Texas carries out first execution of 2026

 The 1st Execution of 2026

A Texas man who at one time escaped from custody and was on the run for three days after being sentenced to death for fatally shooting his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend nearly 27 years ago was the first person executed in the U.S. this year, reported NBC News.

Charles Victor Thompson was condemned for the April 1998 shooting deaths of his ex-girlfriend, Glenda Dennise Hayslip, 39, and her new boyfriend, Darren Keith Cain, 30, at her apartment in the Houston suburb of Tomball.

Thompson, 55, was pronounced dead on January 28, 2026 at 6:50 p.m. Central Time  following a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville. 

In his final words, Thompson asked the families of his victims to find it in their hearts to forgive him, adding, "that you can begin to heal and move past this."

"There are no winners in this situation," he said after a spiritual adviser prayed over him for about 3 minutes and shortly before a lethal dose of pentobarbital was administered. He said his execution "creates more victims and traumatizes more people 28 years later."

"I'm sorry for what I did. I'm sorry for what happened, and I want to tell all of y'all, I love you and that keep Jesus in your life, keep Jesus first," he added.

As the injection began taking effect, Thompson gasped loudly, then took about a dozen breaths that evolved into three snores. Then all movement ceased and he was pronounced dead 22 minutes later.

"He's in hell," one of the witnesses, Dennis Cain — whose son was killed — said after Thompson was declared dead by a physician.

Thompson is the first person put to death this year in the United States. Texas has historically held more executions than any other state, though Florida had the most executions in 2025, with 19.  

Prosecutors say Thompson and Hayslip had been romantically involved for a year but split after Thompson "became increasingly possessive, jealous and abusive."

According to court records, Hayslip and Cain were dating when Thompson came to Hayslip's apartment and began arguing with Cain around 3 a.m. the night of the killings. Police were called and told Thompson to leave the apartment complex. Thompson returned three hours later and shot both Hayslip and Cain, who died at the scene. Hayslip died in a hospital a week later.

"The Hayslip and Cain families have waited over twenty-five years for justice to occur," prosecutors with the Harris County District Attorney's office said in court filings.

Texas death row inmate Charles Victor ThompsonTexas Department of Criminal Justice via AP

Thompson's attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay his execution, arguing Thompson wasn't allowed to refute or confront the prosecution's evidence that concluded Hayslip died from a gunshot wound to the face. Thompson's attorneys have argued Hayslip actually died from flawed medical care she received after the shooting that resulted in severe brain damage sustained from oxygen deprivation following a failed intubation.

About an hour before the scheduled 6 p.m. execution, the U.S. Supreme Court — without explanation — issued a brief order rejecting Thompson's final appeal. On Monday, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles had denied Thompson's request to commute his death sentence to a lesser penalty.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles on Monday denied Thompson's request to commute his death sentence to a lesser penalty.

"If he had been able to raise a reasonable doubt as to the cause of Ms. Hayslip's death, he would not be guilty of capital murder," Thompson's attorneys said in court filings with the Supreme Court.

Prosecutors said a jury has already rejected the claim and concluded under state law that Thompson is responsible for Hayslip's death because it "would not have occurred but for his conduct."

Hayslip's family had filed a lawsuit against one of her doctors, alleging medical negligence during her treatment left her brain dead. A jury in 2002 found in favor of the doctor.

Thompson had his death sentence overturned and had a new punishment trial held in November 2005. A jury again ordered him to die by lethal injection.

Shortly after being resentenced, Thompson escaped from the Harris County Jail in Houston by walking out the front door virtually unchallenged by deputies. Thompson later told The Associated Press that after meeting with his attorney in a small interview cell, he slipped out of his handcuffs and orange jail jumpsuit and left the room, which was unlocked. Thompson waived an ID badge fashioned out of his prison ID card to get past several deputies.

"I got to smell the trees, feel the wind in my hair, grass under my feet, see the stars at night. It took me straight back to childhood being outside on a summer night," Thompson said about his three days on the run during a 2005 interview with the AP. He was arrested in Shreveport, Louisiana, some 200 miles away, while trying to arrange for wire transfers of money from overseas so he could make it to Canada.

Thompson was drunk and talking on a pay phone outside a liquor store, authorities said.

Police acting on a tip Sunday found Charles Victor Thompson, 35, standing outside a liquor store in Shreveport, La., said Harris County Sheriff's Lt. John Martin.

To read more CLICK HERE

THIEL COLLEGE: Comment No. 1

 Why is there a death Penalty?

CREATORS: America must be vigilant

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
January 27, 2026

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is operating under an ill-advised internal memo suggesting that ICE agents do not need to obtain a search warrant to enter a home while investigating or enforcing illegal immigration. The memo is misguided and an affront to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, added to the Constitution in 1791. In its simplest form, it protects the people from an overzealous government. It was important to the founding fathers over two-and-a-quarter centuries ago and it is important today.

I have written about the origins of the Fourth Amendment, but it bears revisiting. The United Kingdom's greed in the late seventeenth century contributed to the establishment of the Bill of Rights.

In Britain, the prevailing economic philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was to look to colonies to enrich the "mother country." To that end, Britain did not want their colonies trading with any other countries. To prevent trade with other nations, the British imposed high "tariffs" on imported goods from countries other than Britain.

In return, American colonists began smuggling goods from other countries into the colonies. In response, Britain began cracking down on smugglers. The British began utilizing writs of assistance. The writs gave customs officials enormous power and discretion.

The writs were general search warrants that did not have an expiration date, did not have to provide a basis for suspicion or any particularity of the place or basis for the search. They let officials enter the homes of colonists at any time for any reason.

The greed led to rebellion and, in no small part, to the revolution that ended with independence for the United States of America.

When it came time to draft a constitution for the new country, the Fourth Amendment was written precisely to prevent the new government from running roughshod over its citizens.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

It is among the most sacred safeguards of individual liberty embedded in the Constitution.

According to The Associated Press, ICE distributed a memo that provides agents with the authority to forcibly enter homes and arrest immigrants using only a signed administrative warrant if they also have a final order of removal issued by a judge.

The administrative warrant is not signed by a judge. People do not have to open their doors, including the target of an immigration investigation, unless they are shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is rooted in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval.

It has long been the law in this country that, like a soldier, a law enforcement agent does not have to carry out an unlawful or unconstitutional order. Advising ICE agents that they can forcibly enter a home without a warrant signed by a judge is unconstitutional — obeying an unconstitutional order does not absolve an officer of criminal or civil liability.

The Fourth Amendment was how a burgeoning nation prevented tyranny. The colonists tasted despotism and did not like it.

We are now at a point in this nation where a government agency can come into your home any time, day or night, to see who is in your home or to take into custody a person who might be in this country without proper documentation. The colonists didn't like it in 1776, and we don't like it today.

The work of protecting the rights and privileges of the U.S. Constitution never ends. America must be vigilant in protecting the rights of all men and women.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

DOJ says taking a licensed, holstered firearm to a protest is a reason to get shot

Some high-profile gun rights activists and groups bristled  at government officials’ claims that federal agents may have been justified in killing a Minneapolis man during a protest because he was carrying a pistol, according to The New York Times.

The right to bear arms in public has been a mainstay of the gun rights movement.

On Saturday, a Los Angeles federal prosecutor, Bill Essayli, became a magnet for outrage when he wrote on social media that “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!”

Gun Owners of America, one of the country’s largest gun advocacy groups, said in its own posting that it condemned his “untoward comments.”

The group said that “federal agents are not ‘highly likely’ to be ‘legally justified’ in ‘shooting’ concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting — a right the federal government must not infringe upon.”

The gun group also accused “the Left” of “antagonizing” immigration agents.

The exchange could point to political fissures between the gun rights movement and President Trump, who is generally seen as an ally. And it already is sparking debate within a movement that has long warned against government overreach.

The National Rifle Association referred to federal agents as “jackbooted government thugs” in a 1995 mailer. But in a statement Saturday night, the N.R.A. put blame for the shooting on Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota and other “radical progressive politicians.” It said their “calls to dangerously interject oneself into legitimate law-enforcement activities have ended in violence.”

“As there is with any officer-involved shooting, there will be a robust and comprehensive investigation that takes place to determine if the use of force was justified,” the group added.

In a separate post, the N.R.A. called Mr. Essayli’s comments “dangerous and wrong.”

“Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens,” it said.

Video footage shows that Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an intensive care nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, stepped between a woman and an agent pepper spraying her, and then was sprayed himself. He appeared to hold a phone in one hand and nothing in the other.

As agents restrained him, one appeared to take his pistol, videos show, and then agents opened fire, killing him.

Chief Brian O’Hara of the Minneapolis police said that Mr. Pretti was an American citizen with no known criminal record, and had a firearms permit allowing him to carry a gun openly.

“We the people have a right to bear arms in public,” Cam Edwards, a prominent gun rights activist and radio host, said in a social media post. “I’ve encountered countless police while I’ve been armed, and never been shot. The presence of a firearm, by itself, is not an indicator of a criminal intent or a threat to law enforcement.”

Gregory Bovino, a top Border Patrol official leading the crackdown in Minneapolis, said at a news conference on Saturday that Mr. Pretti “had two loaded magazines,” and appeared to want to do “maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

No evidence has been produced to back up that claim.

Dana Loesch, a former spokeswoman of the National Rifle Association, highlighted Mr. Bovino’s comments, saying in a social media post that “statements like this don’t help. What he has or didn’t have isn’t the issue. What he was doing, with or without it, is the issue. Did he draw on agents? Reach for it? Was it on him?”

Christopher Fernandez, an Orlando, Fla., firearms instructor and founder of Equality In Arms Defensive Training, also took issue with Mr. Bovino. Mr. Fernandez said the official had falsely characterized Mr. Pretti as “a crazed assailant launching himself at C.B.P. officers, pistol drawn and firing with the intent to slaughter as many of them as possible.”

He said that the heavy-handed tactics of federal agents have left people on both sides of the political spectrum “living in fear.”

He added: “How can they not be when this is what we are seeing?”

The Trump administration has argued strongly for the right to carry guns. A Justice Department suit filed in December against the U.S. Virgin Islands over its gun permitting process, for example, noted that “law-abiding citizens” have “a fundamental right to ‘carry handguns publicly for self-defense.’”

Jordan Levine, who runs an online gun rights advocacy company called A Better Way 2A, said that “what happened in Minneapolis shows that ICE will treat the mere presence of a legal firearm as justification for lethal force. Carrying a gun is not a crime, yet it was readily used as proof of dangerous intent once Alex Pretti was dead and unable to contest that narrative.”

Danielle L. Campbell, who helped found Protect Peace, a community outreach group for gun owners in Central and Southern Florida, said she was shocked after watching video of the shooting.

“I’m willing to wait for more facts to come out,” she said. “What I will say is carrying a concealed weapon legally shouldn’t be a death sentence.”

To read more CLICK HERE

FBI’s search of Washington Post reporter’s home raises questions

The Washington Post's Hannah Natanson’s home was search, and as a result, many in the media and elsewhere have worried about a chilling effect on reporters and potential whistleblowers, reported Lawfare. Advocates have also invoked the First Amendment: The search, critics have insisted, was an unconstitutional encroachment on press freedom. Commentators have even agonized over the possibility that the search represented only the beginning of a more aggressive posture toward journalists—in which not only are leakers to the media prosecuted under the Espionage Act, but the media is prosecuted, too.

An Early Morning Search

Jan. 14 was not a quiet day for Natanson. Early in the morning, the FBI conducted a search of the Washington Post reporter’s home as part of an investigation into Aurelio Perez-Lugones for allegedly leaking the documents he mishandled, presumably to Natanson. According to reports, Natanson had her cellphone, a recording device, a Garmin watch, and two laptops seized, but was told that she was not the focus of the investigation. The same morning, the government also issued the Washington Post a subpoena requesting information related to Perez-Lugones. 

Natanson is well-known for her coverage of the Trump administration, including efforts to fire federal workers. She published a story last week—which cited government documents obtained by the Post—that covered the U.S.’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

But the impetus for the search warrant in the case centered on Perez-Lugones, not Natanson. The affidavit alleges that Perez-Lugones took notes on information from a classified system on a notepad, which he then brought home. He is also accused of taking a screenshot of a classified report about an unidentified foreign country, speculated to be Venezuela. Investigators reportedly recovered these materials during a search of his residence.

The criminal complaint in the case does not charge Perez-Lugones with disclosing that information, although a separate filing mentioned the possibility of his disseminating it if not detained pretrial—which prompted the judge in the case to issue a review of his pretrial release.

Such obscurity is not, in and of itself, atypical; arrests in classified documents cases often proceed on the basis of allegations of mishandling of material and are later superseded with updated charging documents if and when further evidence is uncovered.

But in the immediate aftermath of the search, Trump administration officials were quick to suggest classified information had indeed been leaked. Attorney General Pam Bondi commented on X:

This past week, at the request of the Department of War, the Department of Justice and FBI executed a search warrant at the home of a Washington Post journalist who was obtaining and reporting classified and illegally leaked information from a Pentagon contractor. The leaker is currently behind bars. I am proud to work alongside Secretary Hegseth on this effort. The Trump Administration will not tolerate illegal leaks of classified information that, when reported, pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security and the brave men and women who are serving our country.

In a tweet a few hours after the search, FBI Director Kash Patel similarly implied a leak had occurred. He also claimed that the “leaker” had been arrested that week—as opposed to on Jan. 9, the date the affidavit in Perez-Lugones’s case was filed:

This morning the @FBI and partners executed a search warrant of an individual at the Washington Post who was found to allegedly be obtaining and reporting classified, sensitive military information from a government contractor—endangering our warfighters and compromising America’s national security. The alleged leaker was arrested this week and is in custody. As this is an ongoing investigation, we will have no further comment. 

The search of Natanson’s home quickly drew backlash from the public and the media, particularly with regard to its implications for freedom of the press. Washington Post Executive Editor Matt Murray said that the search was “deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern[s] around the constitutional protections for our work.”

“It is exceedingly rare, even in investigations of classified disclosures, for federal agents to search a reporter’s home,” the New York Times noted.

On Jan. 14—the same day that the FBI searched Natanson’s home—the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a brief to unseal documents relating to the search of Natanson's home and the seizure of her devices. The brief requested that the court unseal the warrant in the case because “[t]he public is…left with no means to understand the government’s basis for seeking (and a federal court’s basis for approving) a search with dramatic implications for a free press and the constitutional rights of journalists.” On Jan. 21, the FBI released the search warrant for Natanson’s home, although the application for that warrant remains undisclosed to the public.

That same day, The Washington Post filed a brief requesting that federal law enforcement return Natanson’s seized belongings, arguing that “almost none” of the materials were relevant to the warrant and that the search “flouts the First Amendment and ignores federal statutory safeguards for journalists.” A magistrate judge ordered the government to preserve but not review materials seized from Natanson (including materials seized pursuant to two separate search warrants for her car and her person) until further briefing and scheduled a hearing on the matter for Feb. 6.

To read more CLICK HERE

Texas prisons see spike in overdose deaths

K2 is a psychoactive drug that targets the same part of the brain as THC, but the effects can be far different from those of marijuana, in part because many doses have been heavily adulterated with harmful chemicals. Synthetic cannabinoids don’t make up a large part of the free-world drug market, but at least one study found their use is increasing. K2, also referred to as “spice,” has been circulating in prisons and state jails since at least 2017. 

Worse, the number of people whose deaths in state jails or prisons were attributed to synthetic cannabinoids increased from 16 in 2023 to 65 the following year, reported the Texas Observer. And this is likely an undercount, given that synthetic compounds can be difficult for labs to detect in standard drug tests or postmortem toxicology screens.

The rise in K2 deaths is part of a disturbing trend: Between January 2020 and July 2025, at least 189 Texas prisoners died of drug-related causes—and each year through 2024 was deadlier than the last. In 110 cases, synthetic cannabinoids were confirmed or suspected to have caused or contributed to in-custody deaths, according to a Texas Observer analysis of reports filed to the state’s Office of the Attorney General. Most overdoses were attributed to drugs illicitly smuggled into state lockups. Another 128 people in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) died of accidental or unknown causes during that period that could have been linked to drug overdoses, based on symptoms or circumstances described in related records, the Observer’s analysis found.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG)—governed by the Texas Board of Criminal Justice but independent from TDCJ itself—launched an investigation into Wiley’s overdose the very same night. That’s routine in such cases, according to Amanda Hernandez, communications director for the prison system. “TDCJ has zero tolerance for illegal substances and contraband,” she said. “If any person, whether that is inmate, staff, volunteer, [or] visitor is caught bringing illicit substances into any TDCJ facility, the Office of Inspector General is immediately called to investigate.”

Hutchins saw three drug-related deaths in 2024, the most of any state jail. Wiley was one of two confirmed K2-related deaths at the unit that year: Daniel Jacob Sauceda, 22, died six months later of synthetic cannabinoid toxicity. Another man, 62-year-old Victor Blanco, died April 18 after overdosing on prescription drugs.

Hutchins is part of a state jail system created in the 1990s primarily to house people convicted of relatively minor drug and property crimes. State jails were billed as places where low-level criminals serving short sentences, like Wiley, might get help with addictions. But, over the years, experts say that state jails experienced a kind of mission creep, as higher-level criminals were locked up at the facilities and as drugs seemingly circulated freely. With a high proportion of drug users, large and crowded living areas, scant educational programming, and less advanced medical facilities than prisons, these units can become breeding grounds for drug use.

For those who do make it to their release dates, a 2019 state House committee report found that their time has typically been wasted: “State jails … merely warehouse inmates who unproductively serve out their time until being released, with no new resources, into the same conditions that led them to jail in the first place—most often, drug addiction and poverty,” the report reads, concluding the facilities should be abolished or “overhauled in every respect.”

To read more CLICK HERE

The corruption of the FBI in the words of current and former agents

When he returned to office last year, President Trump called the F.B.I. a “corrupt” agency in need of overhaul, reported The New York Times. He had by then been the subject of three F.B.I. investigations: Agents examined his 2016 campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, his retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office and his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Though all three inquiries took place in part or entirely under Christopher Wray, the F.B.I. director Trump appointed, he repeatedly accused the bureau of mounting a partisan attack against him.

To replace Wray, Trump chose Kash Patel, a former public defender and intelligence official who had never worked for the F.B.I. and had spun conspiracy theories about the bureau. Since Patel’s confirmation last February, the F.B.I. has undergone a transformation that has upended its nonpartisan rules and norms, deeply rattling many of its 38,000 employees.

Patel has fired agents who worked on the Trump investigations and radically changed the bureau’s mission. More than 20 percent of the F.B.I.’s work force has been assigned to immigration enforcement, pulling agents and analysts away from investigating public corruption, cybercrime, white-collar crime, drug trafficking and terrorism. Patel has also been embroiled in controversies over his use of government resources, his temperament and missteps in high-profile investigations.

We interviewed 45 employees who work at the F.B.I. or who left during Trump’s second term, as well as many other current and former government officials. Beginning with Trump’s selection of Patel, our sources narrated the events that most troubled them over the last year. Many details of what we learned are reported here for the first time.

The F.B.I. is a rule-bound and tight-lipped institution. Bureau policies prohibit active employees from speaking to the news media without authorization. Even for former employees, speaking out is a sign of serious alarm. Some of our sources shared their stories anonymously because they feared retribution from the administration. (To protect their identities, we are not indicating whether the people we quote anonymously are still employed by the F.B.I.) We corroborated their descriptions of specific events and conversations with colleagues, contemporaneous notes and internal records.

Patel and other F.B.I. leaders named in this article declined our requests for interviews, and we followed up with a detailed list of questions. In response to a request for comment, Ben Williamson, an F.B.I. spokesman, wrote: “This story is a regurgitation of fake narratives, conjecture and speculation from anonymous sources who are disconnected from reality. They can whine and peddle falsehoods all they want — but it won’t change the facts that the F.B.I. under this administration worked with partners at every level and delivered a historic 2025.”

We also asked the White House for comment. “President Trump and F.B.I. Director Kash Patel are restoring integrity to the F.B.I. by returning its focus to fighting crime and letting good cops be cops,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Many current and former employees fear, however, that the F.B.I. has become a weapon of the White House, and that the firings and the diversion of resources to immigration enforcement have left the country vulnerable to attack.

To read more CLICK HERE