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

Last year recorded the lowest homicide rate in over a century

Last year will likely register the lowest national homicide rate in 125 years and the largest single-year drop on record, according to a new analysis of 2025 crime data, reported The New York Times.

Violence has been falling for several years. But last year for the first time, all seven categories of violent crime tracked by the analysis fell below prepandemic levels. The numbers provide further evidence that the surge in violence in the early 2020s was a departure during a time of massive social upheaval, not a new normal.

The analysis of data from 40 cities, by the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, found across-the-board decreases in crime last year compared to 2019: 25 percent fewer homicides, 13 percent fewer shootings and 29 percent fewer carjackings. Between 2024 and 2025, only drug crimes went in the wrong direction, but they were still lower than in 2019.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Tinkering With The Criminal Justice System

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
January 20, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court has been busy this month tinkering with the criminal justice system. The Court rendered three decisions in five days that have implications for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.

Initially, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling, rejected the government's limitations on the number of times federal inmates can challenge the legality of their sentence.

Federal habeas corpus law allows inmates to challenge, in federal court, the grounds for their detention. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) created separate procedures for state inmates seeking relief from their state convictions in federal court and for federal inmates challenging their federal convictions.

Enacted after the Oklahoma City bombing, AEDPA created strict deadlines and deference to state courts in federal reviews, making it harder for inmates to overturn convictions while empowering federal efforts against terrorism. The AEDPA implicates the Fifth Amendment — due process for federal habeas corpus limitations; and the Sixth Amendment — fair trial rights, especially regarding counsel and evidence; and the Eighth Amendment — cruel and unusual punishment.

An unlikely majority of Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, joined Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh found that the AEDPA could limit opportunities for state inmates to challenge their convictions, but could not limit federal inmates from having their convictions reviewed by the court.

Five days later, the Supreme Court entertained a double jeopardy question.

The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." The Double Jeopardy Clause can be invoked to prevent a person from being tried twice for the same offense or, as in the case before the Supreme Court, being punished more than once for the same crime.

A New York man was charged in federal court with using a firearm during a robbery, a crime of violence, and causing death.

All the justices were satisfied that a century-old decision determined that the two charges counted as the same offense. The longtime test for double jeopardy was clear: "whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not."

The unanimous decision, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, found that because using a firearm during a crime of violence does not have any elements not shared by causing death, the double jeopardy clause applies and the defendant cannot be punished for both offenses.

Finally, on the same day, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Montana man who was convicted of assaulting a police officer. In another unanimous decision written this time by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they entered the home of a man without a warrant due to an emergency in the home.

The Court rejected the man's contention that the police officers needed "probable cause" to go into his house. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and protects a person's home by generally prohibiting law enforcement from entering without a warrant.

Under the Supreme Court's earlier cases, it was enough that the police officers reasonably believed that someone inside a home needed emergency assistance. The court rejected the need for probable cause to enter a home without a warrant and sustained an "objectively reasonable" standard.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the police in Montana had acted appropriately when they entered a home without a warrant because they had an "objectively reasonable basis for believing that a homeowner intended to take his own life and, indeed, may already have shot himself."

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

 

Justice Kavanaugh sends a signal on Insurrection Act

Adam Liptak writing for The New York Times:

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh sometimes says the quiet part out loud. He did that last month when the Supreme Court refused to let President Trump deploy National Guard troops in Illinois.

The decision was a rare loss for the administration at the court, and it seemed to prompt Mr. Trump to abandon his efforts to deploy troops in Illinois, Oregon and California.

But Justice Kavanaugh, in a footnote in a concurring opinion, suggested that the ruling could be a speed bump on the road to greater presidential power. He pointed to the possibility of Mr. Trump invoking a different law, the Insurrection Act, to send more conventional military troops to American cities.

Less than a month later, Mr. Trump suggested he might do exactly that in response to violence and protests in Minneapolis.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me,” he wrote on Thursday on social media.

In his own social media post hours earlier, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, had called the opposition to immigration raids in the state a “Minnesota insurrection.”

Mr. Trump has long floated the possibility of invoking the act, and he did not need a sentence in a footnote to give him any ideas. But Justice Kavanaugh’s statement did make plain that the Supreme Court’s action in blocking one kind of deployment could set the stage for other, more aggressive ones.

Mr. Trump relied on a different law to order National Guard troops to cities last summer, an obscure measure adopted in 1903 and 1908 that said deployments were allowed for three reasons.

One, concerning foreign invasions, plainly did not apply to the events in Illinois. The second permissible reason for deploying the Guard was if a rebellion was underway, or if there was danger of one. That is a stretch, and the majority did not cite it, much less discuss it. The court’s order focused on the third reason: the president’s right to deploy the National Guard if he is unable to execute laws “with regular forces.”

Five justices joined the unsigned majority opinion, which rejected the Trump administration’s position that “regular forces” referred to civilian law enforcement like Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Instead, the majority said, the term referred to the military. Since there had been no showing that those forces would be unable to execute the laws, the administration lost — at least for the time being.

Justice Kavanaugh voted with the majority but did not sign its opinion, and accepted only part of its reasoning. Such a “concurrence in the judgment” is unusual in cases decided on the court’s emergency docket.

Speaking for himself, Justice Kavanaugh surveyed the legal landscape and said what the majority had left unstated.

“As I read it,” he wrote, “the court’s opinion does not address the president’s authority under the Insurrection Act.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

Do ICE agents have absolute immunity? Absolutely Not

Absolute immunity is a legal doctrine protecting certain high-level government officials -- judges, prosecutors, and legislators -- from lawsuits for actions taken within their official duties, shielding them from liability even for malicious or unconstitutional acts to ensure they can make difficult decisions freely. It's a near-total shield, contrasting with qualified immunity, which applies to state actors like police officers.

“The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University’s Salmon P. Chase College of Law, told CNN.

Mannheimer said that more than 120 years of case law on the issue of so-called supremacy clause immunity has shown that federal officials can be criminally pursued by state prosecutors for conduct taken in the course of their official duties but that it’s up to courts to ultimately determine whether they can be shielded from the charges.

“Officers are not entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of law,” said Timothy Sini, a former federal prosecutor in New York.

To read more CLICK HERE