Detailed summary of each day of Mangione pretrial hearing

 Christine Savino | Cornell Law School provides a detailed summary of Luigi Mangione's pretrial hearing on JURISTnews:

Editor’s note: This is Day 9 (final day) of JURIST’s coverage of Luigi Mangione’s suppression hearings. Read Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Days 5-7, Day 8.

Luigi Mangione is accused of fatally shooting Brian Thompson, CEO of medical insurance company UnitedHealthcare, on December 4, 2024, outside a Manhattan hotel in New York state. He faces a nine-count indictment including second-degree murder, where he faces 25 years to life in prison, and multiple weapons offenses. Mangione was arrested on December 9, 2024, in Altoona, Pennsylvania—a city approximately 280 miles from New York City—five days after the shooting. While the arrest occurred in Pennsylvania, he is being prosecuted in New York state, where the alleged crime took place. The suppression hearings—pre-trial proceedings where a judge decides what evidence can be used at trial—determined what evidence from his Pennsylvania arrest can be used in the New York trial. Mangione pleaded not guilty to all charges in late December 2024.

The prosecution and defense completed their presentations on December 18, concluding three weeks of suppression hearings in the New York state case against Mangione. The prosecution called 17 witnesses from Mangione’s December 9 arrest in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The defense called no witnesses. No trial date was set.

Judge Gregory Carro announced the litigation calendar: defense filings are due by January 29, prosecution’s response by March 5, and Judge Carro’s ruling on May 18. Mangione’s next New York state hearing was scheduled for May 18, at which time Judge Carro may set a trial date. The approximately five-month timeline to issue suppression decisions is longer than expected, as were the suppression hearings themselves. The defense faces an uphill battle, as most motions to suppress are denied.

Assistant District Attorney Joel Seidemann pushed for a trial date, stating that Brian Thompson’s mother is 77 years old, and it “is important to the family of the victim to be able to know…whether or not this is the person who shot their son.” Upon Assistant District Attorney Seidemann’s request, there was a sidebar regarding scheduling. Defense counsel briefly conferred with Mangione, after which Attorney Marc Agnifilo told Judge Carro, “we spoke with our client, and he is willing to let us have proceedings, on the record, without you being present.” Mangione waived his right to be present during the private scheduling discussion, as defendants are not permitted to participate in these conversations.

Mangione appeared tense during the private discussion, unlike the first day of hearings when he smiled often.

Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo challenged whether the prosecution had fully complied with discovery obligations—the requirement that both sides share evidence with each other. She cited a December 17, 2024 press briefing where New York Police Department (NYPD) Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny described a conversation with Mangione’s mother, Kathleen Mangione:

She didn’t indicate that it was her son in the photograph, but she said it might be something that she could see him doing. So that information was going to be passed along to the detectives the next morning, but fortunately we apprehended him before we could act on that.

This statement was widely published by major news outlets including Fox News, People, and CBS News. The defense described the statement as an “unfounded claim” that was “widely quoted by numerous news outlets” in a November filing.

Attorney Friedman Agnifilo then referenced discovery documents that contradicted Chief Kenny’s public statement. The documents said: “Kathleen [Mangione] stated that Luigi has not made any suicidal statements and was not a risk to himself or others.” She argued Chief Kenny’s statement was “the opposite of what was said, and we didn’t get the opportunity to cross-examine Officer Diaz regarding this,” referring to NYPD Detective Oscar Diaz, a Manhattan South Homicide Squad detective. She requested that the prosecution “retract that statement, because that was never said by Mr. Mangione’s mother.”

Attorney Friedman Agnifilo argued that the defense was not granted a Dunaway hearing—a New York-specific suppression hearing used to determine whether a defendant’s statements or evidence were obtained as the result of an unlawful seizure or detention, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and New York State Constitution. She stated the defense intended to cross-examine NYPD Detective Oscar Diaz on whether the statement was part of probable cause.

Assistant District Attorney Seidemann countered that the statement was made a year ago and not relevant to Mapp or Huntley hearings—pre-trial suppression hearings under New York law that determine whether evidence was obtained legally.

Judge Carro appeared to side with the prosecution, stating, “most of the video was relevant to the hearing, and the People did say that they would make any Altoona or NYPD officers available if you want to call them.”

In a press conference outside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, Attorney Friedman Agnifilo, surrounded by the defense team, stated that the hearings “unnecessarily” extended into three weeks when “we were told this was going to be several days.” She stated that “it was only after Lieutenant Leonardi testified about the illegal wiretap of Mr. Mangione in Altoona, Pennsylvania, that they withdrew statement notice, and now suddenly we’re not going to have the lead case detective in this case.”

“We want the New York Police Department or the San Francisco Police Department or the Manhattan District Attorney to correct this very prejudicial statement that was never said,” Attorney Friedman Agnifilo stated before ending the press conference.

If the prosecution cannot provide evidence of the statement, they will not be able to present it at trial. However, this would likely not affect probable cause, which was the focus of the suppression hearings.

One point of contention during the hearings was whether New York or Pennsylvania law applied. Mangione was placed into custody in Altoona, Pennsylvania for forgery and related Pennsylvania charges, although New York officers quickly arrived, believing Altoona authorities may have apprehended the shooting suspect. Blair County District Attorney Pete Weeks stated:

There appears to be confusion with the media because New York law is different than Pennsylvania law. My office has argued in filed public documents and continues to assert that Altoona police officers lawfully arrested Mr. Mangione for crimes he allegedly committed in Pennsylvania in the presence of the officers…Because of his arrest, he and his property were then subject to a legal warrantless search incident to arrest allowed under Pennsylvania law and his property was then subject to an additional lawful inventory search as well.

Throughout three weeks of proceedings, Mangione frequently exhibited animated facial expressions, particularly furrowing his eyebrows when seemingly confused or frustrated. His relationship with the press appeared strained—he previously yelled at reporters for being “out of touch” with the “American people.” During testimony from SCI Huntingdon Corrections Officer Thomas Rivers—who stated that Mangione asked him about media perception—Mangione briefly put his head in his hand before returning to his usual demeanor.

The defense argued that suppression exhibits should be sealed from the media until trial. Judge Carro partially denied the motion, reasoning that “since this is a suppression hearing, and the court has not ruled whether this evidence will be admitted at any trial, sealing would prevent substantial possibility that the defendant’s right to a fair trial would be harmed.”

Mangione’s next hearing is scheduled for January 9, 2025, where he will appear before Judge Arun Subramanian at 40 Foley Square in New York for his federal case, United States v. Mangione. The defense has moved to challenge the constitutionality of Mangione’s death penalty. Like in his New York state case, the defense has also moved to suppress evidence due to the warrantless search and statements under Miranda. Additionally, the defense has moved to dismiss Counts 3 (murder through the use of a firearm) and Count 4 (firearms offense), which are based on the same facts and evidence as the New York state indictment.

To read more CLICK HERE

Indiana spent $1.175 million on four doses of execution drugs, two doses expired

Indiana spent more than $1 million in taxpayer funds to purchase four doses of execution drugs — some which were used, and several others that expired, reported the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

Gov. Mike Braun clarified that the drugs were purchased in two transactions — one under former Gov. Eric Holcomb and one by him.

In total, $1.175 million was spent, Braun said. But two of those — worth $600,000 — expired with no use because “they had been on the shelf too long.”

Braun emphasized, however, that neither of the doses used by the Indiana Department of Correction in December and May were expired when administered to inmates.

Reporting by the Indiana Capital Chronicle previously revealed that at least $900,000 was spent by Holcomb’s administration to purchase pentobarbital. The execution drug was used in December to carry out the death penalty for convicted killer Joseph Corcoran, and again in May for the execution of Benjamin Ritchie.

“It was tricky, because if you acquired it, and there was some type of glitch, then you go into the same thing that happened with the Holcomb administration, which bought three (doses) — anticipating more (executions). But in course, two expired, so we were careful to make sure it looked like all the administrative parts (of the judicial process) were done,” Braun said, adding that his administration waited until “right before” Ritchie’s execution before buying any new doses of the drug.

“We knew that was going to be a fait accompli,” he continued. “I was careful, so that it looked like (the execution) was going to take place, and not have something occur. And that was a little tricky. But at that point, the Indiana Supreme Court and the parole board would have been all that was left to get through. Administratively, that looked like it had a pretty defined time frame. … It was a question of when you were going to actually get it and not be stranded with it.”

Braun denied Ritchie clemency less than a week before the execution.

Braun’s office confirmed that his predecessor paid $900,000 for three doses of the drug. Only one of those doses was used, however; the other two doses expired. Braun said earlier this month that the drug has a 90-shelf life.

 To read more CLICK HERE

My blog mattmangino.com hits 10 million page views

**** ****

Here's a good idea: Let's get in the middle of a religious conflict in Nigeria

After the U.S. military launched airstrikes on sites in northwestern Nigeria on Thursday, President Trump said the targets were Islamic State terrorists “who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians,” reported The New York Times.

But analysts say that the situation on the ground is more complicated.

Sokoto State, which was hit by more than 16 Tomahawk missiles early Friday, is populated overwhelmingly by Muslims, who bear the brunt of terrorist attacks there, according to analysts and groups that monitor conflict. Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah of Sokoto said recently that the area does “not have a problem with persecution” of Christians.

And analysts are divided over the existence of ties between insurgent groups in Sokoto and the Islamic State.

Some analysts say that the violent attackers in Sokoto, who are colloquially known as the Lakurawa, have links to the Islamic State’s Sahel Province branch, which is mostly farther north and west, in Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso.

But other analysts say evidence of those links is inconclusive, as the identity of the Lakurawa group remains very murky. Its militants have operated in Sokoto and other Nigerian states for years, winning popularity by fighting local bandits at first and then turning on the rural population.

Even as the Nigerian authorities have disputed Mr. Trump’s claims about a Christian “genocide,” they have chosen to respond to his threats by cooperating with his administration. Nigeria has taken the opportunity to use U.S. firepower against insurgents that have plagued rural communities in the country’s northwest.

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump administration ignores the First Amendment this holiday season

The Trump administration celebrated Christmas on Thursday by posting a series of religious messages from official government accounts, using language that drew criticism from those who pointed to the country’s separation of church and state.

While many lawmakers in both parties posted universal messages of love, joy and peace on the holiday, a number of cabinet members and agencies made references to Jesus and the religious meaning of Christmas.

“Today we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote. “May His light bring peace, hope, and joy to you and your families.”

Posts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Homeland Security Department and the Labor Department followed in a similar vein.

“The joyous message of Christmas is the hope of Eternal Life through Christ,” Mr. Rubio said.

“Let Earth Receive Her King,” the Labor Department said.

Apparently, the Trump administration is a “proponent” of only some of the First Amendment. The separation of church and state is a core US principle, rooted in the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, meaning the government can't establish a religion or favor one over others, ensuring neutrality and protecting religious freedom for all, including non-believers, through a metaphorical "wall of separation".

Government officials have traditionally steered clear of such overtly religious language, as the Constitution bans an official state religion. The First Amendment’s establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another, while the free exercise clause protects the religious expression of all faiths.

In response to a request for comment, a White House spokeswoman, Anna Kelly, issued a short statement, saying: “Who are the critics? You? And Merry Christmas!”

One of the most extensive Christmas messages was posted by the Homeland Security Department on Christmas Eve. It read, “We are blessed to share a nation and a Savior,” and included a video that featured images including the American flag, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, President Trump and a Nativity scene, along with the words “Remember the miracle of Christ’s birth.”

To read more CLICK HERE

 Merry Christmas!

CREATORS: A Wild and Weird Year of True Crime

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
December 23, 2025

Mark Twain once remarked that "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn't." This quip was no more evident than in courtrooms across the country this year.

"True Crime" had a banner year. There were cases with celebrities and surprises; mothers and sons; conspiracies and crazies.

Let's start with the celebrity. Sean "Diddy" Combs is a bona fide star, a highly successful music artist who has won multiple Grammys. Prosecutors accused Combs of leading a criminal enterprise that used threats, violence, forced labor, bribery and other crimes to force women to engage in drug-fueled sex acts with male escorts called "Freak Offs."

Diddy was charged by the federal government with racketeering and related sex trafficking charges. He endured a salacious eight-week trial.

Although he was acquitted of major sex trafficking and racketeering charges, it was a pyrrhic victory. He was sentenced in October of 2025 to more than four years in prison and a $500,000 fine on two counts of using transportation for prostitution.

The surprise. In the early morning of Nov. 13, 2022, four University of Idaho students, Ethan Chapin, 20, Xana Kernodle, 20, Kaylee Goncalves, 21 and Madison "Maddie" Mogen, 21, were brutally murdered in their off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho.

The crime shocked the nation as police gathered evidence and hunted for a suspect. More than a month later, they arrested Bryan Kohberger, a graduate criminology student at Washington State University.

Kohberger maintained his innocence, claiming he was out for a drive at the time of the murders. Prosecutors said they found DNA evidence, surveillance video and cellphone records implicating Kohberger.

At first, Kohberger and his attorneys wanted to rush to trial, then they geared up for a contentious series of pretrial motions.

Shockingly, on the eve of a pretrial hearing, Kohberger admitted to killing all four students to avoid a potential death sentence. He was sentenced to consecutive life terms for each murder.

The Conspiracy. Karen Read was accused of running over her boyfriend, a Boston police officer, John O'Keefe. It was her second trial; the first ended with a hung jury.

Prosecutors argued Read struck O'Keefe with her SUV in a snowstorm, while the defense claimed she was framed in a law enforcement cover-up and that O'Keefe died because of a beating by drunken partygoers.

Each morning during the trial, on her way into the courthouse, Read waived and interacted with throngs of adoring supporters. The trial lasted eight weeks, with over 30 days of testimony from nearly 50 witnesses.

Read was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter and guilty of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence. She was sentenced to one year of probation.

The mother and son. Charlie Adelson, a Florida dentist, was convicted of first-degree murder in the killing of Dan Markel, a Florida State Law University Professor, and his sister Wendi Adelson's estranged husband. The killings were carried out by Charlie's girlfriend and her new lover.

The murder was allegedly motivated by a child custody dispute between Wendi and Markel.

Wendi denied any involvement, but guess who was indicted after Charlie was convicted, their mom, Donna Adelson. Prosecutors alleged that she was the mastermind, using her wealth and influence to hire hitmen, while the defense argued insufficient evidence and pointed the finger at other culprits.

Adelson, like her son, was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy and solicitation. The 75-year-old Donna was sentenced to life in prison plus two 30-year consecutive prison terms.

The Crazies. Lori Vallow Daybell was the subject of multiple, separate trials in Idaho and Arizona, where she was convicted of murdering her two children and conspiring to murder her husband's first wife. As for this year, in April, she was convicted of conspiring to murder her fourth husband, Charles Vallow, who was shot and killed by her brother, Alex Cox. In June, she was found guilty of conspiring to murder her niece's ex-husband, who survived a drive-by shooting. Vallow represented herself during her last trial.

She is currently serving consecutive life sentences in prison without the possibility of parole.

That's a wrap for 2025. Stay tuned for next year.

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

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

Mangino joins Jesse Weber on Law and Crime's Sidebar

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Trump is about to pay himself, with taxpayer dollars, $230 million over FBI raid

Donald Trump is about to order the government to pay him “damages” for the FBI raid on his Mar-a-Lago mansion and for special prosecutor Jack Smith’s two investigations of him — one for stealing, hoarding, and improperly sharing classified documents, and the other for Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election, reported The Watch. He’s going to pay himself $230 million.

So Trump — who didn’t spend a minute behind bars — about to swindle about 50 percent more than the total amount of money paid to the 97 innocent people who were incarcerated for more than 1,200 years in Texas. Or about 12 percent more than the total paid last year to 957 victims of police brutality in New York City.

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump Administration white washes history of abolition, women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement

Recently at the Philadelphia auditorium a group of invited guest were present for the  unveiling of coins designed to celebrate the country’s 250th anniversary. They provided a traditional, even simple, take on the American journey, with Pilgrims and founding fathers and a stovepipe hat tip to the Gettysburg Address.

Left unmentioned amid the event’s fife-and-drum pageantry was that these coins also represented a rejection of a different set of designs — meant to commemorate certain other inspiring chapters of the nation’s history, including abolition, women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement, reported The New York Times.

An event largely unnoticed by anyone other than coin enthusiasts, then, wound up reflecting the national struggle over how the American story is told, as the Trump administration seeks to frame any focus on the knottier moments in the nation’s arc as “wokeness.”

The treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, is authorized by law to make final decisions about coin designs, including these 250th anniversary coins — a dime, a half-dollar and five quarters — which are both collectible and legal tender. But his choices ignored the more diverse recommendations for the quarters by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, a bipartisan group mandated by Congress to review the U.S. Mint’s proposed designs for American coins.

To commemorate the abolition of slavery, the committee had recommended an image of Frederick Douglass on the obverse and shackled and unshackled hands on the reverse. To honor women’s suffrage, a World War I-era protester carrying a “Votes for Women” flag. And to evoke the civil rights movement, a 6-year-old Ruby Bridges, books in hand, helping to desegregate the New Orleans school system in 1960.

Mr. Bessent opted instead for the more general, and much whiter. For the Mayflower Compact, a Pilgrim couple staring into the distance. For the Revolutionary War, a profile of Washington. For the Declaration of Independence, a profile of Thomas Jefferson. For the Constitution, a profile of James Madison. And for the Gettysburg Address, a profile of Lincoln on the obverse, and on the reverse, a pair of interlocking hands. No shackles.

To read more CLICK HERE

Release White House legal memos supporting 'drug' boat strikes

Perhaps not surprisingly, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and senior military leaders have faced the worst of the political uproar from the Trump administration’s boat strikes off the coasts of Central and South America. The campaign has produced at least 87 deaths and one of the few episodes of bipartisan pushback in Trump’s second term following the revelation that the U.S. military conducted a “double tap” strike on an alleged drug boat that intentionally killed two survivors of an earlier strike.

But very serious questions about the legality of the effort in its entirety — even setting aside the double tap strike — should be directed at the Trump administration’s top lawyers, reported Politico. In particular, there is a dubious, but still classified, memo that was reportedly produced over the summer by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that signs off on the campaign and asserts that everyone in the chain of command is entitled to criminal immunity because the United States is said to be engaged in an armed conflict with drug cartels. (A DOJ spokesperson said, “These operations were ordered consistent with the law of armed conflict.”)

You can add this episode to the list of issues that have produced a series of sharp and unprecedented divisions among even conservative lawyers, scholars and judges as they grapple with a president who, in the last 11 months alone, has pushed the boundaries of executive power further than any president in our lifetimes. The rifts have emerged on a variety of fronts, with some on the right opposed to Trump’s judicial nominations, his “emergency” tariffs, his deployment of the National Guard and his decision to ignore Congress’ TikTok ban.

The OLC’s memo on the boat strikes appears to reflect a particularly aggressive interpretation of the laws of war that goes further — and relies on more questionable analysis — than some of the most highly controversial legal positions taken by administrations over the last half century.

One obvious point of comparison is the set of memos that President George W. Bush’s OLC produced concerning the treatment of military detainees after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks by al Qaeda — otherwise known to many as the “torture memos” because they authorized extreme interrogation methods like waterboarding and prolonged sleep deprivation. But for a variety of reasons, and regardless of where you might have come down in that case, the OLC’s conclusion on Trump’s boat strikes appears less defensible and even more worthy of serious public scrutiny.

“I don’t think there’s an armed attack” against the U.S. by the drug cartels, John Yoo, a Berkeley law professor, told me.

Yoo’s skepticism is especially notable. That’s because he was famously one of the drafters of those post-9/11 memos while working at the OLC in the Bush administration and, despite considerable criticism of his analysis, has never changed his position. Even for him, the Trump administration’s arguments are hard to accept.

“They’re not attacking us because of our foreign policy and our political system,” Yoo said, drawing a distinction between al Qaeda and drug traffickers who may be based in Venezuela. “They’re just selling us something that people in America want. We’re just trying to stop them from selling it. That’s traditionally, to me, crime. It’s something that we could never eradicate or end.”

If that is correct, then the boat strikes constitute murder under federal law and are also illegal under international law. Trump may be immune from criminal prosecution in the U.S. thanks to the Supreme Court, but everyone else involved, in theory at least, faces the risk of federal prosecution in a future administration unless Trump at some point grants some or all of them a pardon.

For all of the Trump administration’s bravado, getting legal signoff for the boat strikes may not have been as simple as it now appears. Multiple media outlets have reported that proponents of the strikes were forced to push aside or ignore government lawyers who concluded that the military campaign is unlawful or otherwise questioned its legality.

One lawyer who was unlikely to question the administration’s legal analysis and conclusions: T. Elliot Gaiser, the 36-year-old currently running OLC, whose loyalty to Trump appears to be one of his principal qualifications.

According to testimony provided to the Jan. 6 select committee, Gaiser worked on the effort by Trump to overturn the 2020 election. Former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany testified, among other things, that Gaiser helped develop some of the arguments that Trump made to support his false claim that he won the state of Pennsylvania in 2020. Gaiser also told McEnany at one point that Vice President Mike Pence had the legal authority to refuse to recognize electors from certain states during the Jan. 6 certification — a claim that, fortunately for the country, Pence and his advisers adamantly rejected.

Before becoming the head of OLC, Gaiser had never worked as a lawyer in the Justice Department or anywhere else in the federal government. Most recently, he had been Ohio’s solicitor general, and he previously clerked for some of the staunchest conservative judges in the country: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Judge Neomi Rao of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As Yoo put it to me, that may provide the “kind of background that you would hire” at OLC, but it is not the sort of resume that should put you in charge of the entire office. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Gaiser “completely unqualified” for his role before he was ultimately confirmed on a party-line vote.

The OLC’s memo is not public, but according to news reports and accounts from lawmakers who have seen it, the office appears to have uncritically adopted a series of factual claims advanced by the White House that are highly contestable — and in some cases borderline nonsensical — in order to justify the strikes. Indeed, the administration itself seems to understand that, given a new report from the New York Times that the U.S. military has tried not to take survivors of the strikes into custody in order to avoid having to legally justify the campaign in the courts.

Most notably, the OLC appears to have concluded that the U.S. is in an armed conflict with drug cartels because they are using their profits to fund violence and extortion in our country. But as other legal and foreign policy analysts have noted, this makes little sense because there is no meaningful or credible evidence that these cartels are using their profits to promote organized violence in the U.S.

The idea that they are intentionally trying to kill Americans is also hard to take seriously, since active drug users provide the demand that ultimately keeps drug cartels in business, and you have to actually be alive in order to use drugs. On top of that, experts have noted that fentanyl, which has driven a rise in drug overdoses in recent years, largely comes from Mexico, which has apparently not been subjected to this military campaign.

The OLC’s memo also reportedly argues that the targets of the strikes are the drug shipments themselves — not the people delivering drugs — on the apparent theory that the drug sales are used to fund the cartels’ supposed hostilities against Americans. There is no apparent precedent for a theory like this, which could easily be adapted in a future administration to pursue objectives that many Republicans would hate.

“This is the thing I think conservatives should worry about,” Yoo told me. “Could a future President AOC say, ‘Oh my gosh, we are at war with the fossil fuel companies. They are inflicting masses of harm on the United States. It might be cumulative, but they’re doing it on purpose.’”

“You just make the same exact arguments,” he said. “That’s the danger you have once you start saying anything that hurts Americans could be an act of war.”

The American public should be able to see the administration’s legal analysis, including the OLC’s memo, so that they can judge the rationale for themselves, know who is actually producing it and — critically — see how far-reaching the logic is.

The idea that it needs to remain classified in its entirety makes little sense. The most sensitive part of the analysis would be the supposed factual summary, but although the government often goes to great lengths to protect intelligence sources and methods, the only method that appears to be at issue here — blowing up the boats without providing evidence or due process to the alleged traffickers — has been publicly touted by the White House itself in the form of endless self-congratulatory remarks and the release of some of the videos of the strikes. On top of that, the administration has already made the analysis available to some members of Congress, and the administration can redact anything that might actually reveal sensitive intelligence or operational details to the public.

At best, it appears that the Trump administration’s military crusade is proceeding based on severely deficient — and perhaps even disingenuous — analysis by administration officials who have relied on their own self-serving, logically dubious and hotly contested factual assertions in order to justify the use of lethal force to kill alleged, low-level drug traffickers who otherwise make just hundreds of dollars a day on these runs.

Some of the administration’s defenders have argued that the Trump administration’s approach draws support from former President Barack Obama’s use of drone strikes against alleged terrorists. One obvious flaw in that analysis is that Congress had at least passed an authorization for the use of military force in the wake of 9/11. Although some prominent legal analysts questioned whether the Obama administration had exceeded the scope of that authorization, Congress has certainly not provided any authorization whatsoever for military force against drug traffickers or the government of Venezuela — which, in fact, appears to be the Trump administration’s real target.

“The only way the strikes have any legal plausibility,” Yoo argued during our discussion, “is if we’re at war with Venezuela and the drug cartels are something like what we saw in Afghanistan after 2001 with the Taliban and al Qaeda being so intertwined together that the drug cartels are essentially acting as an auxiliary of the armed forces or intelligence services of Venezuela.”

“For some reason,” he continued, “the administration doesn’t want to say that’s what they’re doing, and they won’t legally justify it.”

But between the boat strikes and other actions by the White House — including Trump’s announcement that the airspace above and around Venezuela should be considered closed — it appears as though the Trump administration would like to start a war with Venezuela. As a practical matter, it may already have done so, albeit without any congressional authorization and without even bothering to make a case to the American public for it.

If the Trump administration is confident that its actions are lawful — as top officials have repeatedly claimed — they should have no problem releasing the OLC’s analysis.

Whether that happens or not, congressional investigators who are probing the administration’s actions should focus closely on the role of the government’s lawyers and the basis for the claims that they are making to support the White House’s ongoing military campaign.

If the Trump administration does not release the OLC’s analysis and a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, the next president should release all of the relevant legal analysis and conduct an investigation into the work of Trump’s lawyers, just as the Obama administration did in the aftermath of the Bush presidency.

These memos concern matters — of life and death, of war and peace — of the highest legal and political order. They should not be secret.

To read more CLICK HERE