improve its facilities and meet standards in excess of the Animal Welfare Act requirements.

The plea deal includes an admission that Envigo violated the Clean Water Act by discharging hundreds of thousands of gallons of improperly treated wastewater.

It also includes a $3.5 million for environmental repairs in Cumberland County and requires the company to pay the cost of a compliance monitor while it’s on probation, which will run for a period of three to five years.

The plea agreement also requires the companies to pay roughly $1.9 million to the Humane Society of the United States for assistance it provided to the investigation.

Prosecutors also said their investigation is ongoing and that criminal cases against individual employees remain possible.

West Lafayette, Indiana-based Inotiv issued what it called a “statement of contrition” Monday after the plea hearing.

“In committing the crimes identified in the charging document, and by not making the necessary infrastructure upgrades and hiring the requisite staff, we fell short of our standards for animal and environmental welfare and apologize to the public for the harm caused by our conduct, the company said. “In resolving this matter, we renew our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of animal care.”

To bolster its case, the tech giant wrote a multimillion-dollar check to the U.S. government that it says renders moot the government’s best argument for demanding a jury trial.

The antitrust case set to go before a jury in Alexandria, Virginia, in September is one of two major lawsuits the Justice Department has brought against Google. While the Virginia case focuses on advertising technology, an ongoing case in the District of Columbia focuses on Google’s dominance as a search engine.

Both sides in the D.C. case have presented evidence and made closing arguments. A judge there will decide whether Google violated the law.

Google wants a judge to decide the merits of the case in Virginia, as well. The company argues in court papers filed Thursday that it’s unprecedented for a jury to decide a federal antitrust case brought by the government. It says that this case in particular involves “a complicated, intricate technology ecosystem, which DOJ has acknowledged to this Court is ‘highly technical, often abstract, and outside the everyday knowledge of most prospective jurors.’”

A Department of Justice spokesperson did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Thursday evening.

Google, based in Mountain View, California, makes two primary arguments for striking the government’s demand for a jury trial. For starters, Google argues that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to a civil suit brought by the government.

The right to a jury trial, based in the Bill of Rights, “protects citizens against the federal government, not the other way around,” Google’s lawyers write in their court filing.

The company acknowledges in the court papers, though, that the Justice Department has a stronger argument for demanding a jury in a case where it seeks monetary damages, as opposed to merely seeking equitable relief, like forcing Google to sell off parts of its advertising technology.

In the Virginia case, the Department of Justice seeks monetary damages on behalf of federal agencies, including the Army, that it says were harmed by Google’s monopolistic practices and overpaid for online ads that they purchased.

In its court filing, Google contends that the damage claim was tacked on to the lawsuit at the last minute for the sole purpose of allowing them to seek a jury.

The Department of Justice “manufactured a damages claim at the last minute in an attempt to secure a jury trial in a case even they describe as ‘highly technical’ and ‘outside the everyday knowledge of most prospective jurors,” the company said in a written statement Thursday.

Google’s filing Thursday said the company has cut a check to the government that is triple the amount of the losses the government can claim. The exact amount of the check is redacted, but in other court papers, Google said the maximum amount of damages the government was able to demonstrate during the discovery process was less than $1 million.

Because the law allows antitrust damages to be trebled, the check amount would be less than $3 million.

Google says it still disputes that the damages are legitimate, but says that paying the government’s claimed damages eliminates the need for a jury to decide the damages question.

While Google says it’s unprecedented for a jury to decide a government antitrust suit, Google has defended itself in front of a jury on antitrust cases brought by private companies.

Last year, a jury in San Francisco ruled in favor of Epic Games, the maker of the popular Fortnite game, in a case the company brought against Google over the Google Play store, which allows users of Android phones to download apps.

In that case, Google tried unsuccessfully at the last minute to switch the trial from a jury trial to a bench trial.

Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Dontae Bugg heard arguments Thursday from a divorced couple who disagree over the ex-wife’s desire to use two embryos that they created when they were married.

Honeyhline Heidemann says the embryos are her last chance to conceive a biological child after a cancer treatment left her infertile. Jason Heidemann, says he does not want to be forced to become a biological father to another child.

The case attracted national attention last year when a different judge, Richard Gardiner, ruled that embryos could be considered “goods or chattel” that could be divided under state law, and his analysis relied in part on a 19th-century law governing the treatment of slaves.

Gardiner is no longer assigned to the case, for reasons unrelated to his citation of slavery as a precedent.

The case also comes as reproductive rights activists have expressed alarm over a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court that found embryos could be considered children under that state’s law.

There is little case law in Virginia governing the treatment of embryos.

Honeyhline Heidemann’s suit was brought under a partition statute that governs the division of property between interested parties.

Jason Heidemann’s lawyer, Carrie Patterson, argued that there is no precedent for it because that law is not designed to deal with embryos. Its primary purpose, she said, is to govern the division of real estate.

Case law that exists nationally regarding embryos recognizes that they are not mere property, she said, but rather property with special characteristics that require courts to balance competing interests.

One of the things a judge must consider when evaluating such cases is a person’s “right to procreational autonomy.” In this case, Patterson said, her client has a strong interest in avoiding procreating against his will.

Honeyhline’s Heidemann’s attorney, Jason Zellman, argued that the partition statute applies if the embryos are classified as property, and if they can be assigned a monetary value.

Documents that both Heidemanns signed with the IVF provider specifically refer to the embryos as property, he said, and thus their value can be assessed as the cost incurred in their creation.

Because there are two embryos, he added, the judge has an easy means of dividing up the property: Award one embryo to each party.

Bugg, who said he will issue a ruling at a later date, expressed misgivings about the notion of assigning a monetary value to the embryos.

Zellman acknowledged that the case presents some novel issues, but he also suggested to the judge that it doesn’t need to “blaze the headlines” or establish any sweeping precedent. He said the unique facts of the Heidemanns’ case — including language in their divorce settlement requiring the embryos to remain in storage “pending a court order” — will distinguish it from future disputes.

The judge readily accepted that notion, saying, “I don’t think anything I do in this case applies to anyone but the Heidemanns.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Google’s preeminence as an internet search engine is an illegal monopoly propped up by more than $20 billion spent each year by the tech giant to lock out competition, Justice Department lawyers argued at the closings of a high-stakes antitrust lawsuit.

Google, on the other hand, maintains that its ubiquity flows from its excellence, and its ability to deliver results customers are looking for.

The U.S. government, a coalition of states and Google all made their closing arguments Friday in the 10-week lawsuit to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who must now decide whether Google broke the law in maintaining a monopoly status as a search engine.

Much of the case, the biggest antitrust trial in more than two decades, has revolved around how much Google derives its strength from contracts it has in place with companies like Apple to make Google the default search engine preloaded on cellphones and computers.

At trial, evidence showed that Google spends more than $20 billion a year on such contracts. Justice Department lawyers have said the huge sum is indicative of how important it is for Google to make itself the default search engine and block competitors from getting a foothold.

Google responds that customers could easily click away to other search engines if they wanted, but that consumers invariably prefer Google. Companies like Apple testified at trial that they partner with Google because they consider its search engine to be superior.

Google also argues that the government defines the search engine market too narrowly. While it does hold a dominant position over other general search engines like Bing and Yahoo, Google says it faces much more intense competition when consumers make targeted searches. For instance, the tech giant says shoppers may be more likely to search for products on Amazon than Google, vacation planners may run their searches on AirBnB, and hungry diners may be more likely to search for a restaurant on Yelp.

And Google has said that social media companies like Facebook and TikTok also present fierce competition.

During Friday’s arguments, Mehta questioned whether some of those other companies are really in the same market. He said social media companies can generate ad revenue by trying to present ads that seem to match a consumer’s interest. But he said Google has the ability to place ads in front of consumers in direct response to queries they submit.

“It’s only Google where we can see that directly declared intent,” Mehta said.

Google’s lawyer, John Schmidtlein, responded that social media companies “have lots and lots of information about your interests that I would say is just as powerful.”

The company has also argued that its market strength is tenuous as the internet continually remakes itself. Earlier in the trial, it noted that many experts once considered it irrefutable that Yahoo would always be dominant in search. Today, it said that younger tech consumers sometimes think of Google as “Grandpa Google.”

While Google’s search services are free to consumers, the company generates revenue from searches by selling ads that accompany a user’s search results.

Justice Department attorney David Dahlquist said during Friday’s arguments that Google was able to increase its ad revenue through growth in the number of queries submitted until about 2015 when query growth slowed and they needed to make more money on each search.

The government argues that Google’s search engine monopoly allows it to charge artificially higher prices to advertisers, which eventually carry over to consumers.

“Price increases should be bounded by competition,” Dahlquist said. “It should be the market deciding what the price increases are.”

Dahlquist said internal Google documents show that the company, unencumbered by any real competition, began tweaking its ad algorithms to sometimes provide worse search ad results to users if it would increase revenue.

Google’s lawyer, Schmidtlein, said the record shows that its search ads have become more effective and more helpful to consumers over time, increasing from a 10% click rate to 30%.

Mehta has not yet said when he will rule, though there is an expectation that it may take several months.

If he finds that Google violated the law, he would then schedule a “remedies” phase of the trial to determine what should be done to bolster competition in the search-engine market. The government has not yet said what kind of remedy it would seek.