Watch my interview with Chris Stewart on Law & Crime's On the Case about 17-year-old Gianna Kistenmacher who is under arrest for allegedly orchestrating a deadly encounter between two teen boys in South Carolina, which led to the shooting death of 16-year-old Trey Wright.
To watch the interview CLICK HERE
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of
America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to
the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will
dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are
more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let
Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of
large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable
to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the
sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for
opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to
cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of
Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the
State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from
without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these
States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing
his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the
tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither
swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies
without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and
superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent
to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for
any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by
Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and
enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit
instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable
Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his
Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our
towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already
begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the
most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the
high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of
their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian
Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all
ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for
Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered
only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish
brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their
legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded
them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have
appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by
the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been
deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore,
acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as
we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of
America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of
the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that
they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought
to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have
full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,
and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection
of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor.
A North Texas man charged with capital murder this month after he allegedly slipped his girlfriend abortion-inducing medication and caused a miscarriage marks the first time a murder charge has been brought in an abortion-related case in Texas, reported the Texas Tribune.
The case tests a new method for reining in abortion pills —
by threatening to prosecute individuals who provide them with the most severe
criminal charge — while advancing the longstanding legal provision that defines
an embryo as a person, legal experts say. The latter could raise serious
implications about the legality of fertility treatments and in other legal
realms such as criminal and immigration issues.
“It is shocking to people that the law can be used this way…
that this is the extent and result of the more than 20 year old fetal
personhood laws,” said Blake Rocap, a Texas attorney who works in abortion
rights advocacy and studies pregnancy criminalization. Legal experts say the
case will not change Texas laws that prevent women who receive abortions from
being prosecuted.
According to an affidavit filed in Tarrant County by the
Texas Rangers, 39-year-old Justin Anthony Banta put mifepristone, an
abortion-inducing medication, into cookies and a beverage that he then gave to
his pregnant girlfriend. Banta had previously asked her to get an abortion, but
she said she had wanted to keep the child, according to the affidavit. A day
after drinking the beverage, the woman miscarried.
The Texas Rangers did not respond to multiple requests for
comment. The Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, which must decide whether
and how to prosecute the case, has not yet brought its own charges, according
to a spokesperson.
Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, a fetus was not
considered a person constitutionally. However, when Roe v. Wade was overturned,
the whole opinion was overruled, including the idea that a fetus does not have
the same rights as a person. That did not immediately mean that fetus
personhood is established. But, Joanna Grossman, a professor at Southern
Methodist University Dedman School of Law, and other experts see Banta’s case
as an attempt to move further in that direction.
“The purpose of this has nothing to do with caring whether
this woman was victimized, but it's about trying to establish fetal personhood
in a more direct way than they've been able to,” said Grossman.
If Banta is convicted and fetal personhood is established in
the case, it could complicate a variety of issues, including whether IVF is
still legal because it involves destroying unused frozen embryos. Last year,
the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are considered children.
To read more CLICK HERE
The case of Sean "Diddy" Combs is in the hands of the jury, as it started its deliberations on Monday. WFMJ 21 News Legal Expert Matthew T. Mangino breaks down the closing arguments and what the jury will consider.
To watch the interview CLICK HERE
In President Trump’s so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”--buried in Section 70302 of the legislation— is a provision that would severely restrict federal courts’ authority to hold government officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders, reports the Campaign Legal Center.
A court’s ability to hold bad actors in contempt is a vital
enforcement power that judges can use to compel compliance with their
rulings.
When somebody chooses to violate a court order, the judge
who issued the ruling has a few different options to force them to comply,
including holding them in contempt and issuing sanctions, fines, or even jail
time until the order is followed.
But the reconciliation bill would require anyone suing the
government to pay a bond before the court can use its contempt power to enforce
injunctions or restraining orders meant to halt illegal actions.
By restricting this authority, the House bill threatens the
power of the judicial branch. On its own, that represents an attack on the rule
of law and the separation
of powers that underlies our democracy. But in the context of our
current political moment, a more specific goal is unfortunately clear.
Courts have already ruled at
least 170 times against the Trump administration, including a preliminary
injunction sought by CLC that halted
Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to change the rules for federal elections.
In response to many of these rulings, the president has resisted compliance and
waged intimidation campaigns targeting the judges responsible.
In light of all this, the House bill seems squarely and unacceptably focused on shielding the Trump administration from accountability when it breaks the law.
To read more CLICK HERE
Bryan Kohberger, the man charged in the brutal stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students, has reached a plea deal to avoid the death penalty, according to a letter that prosecutors sent to relatives of the victims, reported The New York Times.
Mr. Kohberger had been set to go on trial on murder charges
in August, nearly three years after the killings, which occurred at a residence
near the university in Moscow, Idaho. A plea hearing is set for Wednesday.
In a letter to the victims’ families on Monday, prosecutors
said that Mr. Kohberger’s defense team asked for a plea offer last week. Under
the proposed agreement, which must be approved by the judge in the case, Mr.
Kohberger would plead guilty to all charges, face four consecutive life
sentences and waive all rights to appeal.
The family of Kaylee Goncalves, one of the victims,
criticized the prosecution team for failing to consult with the families. Some
of them had worked to change Idaho law to allow the firing squad as a form of
capital punishment.
“After more than two years, this is how it concludes, with a
secretive deal and a hurried effort to close the case without any input from
the victims’ families on the plea’s details,” the Goncalves family said in a
statement.
In their letter to the families, prosecutors wrote that the
plea deal was “our sincere attempt to seek justice.”
“This agreement ensures that the defendant will be
convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison, and will not be able to
put you and other families through the uncertainty of decades of post-conviction
appeals,” they wrote. “Your viewpoints weighed heavily in our decision-making
process, and we hope that you may come to appreciate why we believe this
resolution is in the best interests of justice.”
Prosecutors did not respond to messages seeking comment, nor
did lawyers for Mr. Kohberger. The families of the other victims did not
comment immediately on the proposed agreement.
Mr. Kohberger, now 30, was a criminology Ph.D. student at
Washington State University, about a 20-minute drive from the crime scene. He
grew up in Pennsylvania and studied psychology in college. He was arrested in
December 2022 at his parents’ home in the Pocono Mountains area of Pennsylvania
about six weeks after the killings.
Mr. Kohberger’s defense team tried unsuccessfully for months
to undermine key pieces of evidence that investigators collected against him.
Prosecutors have said that his DNA was found on a knife sheath recovered at the
crime scene, and that records showed he had purchased a knife of a kind
matching the sheath in the months before the killings. Video footage showed a
car similar to his circling the neighborhood around the time of the deaths.
But investigators have yet to suggest a motive or offer any
details on how the victims were chosen.
Mr. Kohberger’s lawyers filed a flurry of motions in recent
months, including one trying to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty
— in part, they said, because Mr. Kohberger had been diagnosed with autism.
They unsuccessfully sought a delay in the trial, arguing that their team had
not had enough time to comb through the vast amount of evidence in the case.
But the judge ordered jury selection to commence on Aug. 4.
Just hours before news of the plea deal on Monday, one of
Mr. Kohberger’s lawyers was in court in Pennsylvania, where she successfully
argued that two witnesses who knew Mr. Kohberger as a teenager should be forced
to testify at trial even though they did not want to.
Mr. Kohberger has been in jail since his arrest. His lawyers
have given few hints about what defense they planned to offer, but have said
that he was “out driving” on the night of the murders.
In the years before the killings, Mr. Kohberger indicated
that he was interested in studying criminals. In a message to a friend in 2018,
he wrote that he would like a job “dealing with high-profile offenders.” A few
months before the murders, he posted on Reddit asking people who had spent time
in prison to describe their “thoughts, emotions and actions from the beginning
to end of the crime commission process.”
Investigators have said that the murders happened sometime
around 4 a.m. on Nov. 13, 2022. The victims — Ms. Goncalves, 21; Madison Mogen,
21; Xana Kernodle, 20; and Ethan Chapin, 20 — had spent a typical Saturday
night out near the university campus and returned to the house in the early
hours of Sunday.
A roommate who survived the attack said she had heard what
sounded like crying coming from the room of one of the women. She later told
the police that she had opened her door and seen a man with bushy eyebrows in
black clothes and a mask. The man left the house and the roommate began
texting with another surviving roommate downstairs before taking
refuge in her room.
But neither she nor anyone else called the police until more
than seven hours later, when a friend came to the house and discovered the body
of one of the victims.
To read more CLICK HERE
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that 75 Pa.C.S.A.
3806 of the Motor Vehicle Code—which includes accelerated rehabilitation
disposition (ARD) in the definition of a prior offense for purpose of
sentencing on a second or subsequent driving under the influence
conviction—unconstitutional.
The court found that ARD does not equate to a conviction
because it lacks the procedural safeguards of a criminal trial, such as the
right to a jury trial and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The high court’s decision finally puts to rest the evolving
question of whether admission into the ARD program can be used as a sentence
enhancement for purposes of deterring recidivist conduct on Pennsylvania’s
roadways.
In May 2020, the Pennsylvania Superior Court turned the DUI
statute on its head.
Igor Chichkin was charged with DUI in Philadelphia in 2017.
Chichkin had a prior DUI charge in which he received ARD, a diversion program.
Upon acceptance into the ARD program a defendant need not plead guilty or not
guilty. If the defendant successfully completes the program the charges are
dismissed and the defendant may seek the expungement of the charge.
Prior to the decision is Chichkin, if a defendant was
arrested within 10 years of accepting ARD, he or she could be charged with a
DUI second offense which carried a mandatory minimum of 30 days in jail, 75
Pa.C.S.A. 3804 (b) (2). For sentencing purposes in Pennsylvania an ARD was
considered a prior offense, Section 3806 (a).
Chichkin went to trial on his new offense and was convicted
of DUI. As a result of his prior ARD, he was sentenced to 30 days to six months
in jail.
On appeal, Chichkin raised the landmark U.S. Supreme Court
decision of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). The Alleyne court
held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused a right to a trial by a
fair and impartial jury, which can only be accomplished if all of the facts
that are elements of the crime are presented to the jury. If an element of the
crime increases the mandatory minimum punishment, it must be submitted to the
jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
Alleyne was an expansion of the high court's prior
ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Alleyne held "a defendant has due process rights
to specific notice in the charging document and proof beyond a reasonable
doubt, as well as, the constitutional guarantee of a jury determination"
with regard to "any factual determination that triggers a mandatory
minimum sentence."
As a result, the court vacated Chichkin’s mandatory minimum
sentence.
The court wrote about the prior offense excused by ARD,
“They are a "fact" that, pursuant to Alleyne, Apprendi, and
their progeny, must be presented to the fact finder and determined beyond a
reasonable doubt before a trial court may impose a mandatory minimum sentence
under Section 3804,” see Commonwealth v. Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959 (Pa.
Super. 2020).
The Chichkin decision created chaos for
prosecutors and the courts. However, that chaos was short lived. In fact, I
anticipated the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in an article for “The Legel Intelligencer” in January
2023. I wrote then, “The prosecution of repeat DUI offenders is back where it
was prior to 2020 ... this is not the last we will hear on this subject. Stay
tuned, this matter will most likely end up before the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court.”
How did this matter ultimately get to the high court?
In Commonwealth v. Richards, 284 A.3d 214 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc),
and Commonwealth v. Moroz, 284 A.3d 227 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc), the
Superior Court held that, pursuant to Section 3806, a defendant’s previous
acceptance of ARD for a DUI constitutes a prior offense for purposes of
imposing a mandatory minimum sentence under Section 3804.
The court made it clear that the decision of a defendant to
enter the ARD program is voluntary. A defendant “is free to reject
participation in the program if he wishes to avail himself of his full panoply
of constitutional rights.”
Applying for, and being accepted into, the ARD program does
not carry the same procedural safeguards of a conviction following trial. The
court found “The safeguards in place to be adequate.” The court emphasized that
“Section 3806(a) appropriately notifies a defendant that earlier ARD acceptance
will be considered a prior DUI offense for future sentencing purposes.” The
voluntary nature of the ARD program mitigates the due process concerns
expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, a defendant’s prior
acceptance of ARD fits within the limited “prior conviction” exception set
forth in Apprendi.
The Superior Court was unequivocal in its holding in Richards,
“We expressly overrule Chichkin.”
On May 30, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
decided Commonwealth v. Shifflett, No. 26 MAP 2024. In 2012, Shifflett was
charged with the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol 75 Pa.C.S.
Section 3802(d)(3). He was accepted into an ARD program.
In 2022, George Thomas Shifflett was arrested for another
DUI and, based on his previous acceptance of ARD for his 2012 offense, he was
charged with DUI as a second offense.
Shifflett pleaded guilty to the second DUI. At that time,
the commonwealth asserted that, pursuant to Section 3806 the plea constituted a
second DUI offense. The trial court agreed with Shifflett’s claim that the
prior ARD should be considered a prior offense.
The commonwealth appealed, arguing that the trial court
erred in failing to treat the appellant’s 2012 offense as a prior offense under
Section 3806 and impose an enhanced sentence under Section 3804 as a result of
the decisions in Richards and Moroz holding that, pursuant
to Section 3806, a defendant’s previous acceptance of ARD for a DUI constitutes
a prior offense for purposes of imposing a mandatory minimum sentence under
Section 3804.
According to the opinion in Shifflett, the trial court,
in its opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure, concluded that, in light of Richards and Moroz, it
erred in granting the appellant’s motion to exclude at sentencing evidence of
his previous acceptance of ARD for his 2012 offense, and, accordingly, requested
that the Superior Court remand the case for resentencing. In a unanimous,
unpublished memorandum opinion, the Superior Court vacated Shifflett’s judgment
of sentence and remanded for resentencing.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear Shifflett’s
appeal focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne, and
whether it was unconstitutional to consider Shifflett’s previous acceptance of
ARD as a prior offense for sentencing purposes.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Debra Todd, writing
for a 4-3 majority, found “acceptance into an ARD program does not offer a
defendant any of the constitutional safeguards that accompany either a criminal
conviction or a guilty plea proceeding.”
The safeguards recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court’s
in Apprendi and Alleyne, namely that any fact which
increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum, other than the
fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a
reasonable doubt are not present with admission to ARD.
The high court continued, “Thus, an individual’s previous
acceptance of ARD, which, when construed as a prior offense under Section 3806
to increase the penalty for a subsequent conviction pursuant to Section 3804,
is a fact that must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable
doubt.”
The reasoning in Chichkin is again the law of the
commonwealth. Once and for all, admission to ARD is not considered a prior
offense for purposes of enhancing a driving under the influence sentence.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg,
Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney of Lawrence County,
Pennsylvania. He is the author of "The Executioner’s Toll." You can
follow him on Bluesky @matthewmangino.bsky.social or contact him at
mmangino@lgkg.com.
To visit The Legal Intelligence CLICK HERE
Posts
