Mangione's attorney allege AG Bondi has a conflict of interest

Luigi Mangione's lawyers contend that Attorney General Pam Bondi's decision to seek the death penalty against him in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was tainted by her prior work as a lobbyist at a firm that represented the insurer's parent company, reported The Associated Press.

Bondi was a partner at Ballard Partners before leading the Justice Department's charge to turn Mangione's federal prosecution into a capital case, creating a "profound conflict of interest" that violated his due process rights, his lawyers wrote in a court filing late Friday. They want prosecutors barred from seeking the death penalty and some charges thrown out. A hearing is scheduled for Jan. 9.

By involving herself in the death penalty decision and making public statements suggesting that Mangione deserves execution, Bondi broke a vow she made before taking office in February that she would follow ethical regulations and bow out of matters pertaining to Ballard clients for a year, Mangione's lawyers said.

They argued Bondi has continued to profit from her work for Ballard — and, indirectly, from its work for UnitedHealth Group — through a profit-sharing arrangement with the lobbying firm and a defined contribution plan it administers.

The "very person" empowered to seek Mangione's death "has a financial stake in the case she is prosecuting," his lawyers wrote. Her conflict of interest "should have caused her to recuse herself from making any decisions on this case," they added.

Messages seeking comment were left for the Justice Department and Ballard Partners.

Bondi announced in April that she was directing Manhattan federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty, declaring even before Mangione was formally indicted that capital punishment was warranted for a "premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America."

Thompson, 50, was killed Dec. 4, 2024, as he walked to a Manhattan hotel for UnitedHealth Group's annual investor conference. Surveillance video showed a masked gunman shooting him from behind. Police say "delay," "deny" and "depose" were written on the ammunition, mimicking a phrase used to describe how insurers avoid paying claims.

Mangione, 27, the Ivy League-educated scion of a wealthy Maryland family, was arrested five days later at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, about 230 miles (about 370 kilometers) west of Manhattan. He has pleaded not guilty to federal and state murder charges. The state charges carry the possibility of life in prison. Neither trial has been scheduled.

Friday's filing put the focus back on Mangione's federal case a day after a marathon pretrial hearing ended in his fight to bar prosecutors in his state case from using certain evidence found during his arrest, such as a gun that police said matched the one used to kill Thompson and a notebook in which he purportedly described his intent to "wack" a health insurance executive. A ruling isn't expected until May.

Mangione's defense team, led by the husband-and-wife duo of Karen Friedman-Agnifilo and Marc Agnifilo, zeroed in on Bondi's past lobbying work as they seek to convince U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett to rule out capital punishment, throw out some charges and exclude the same evidence they want suppressed from the state case.

In a September court filing, Mangione's lawyers argued that Bondi's announcement that she was ordering prosecutors to seek the death penalty — which she followed with Instagram posts and a TV appearance — showed the decision was "based on politics, not merit." They also said her remarks tainted the grand jury process that resulted in his indictment a few weeks later.

Bondi's statements and other official actions — including a highly choreographed perp walk that saw Mangione led up a Manhattan pier by armed officers, and the Trump administration's flouting of established death penalty procedures — "have violated Mr. Mangione's constitutional and statutory rights and have fatally prejudiced this death penalty case," his lawyers said.

In a court filing last month, federal prosecutors argued that "pretrial publicity, even when intense, is not itself a constitutional defect."

Rather than dismissing the case outright or barring the government from seeking the death penalty, prosecutors argued, the defense's concerns can best be alleviated by carefully questioning prospective jurors about their knowledge of the case and ensuring Mangione's rights are respected at trial.

"What the defendant recasts as a constitutional crisis is merely a repackaging of arguments" rejected in previous cases, prosecutors said. "None warrants dismissal of the indictment or categorical preclusion of a congressionally authorized punishment."

Mangione's lawyers said they want to investigate Bondi's ties to Ballard and the firm's relationship with UnitedHealth Group and will ask for various materials, including details of Bondi's compensation from the firm, any direction she's given Justice Department employees regarding the case or UnitedHealthcare, and sworn testimony from "all individuals with personal knowledge of the relevant matters."

To visit The AP CLICK HERE

Medical examiner admits he was wrong on shaken baby syndrome

In the summer of 2024, Dr. Bruce Levy, the former chief medical examiner of Tennessee, got a call asking whether he remembered the death of a baby boy, Alex Maze.

The name, from nearly 25 years earlier, faintly stirred Levy’s memory. Levy had conducted an autopsy on the 19-month-old boy, and he had concluded that Alex’s death was a homicide, the result of being violently shaken.

Levy’s testimony was critical in helping Nashville prosecutors secure a murder conviction against Alex’s father, Russell Maze, who was sentenced to life in prison.

For decades, Maze has denied abusing his son. He had been home alone with Alex in May 1999 when the baby suddenly stopped breathing. At the hospital, a pediatrician who specialized in identifying child abuse found what she said were clear signs that Alex was the victim of shaken baby syndrome. Levy later agreed.

Now, decades later, Levy was being asked to re-examine Alex’s death amid an initiative in Nashville investigating potential wrongful convictions. Intrigued, Levy said yes.

This month, in his first public comments on the case, Levy told NBC News that after having received information he never knew about Alex’s medical history, he came to a startling conclusion: He was wrong about Alex’s being abused, and he believes Maze is innocent.

“I have to remember that I’m not perfect and I can make mistakes,” Levy said. “And the best that I can do, is when I come to realize that, is to admit that I have made a mistake and try to do what I can to rectify that.”

Thousands of caregivers have been arrested based on the long-held medical belief that three symptoms — brain swelling, bleeding in the brain and bleeding behind the eyes — indicate that a young child was deliberately shaken.

But in the decades since Maze was convicted, there has been a growing acknowledgment among experts that the symptoms once believed to be proof of shaken baby syndrome, also known as abusive head trauma, can appear in children for other reasons, like complex medical conditions. And with that shift in understanding, a movement has been growing to re-examine — and potentially reverse — some shaken baby convictions, particularly when the evidence of abuse now appears questionable.

In October, NBC News’ “The Last Appeal” podcast investigated the high-profile case of Robert Roberson, a condemned man on Texas’ death row who was convicted of fatally shaking and abusing his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, in 2002. On Oct. 9, Texas’ highest criminal court halted the latest attempt to execute Roberson, sending his case back to a lower court for another review. “We are confident that an objective review of the science and medical evidence will show there was no crime,” Gretchen Sween, Roberson’s attorney, said at the time.

Maze is still waiting for a similar breakthrough.

After he reviewed Maze’s case, Levy wrote an affidavit in September 2024 recanting his homicide finding and determining that Alex had succumbed to a “natural” death. He joined an ongoing effort by the Nashville district attorney’s office, which has been working to free Maze.

Levy reclassified Alex's cause of death as "undetermined" and manner of death as "natural" in 2024. Alex's legal name was Bryan.Courtesy Kaye Maze

Yet despite supporters in law enforcement and forensics fighting for his release, Maze remains behind bars. Since last year, both the trial court and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals have declined to vacate his conviction. Maze’s struggle is emblematic of the uphill climb parents face when they try to combat charges of shaking their babies.

The latest decisions were yet another disappointment for Maze’s wife, Kaye, who has never wavered in her belief in her husband’s innocence. She was not home when Alex stopped breathing in 1999, but like her husband, she was also charged. She accepted what is called an Alford plea, allowing her to maintain her innocence and stay out of prison while pleading to reckless aggravated assault. She remains a convicted felon.

Her home in East Tennessee, where she moved to be closer to her husband’s prison, is filled with framed pictures of Russell and Alex, their buoyant expressions frozen in time.

A collection of family photos at Kaye Maze's home in East Tennessee.Juan Diego Reyes for NBC News

“We had a whole life planned out,” Kaye told NBC News in her first interview about the ordeal. “You know, you have a baby with so much hope, so much promise. And to have it all just ripped away from you is just — it’s sorrow and anger. And anger is pretty high up there.”

The Tennessee Department of Correction declined to make Russell Maze available to comment in person or by phone.

The Mazes’ experience as parents was fraught from the very beginning.

Alex was born prematurely in March 1999, weighing just 3 pounds, 12 ounces. He spent his first days in a neonatal intensive care unit for ailments including jaundice, anemia and a racing heart rate.

The Mazes, in their 30s, were vigilant first-time parents. Russell worked for a trucking company, and Kaye picked up a couple shifts as a vendor at a music festival. Alex was sent home from the hospital wearing a heart monitor. The Mazes took him to doctors seven times over the next three weeks, Kaye said.

To read more CLICK HERE

The trappings of royalty: 'America's wannabe King'

When President Trump hosted the crown prince of Saudi Arabia last month, he pulled out all the stops. To the traditional pomp of a formal White House visit, he added a few even fancier touches: a stirring military flyover, a procession of black horses and long, regal tables for the lavish dinner in the East Room instead of the typical round tables.

For surprised White House veterans who were paying attention, the unusual flourishes looked a little familiar. Just two months earlier, King Charles III of Britain welcomed Mr. Trump for a state visit that included, yes, a stirring military flyover, a procession of black horses and a long, regal table for the lavish dinner in St. George’s Hall at Windsor Palace.

In his first year back in office, reported The New York Times, Mr. Trump has unabashedly adopted the trappings of royalty just as he has asserted virtually unbridled power to transform American government and society to his liking. In both pageantry and policy, Mr. Trump has established a new, more audacious version of the imperial presidency that goes far beyond even the one associated with Richard M. Nixon, for whom the term was popularized half a century ago.

He no longer holds back, or is held back, as in the first term. Trump 2.0 is Trump 1.0 unleashed. The gold trim in the Oval Office, the demolition of the East Wing to be replaced by a massive ballroom, the plastering of his name and face on government buildings and now even the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the designation of his own birthday as a free-admission holiday at national parks — it all speaks to a personal aggrandizement and accumulation of power with meager resistance from Congress or the Supreme Court.

Nearly 250 years after American colonists threw off their king, this is arguably the closest the country has come during a time of general peace to the centralized authority of a monarch. Mr. Trump takes it upon himself to reinterpret a constitutional amendment and to eviscerate agencies and departments created by Congress. He dictates to private institutions how to run their affairs. He sends troops into American streets and wages an unauthorized war against nonmilitary boats in the Caribbean. He openly uses law enforcement for what his own chief of staff calls “score settling” against his enemies, he dispenses pardons to favored allies and he equates criticism to sedition punishable by death.

To read more CLICK HERE

After Epstein files withheld lawmakers draft articles of impeachment for AG Bondi

The co-sponsors of a law intended to force the Justice Department to release all investigative materials related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein say they are drafting articles of impeachment against Attorney General Pam Bondi, reported Scripps News.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said in an interview on CNN that he and Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, are also considering whether Bondi should be held in contempt of Congress. He said no final decisions have been made and that they plan to see if the Justice Department complies with the "spirit of the law" in the coming weeks.

Khanna warned that other Justice Department officials could also face legal consequences if they played a role in withholding records related to Epstein.

"Any Justice Department official who has obstructed justice could face prosecution in this administration or a future administration," he said.

The Justice Department faced a Friday deadline to release all investigative materials tied to Epstein. While the department released thousands of documents, Khanna said the disclosure fell far short.

"What we found out is the most important documents are missing," Khanna said. "They've had excessive redactions."

The documents released Friday make only limited references to President Donald Trump, even though the administration has acknowledged that his name appears in the files. Being named in the records does not indicate that Trump knew about Epstein’s crimes. Critics, however, say the limited references raise questions about whether the release cherry-picked.

Former President Bill Clinton, by contrast, appears numerous times in the documents. The release included photos of Clinton swimming, as well as images showing him with other well-known figures, including Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. No additional context was given with the photos. A spokesperson for Clinton dismissed them, saying the former president was not aware of Epstein’s alleged crimes when the two were friendly.

To read more CLICK HERE

Frank Athen Walls the 47th execution nationwide in 2025

The 47th Execution of 2025

 A man convicted of fatally shooting a man and woman during a home‑invasion robbery, and later confessing to three other killings, was executed on December 19, 2025. It was Florida's 19th execution so far this year, reported CBS News. 

Frank Athen Walls, 58, received a lethal injection starting at 6 p.m. at Florida State Prison near Starke. Walls was convicted of two counts of murder and two counts of kidnapping, burglary and theft. He was sentenced to death in 1988. The Florida Supreme Court later reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, and Walls was again convicted and sentenced to death in 1992.

Thursday's execution is Florida's 19th in 2025

Thursday's execution was Florida's 19th in 2025, further extending a state record for total executions in a single year.

According to court records, Walls broke into the Florida Panhandle mobile home of Eglin Air Force Base Airman Edward Alger and his girlfriend, Ann Peterson, in July 1987. Walls tied the couple up, but Alger managed to break free and attack him. Walls cut Alger's throat and shot him in the head when the airman continued to fight. Walls then turned to Peterson and shot her as she struggled.

Walls was arrested the day after the bodies were found when his roommate tipped off police about Walls' odd behavior. During a search of the home, investigators reported finding items from the crime scene, and Walls later admitted to the killings.

After his conviction, DNA evidence linked Walls to the May 1987 rape and murder of a woman, Audrey Gygi. Walls pleaded no contest, avoiding another trial and a possible death sentence. Walls also admitted responsibility for the killings of Tommie Lou Whiddon in March 1985 and Cynthia Sue Condra in September 1986 as part of a deal with prosecutors.

Attorneys for Walls filed appeals in state court claiming that his intellectual disability and other medical issues should disqualify him from execution, but the Florida Supreme Court ruled against Walls last week. Appeals were still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A total of 46 prisoners have died by court-ordered execution so far this year in the U.S., and more than a dozen other people are scheduled to be put to death in 2026. 

Florida has executed more people than any other state in 2025

Since the U.S. Supreme Court restored the death penalty in 1976, the highest previous annual total of Florida executions was eight in 2014. Florida has executed more people than any other state this year, followed by Alabama, South Carolina and Texas with five each.

All Florida executions are conducted by lethal injection using a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the state Department of Corrections.

To read more CLICK HERE

Former Trump lawyer says Jack Smith should be celebrated

 John Dowd, President Trump's former lawyer writes at MS NOW:

Former special counsel Jack Smith is scheduled to appear on Wednesday for a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee, despite his request to testify in an open and public hearing. In my opinion, Republicans are depriving the American people of the opportunity to hear from a career prosecutor who investigated serious allegations that President Donald Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election and unlawfully retained classified documents. 

I am not a newcomer to high-profile and politically charged investigations. Over a legal career spanning six decades, I prosecuted mobsters and politicians, and I defended both Republican and Democratic senators and House members. More recently, I represented President Trump during his first term in the special counsel’s investigation into allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. 

Republicans are depriving the American people of the opportunity to hear from a career prosecutor who investigated serious allegations against the president.

Jack Smith was once my adversary in a high-profile investigation of a Republican client. In that investigation, Smith proved himself to be fair, impartial and fearlessly committed to the facts and the law. He was unmotivated by partisan politics. But recent attacks on Smith are motivated by partisan politics, and they are untethered to the facts or the law.

As a prosecutor, I have experienced the pressure applied to attorneys pursuing high-profile investigations. During my time in the Department of Justice in the 1970s, I oversaw the federal investigation into Pennsylvania Democrat Dan Flood, a House appropriations subcommittee chairman. The attorney general’s office received some 300 phone calls from members of Congress urging us to drop the investigation. Then-President Jimmy Carter never pressured us to back down — despite some lawmakers threatening that if Carter did not get the Justice Department to drop the investigation, his legislation would go nowhere.

That’s how the Justice Department is supposed to work. You follow the facts and the law, and you don’t let politics pollute decision-making. You swear an oath to the Constitution and put country first; you do not swear an oath to the person temporarily occupying the presidency. And you do not put the private interests of one man over the interests of every United States citizen.   

That commitment to the rule of law is what I experienced from Jack Smith when I represented Rep. Don Young of Alaska, one of the highest-ranking Republicans in Congress at the time. Smith inherited this investigation when he became chief of the Public Integrity Section — the Justice Department unit that oversaw public corruption cases from 1976 until the Trump administration effectively dismantled it this year. Back then, the FBI had been investigating the congressman for years, but he had done nothing wrong. When Smith took over the case, I asked to meet with him and discuss the investigation of my client.

That’s how the Justice Department is supposed to work. You follow the facts and the law, and you don’t let politics pollute decision-making.

Smith met with me for more than three hours. He had clearly read the case and asked thoughtful, probing questions. A few days after the meeting, Smith called to inform me that he was declining to prosecute. 

In all of my interactions with him, Smith demonstrated that he was a straight shooter, open-minded and a man of integrity. He did not let politics influence an investigation, and he did not care whether my client was a Republican or a Democrat. That is the Jack Smith I know. I cannot stand silent while he is vilified by people who do not know him. 

Jack Smith should be celebrated for courageously pursuing justice. I say this not as a member of any political party but as a lawyer, prosecutor, defense attorney and former Marine who cares more deeply about the rule of law and the well-being of our country than I do about the whims of a former client

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Lawyer Babble: The Fight to Strike Legalese

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
December 16, 2025

What is legalese? The New Oxford Dictionary defines it as "the formal and technical language of legal documents that is often hard to understand."

Why would a professional write a document that is intentionally difficult to understand? A lawyer, who else, might argue that legalese provides precision and creates formality. Technical language is intended to define rights and obligations without room for misinterpretation.

Legalese has long been condemned from every quarter, including the U.S Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was once asked what characterized good legal writing. He declared, "(b)eyond pure literacy, avoid legalese." He suggested, "A good test is, if you used the word at a cocktail party, would people look at you funny?"

However, Scalia was the same guy who wrote in his dissent of the decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act that the majority opinion was "legalistic argle-bargle." Not sure that argle-bargle would pass the cocktail party test. Argle-bargle means "imbroglio," excuse me it means "fight."

Legalese has been an increasing object of derision. During World War II, Maury Maverick, a U.S. Congressman from Texas and chairman of the U.S. Smaller War Plants Corporation, wrote a memo banning "gobbledygook language." Maverick's word has been accepted into the American lexicon. Merriam-Webster defines gobbledygook as "speech or writing that is complicated and difficult to understand."

To put legalese into context, here is what the blog "Words to Deeds" believes the children's rhyme Jack and Jill would sound like if written by lawyers: "The party of the second part hereinafter known as Jill ... Ascended or caused to be ascended an elevation of undetermined height and degree of slope, hereinafter referred to as 'hill.'"

What is the big deal about legalese? Nobody reads their mortgage or their credit card agreements. If an individual has a contract to read or understand, they bring it to a lawyer. Is legalese about precision or job security for lawyers?

The greater concern is that obtuse language extends beyond contracts and agreements, right to the heart of liberty and freedom. A defendant charged with a crime is entitled to a lawyer - a competent one. The accused is also entitled to a jury of his or her peers and here is where it gets tricky.

Before a jury retires to deliberate the fate of the accused, the judge provides those jurors with instructions to assist in their decision-making. Unfortunately, those instructions are legalistic and often difficult to understand.

A report published in The Trial Expert, a publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants, found, "the reading levels of instructions are frequently at or above the twelfth grade, a result that is inconsistent with the average reading level of the American adult."

The report continued, "Considering that less than fifty percent of adults possess the basic skills and knowledge necessary to read and comprehend moderately difficult reading passages, it's not likely they are able to synthesize the complex language present in jury instructions."

That is a mouthful, but simply put, one in two jurors is confused by the language used to help them decide the fate of a fellow citizen.

Megan McAlpin, a professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, told Jack Hamann of The Writer, "I think there's a desire to sound smart. But you sound smarter if you can take something complex and make it clear to anybody.' Albert Einstein, a pretty smart guy, once said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

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