Former jail employee and girlfriend of escaped New Orleans inmate arrested in connection with case
NEW ORLEANS (WGNO) — Officials with the U.S. Marshals have announced the arrest of a woman in connection to the May breakout at the Orleans Parish jail in New Orleans.
U.S. Marshals officials said Darriana Burton, 28, was arrested in New Orleans on Monday, June 9. She had been wanted on a warrant for conspiracy to commit simple escape, a felony, from the Louisiana Attorney General's Office.
Burton is a former jail employee and the girlfriend of Derrick Groves, one of two inmates who is still at large after the escape, the Associated Press reported. The other at-large escapee has been identified as Antoine Massey.
Escaped inmate known as 'Devil in the Ozarks' found a 'short distance' from prison: sheriff
Groves, Massey, and eight other inmates escaped from the Orleans Parish Prison on May 16 by yanking open a faulty cell door, removing a toilet, crawling through a hole, and scaling a barbed wire fence in the early morning hours when a lone guard left to get food.
Two days before the escape, Groves made a FaceTime video call to Burton using a jail-issued iPad, authorities said. During that call, she helped him speak with a man whom police did not identify. The conversation was 'intentionally vague' and appeared to coordinate communication on other, unmonitored lines, according to a police affidavit for Burton's arrest.
The exchange showed Burton's direct role in helping with Groves' escape, police said in the arrest affidavit.
Burton and Groves 'were in an on-again, off-again relationship for three years,' dating back to the time when she was still working in the jail, authorities said.
Burton began working at the jail in 2022, but was fired after being 'arrested and charged for bringing contraband into the jail and malfeasance in office in 2023,' the attorney general's office explained. The attorney general's office reported that the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office refused the charges in 2024.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Tougher sentences for criminals who abuse LGBT people ‘vital step forward'
Tougher sentences for violent offenders who hurt people based on their sexuality would mark a 'vital step forward', a Labour MP has said. Jacob Collier called for new aggravated offences as part of the Government's Crime and Policing Bill, as he warned many LGBT+ people 'don't feel safe in reporting hate'. More than 100 cross-party MPs backed the proposed amendment, originally put forward by Rachel Taylor, which would create the new offences if violent crimes are motivated by hostility towards a person's sexuality, transgender identity or disability. Home Office minister Dame Diana Johnson has vowed to broaden the framework for aggravated offences. Mr Collier said: 'I know what it means to think twice how you walk down the street, to pause before holding somebody's hand, to wonder whether that shout from across the road is something you can ignore or something you can't afford to. 'And I know that I'm not alone in that. 'I've spoken to my constituents and people from far beyond who tell me that they don't feel safe in reporting hate when it happens. They don't believe that they'll be taken seriously and there's a profound failure of trust, and one that we in this House have a duty to repair.' The Burton and Uttoxeter MP also told the Commons: 'I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community.' He said the move 'represents a vital step forward in the protection of some of the most marginalised people within our society' and added: 'Too many victims still believe that the system is not on their side and this new clause gives us the opportunity to change that. It gives police and prosecutors a clear route to charge and convict offenders in a way that truly reflects the nature of these crimes.' Mr Collier said the proposed change was 'about dignity, about recognising that whether you're a trans teenager being punched in the park, a gay couple being spat on on the Tube, or a disabled man being harassed on his way to work, all people deserve the full protection of the law'. Aggravated offences would also offer 'vital protection for disabled people, who often remain far too invisible in the public conversation around hate crime', he added. The law already provides for aggravated offences, if they are motivated by hostility towards a victim's race or religious group membership. 'That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot as a society say that some forms of hatred are more evil than others,' Ms Taylor told the Commons. The Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth added she was 'at university when section 28 was introduced', part of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned town halls from promoting or teaching 'the acceptability of' homosexuality in schools. 'I remember it vividly, it was more than the law, it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly,' she said. 'It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people, it pushed us out of public life. 'I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.' Ms Taylor said her amendment would be 'an important step forward for equal rights'. Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge who also backed the amendment, said the proposal 'would foster respect and equality for all by ensuring justice for disabled victims of hate crime'. Responding to the debate, Dame Diana branded these crimes 'disgraceful', and said the increase in hate crime towards transgender people 'cannot be tolerated'. On the proposed new clause, Dame Diana said: 'The Government supports this change, as set out in our manifesto last year. 'And I can confirm to the House that we will bring forward a suitable Government amendment to give effect to this commitment in the Lords at committee stage.'
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Christiane Amanpour Now Treats Travel To U.S. 'As If I Was Going To North Korea'
British journalist Christiane Amanpour said she treats travel to the U.S. under President Donald Trump 'as if I was going to North Korea.' The longtime CNN correspondent talked about her experience flying to the U.S. on her podcast, 'The Ex Files.' 'I must say I was afraid,' Amanpour told her co-host and ex-husband, Jamie Rubin, on Wednesday's episode. Amanpour was traveling to the U.S. last week to give a speech at Harvard University, which has come under increased attacks by Trump, including revoking the university's ability to enroll international students. Trump has also ramped up his attacks on immigrants, using agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to snatch people off the streets and imprison them without due process. And on Thursday, Trump announced that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the U.S. and seven others that would face restrictions. 'I'm a foreigner,' Amanpour said. 'I don't have a green card. I'm not an American citizen. I'm fairly prominent, and I literally prepared to go to America as if I was going to North Korea. I took a burner phone, Jamie. Imagine that. I didn't take a single … not my mobile phone, not my iPad, nothing, and I had nothing on the burner phone except a few numbers.' Amanpour said she also spoke to CNN security about what precautions to take. 'I've heard that many, including British citizens, have been stopped at the border and been questioned for hours and hours and hours,' she said. Thankfully, Amanpour said she went through airport security without any issues. 'I was welcomed,' she said. 'The immigration officer at Boston, where I came in, could not have been nicer. Huge sigh of relief I breathed.'
USA Today
5 days ago
- USA Today
Threats against judges nearly doubled under Trump. Republicans blame the victim.
Threats against judges nearly doubled under Trump. Republicans blame the victim. | Opinion President just keeps turning up the heat as judges hold him accountable to the law. And his allies in the House shrug off the danger, while echoing his attacks. Show Caption Hide Caption Protests break out over judge's arrest as politicians weigh in Protesters demanded the release of Judge Hannah Dugan after the FBI arrested her for allegedly helping an immigrant escape arrest. Former federal Judge Kathleen O'Malley and others are advocating for increased funding for federal judicial security due to a rise in threats. This push comes as some House Republicans, including those critical of judges holding Trump accountable, resist the funding increase. The judiciary's budget request includes a substantial increase for security, citing a concerning threat environment. Despite testimony from judges about the escalating threats, some Republicans deflect blame onto the judges themselves. Kathleen O'Malley spent nearly three decades as a federal judge and knows what it feels like when the U.S. Marshals and FBI come calling with warnings about threats of harm. A jailhouse informant once revealed that another inmate was plotting to have her killed. O'Malley, who returned to private practice in 2022 after 16 years as a district judge in Ohio and 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals, told me she always knew during her time on the bench that the U.S. Department of Justice "had my back" when threats came up. She felt a shift during President Donald Trump's first administration, a confluence of his aggressive attacks on judges who made him follow the law and the amplifying impact of his criticism through social media. The point of all that, O'Malley told me, is to intimidate judges, to prevent them from ruling against a president willing to target them just for doing their jobs. Americans want the Trump administration to follow the law O'Malley, who once sat on a judicial committee tasked with making courthouses safe and secure, spoke to me this week because I am tracking an effort to increase funding for federal judicial security. That push comes after funding has been flat in the past two federal fiscal years, despite a growing number of threats against judges. The call for more funding has drawn predictable pushback from some Republicans in the U.S. House, including some who have vilified judges for holding Trump accountable when he was out of office and for making his administration obey the U.S. Constitution now that he has returned to the White House. Judges don't come to this on a level playing field, O'Malley pointed out. The president is the commander in chief of our military. Congress controls spending. Judges? All they have is "the ability to persuade," she said. That should be enough. An NBC News poll released June 16 found that 81% of Americans said Trump should obey a federal court order if a judge rules his actions are illegal. That number drops to just 50% among Trump supporters. Opinion: The most 'beautiful' part of Trump's bill is it helps him defy federal courts Republicans keep blaming judges So Trump just keeps turning up the heat as judges hold him accountable to the law. And his allies in the House shrug off the danger, while echoing his attacks. U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, told Punchbowl News on June 13 that he sees few members "excited" to increase judicial security funding, in his reaction to a report that noted that threats against judges have nearly doubled since Trump took office. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, played the blame-the-victim game when asked about security for federal judges. 'Maybe they should stop screwing everything up,' Roy told Punchbowl News. Trump allies like Jordan and Roy offer cheap, empty rhetoric. The federal judiciary comes prepared with cold, hard math. Judges are telling Congress there is a problem. They're being ignored. The federal judiciary's $9.4 billion budget request for fiscal year 2026, which starts on Oct. 1, includes $892 million for security, a 19% increase of $142 million after no increases in fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Judge Amy St. Eve, who was elevated by Trump's appointment in 2018 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, testified to Congress in May in support of the increase for security funding, telling the House members, "The threat environment facing judges and the judiciary as a whole right now is particularly dynamic and worrisome." Judge Robert Conrad Jr., appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush 20 years ago, was named in 2024 by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. He testified to Congress about the budget request with St. Eve and singled out threats of judicial impeachment being made by Trump and his allies. 'The independence of the judicial branch is jeopardized when judges are threatened with harm or impeachment for their rulings," Conrad warned. "Our constitutional system depends on judges who can make decisions free from threats and intimidation." Opinion: Trump's military show of force in LA and DC camouflage his failing presidency That echoes what Roberts wrote in his 2024 report on the federal judiciary, in which he said threats of impeaching judges for how they rule are "inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed." Roberts noted that the U.S. Marshals Service said "hostile threats" against judges have "more than tripled over the past decade." U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud, a Texas Republican, took offense during the testimony by St. Eve and Conrad, but not about the threats aimed at judges. No, Cloud said, the real danger came from judges like St. Eve, Conrad and Roberts linking the politically motivated calls for impeachment to the increase in threats to judges across the country. As with his colleagues, Jordan and Roy, Cloud wants us to blame the targets of those threats, federal judges, and not focus on anything politicians say that might help fuel those threats. The three of them, with their rhetoric, are all the evidence we need to demonstrate that an increase in security funding for federal judges is well worth it and long overdue. They, along with Trump, show no signs of stopping their attacks. We, as Americans, must provide for the safety of judges so they can uphold our laws. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
