Mangione's enters federal plea to stalking resulting in death, still faces murder charge in state court

Luigi Mangione’s plea in the federal case now turns attention to his state case, where he is charged with second-degree murder, which carries a sentence of 25 years to life, reported The New York Times. He has pleaded not guilty.

The plea in the federal case complicates the state case, which is scheduled to go to trial next month.

While murder cases are typically prosecuted in state courts, federal prosecutors have said that Mr. Mangione crossed state lines to stalk and ultimately kill Mr. Thompson, which gave the federal government jurisdiction to prosecute him.

The impact of the federal plea on the state prosecution remains unclear, and Mr. Mangione’s sentence in federal court could also play a part.

Following the hearing, Mr. Mangione’s lawyers said they had filed a motion in state court to dismiss his case on double jeopardy grounds, which bars someone from being tried twice for the same offense, with exceptions.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, led by Alvin L. Bragg, signaled it would fight that outcome.

A spokesman with the office said that state prosecutors were “encouraged that Mr. Thompson’s family received a measure of accountability.”

“While federal sentencing is pending, we are prepared to litigate the defense motions,” the statement said. “The Manhattan D.A.’s Office remains committed to seeking justice for Mr. Thompson and his family.”

An exception to the U.S. Constitution protections against double jeopardy, according to the Supreme Court, allows federal and state governments to prosecute for the same conduct because they are considered “separate sovereigns” that are independent of each other.

New York provides stronger protections. Under state law, double jeopardy comes into play when a prior prosecution for the same conduct ends in a conviction by guilty plea or a resolution at trial.

To read more CLICK HERE

Kohberger pleaded guilty now claims 'absolute claim of innocence'

The criminology student convicted last year of murdering four University of Idaho students in their home is seeking to abandon his guilty plea and obtain a trial, claiming he is innocent and was misled into confessing to the high-profile killings, reported The New York Times.

In an interview with The New York Times, Bryan Kohberger, who is currently serving four life sentences, said he had filed a petition challenging his conviction, citing concerns about how the plea deal came together.

“My actual innocence is my truth, and the plea, hinged on by false promises and blatant disinformation, MUST be withdrawn,” Mr. Kohberger said in a statement provided to The Times on Sunday night. He reiterated in a phone call from prison in Idaho that he had an “absolute claim of innocence.”

Mr. Kohberger had not granted an interview or made public comments before speaking with The Times. He declined to discuss any evidence or other specific details related to his innocence claim, as well as the specific concerns he had about the plea process. It is rare for defendants to win post-conviction challenges.

The family of Kaylee Goncalves, one of the victims, said in a statement that Mr. Kohberger was like a “mosquito you just can’t seem to swat.”

“The real tragedy is this: If even a fraction of the energy spent trying to free a guilty man were directed toward honoring the victims, there would be statues of them on every corner, parks bearing their names, and days set aside to remember the lives they lost at the hands of a narcissist,” the statement read.

The Latah County Prosecutor’s Office did not return a call seeking comment. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador released a statement saying his heart went out to the victims’ families, noting they had “already endured unimaginable loss and now must face today’s deeply painful news.”

“My office stands ready to do whatever is necessary to ensure justice is fully carried out,” he said.

To read more CLICK HERE

Supreme Court: 'An agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice'

When people plead guilty to crimes, they typically give up the right to appeal any aspect of the outcome, including the sentence they ultimately receive. In Hunter v. United States, the Supreme Court recently imposed limits on such appeal waivers, which are improbably described as "knowing and voluntary" even when the defendant is acting under intense pressure and does not yet know what penalties and release conditions he will face, reported Reason.

"An agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice," Justice Elena Kagan writes in the majority opinion, which was joined by seven of her colleagues. The decision defines "miscarriage of justice" as "the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute." It offers some examples, including a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum, a sentence "infected with a blatant constitutional error" such as racial bias, release conditions that violate basic rights, and a prison term imposed by a judge who "let an orangutan pick a sentence out of a hat."

As Justice Neil Gorsuch explains in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the need for such intervention stems from a criminal justice system that resolves nearly all cases through plea deals. "In our times, the jury trial has given way to a conveyor belt of plea bargains," Gorsuch writes. "At least some responsibility for that development lies with this Court. When confronted with coercive prosecutorial tactics designed to induce defendants to take plea deals, the Court has often condoned those practices or let them pass in silence."

The case involves Munson P. Hunter III, who was charged with participating in "a years-long scheme costing various financial institutions about half a million dollars" in unauthorized wire transfers. In February 2024, Hunter pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud. It is not hard to see why: He was also facing nine other felony charges, which federal prosecutors dropped in exchange for his guilty plea. Had he been convicted of all 10 charges, Gorsuch notes, Hunter would have faced "up to 300 years in prison and a $10 million fine."

As part of the plea agreement, Hunter gave up the right to appeal his sentence. He later had cause to regret that decision.

The crime that Hunter admitted involved the theft of $38,649 in a single transaction. But at sentencing in the Southern District of Texas three months later, Judge Sim Lake took into account the dropped charges—a variation on a disturbing practice that imposes punishment for conduct that was never admitted by the defendant or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For purposes of sentencing, Lake assumed that Hunter had helped steal $488,352 in 26 transactions.

"This made a significant difference for Mr. Hunter," Gorsuch notes. "Had the district court sentenced him based on the amount he had pleaded guilty to stealing, he would have faced an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 15 to 21 months in prison. Now, though, he faced a recommended prison term of 41 to 51 months. And based on that calculation, the district court chose a prison sentence of 51 months." In other words, "a guilty plea to a single charge enabled prosecutors to secure a punishment based on other charges they had agreed to drop or had not even brought."

That was not Hunter's only unpleasant surprise. As a condition of his supervised release after his prison term, Lake ordered him to "participate in a mental-health treatment program" and "take all mental health medications that are prescribed by [his] treating physician." Hunter objected to the latter condition, which he argued violated his "constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs."

Confronted by that claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said Hunter could not raise it because he had waived his right to appeal his sentence. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying Hunter should have an opportunity to argue that his forced medication qualified as a "miscarriage of justice" because it was unconstitutional.

Gorsuch agreed with that result, as did all the justices except for Clarence Thomas. Under Hunter, Gorsuch notes, "prosecutors may not always leverage their plea-bargaining power to induce a defendant to forego the right to contest his sentence on appeal." But that issue, he emphasizes, is just one facet of the problems stemming from coercive plea deals.

"The most remarkable thing about Mr. Hunter's plea-bargaining journey may be how unremarkable it is," Gorsuch writes. "Our criminal justice system is no longer dominated by trials and sentences based on them, but plea bargains that work out in ways not unlike his own."

At the Founding, "the right to trial by jury was considered part of every American's 'birth-right and inheritance,'" Gorsuch notes. "Outraged by British efforts to deny that right in the colonies, those who fought the Revolution cited its suppression as one of their reasons for declaring independence. After the Revolution, too, the founding generation took care to secure the right to trial by jury in criminal cases not just once, but twice, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights they adopted."

Plea bargains "didn't begin to emerge as an alternative to trial in serious criminal cases until the mid-nineteenth century," Gorsuch writes. But today, around 95 percent of convictions are based on guilty pleas, making the right to trial more imaginary than real.

The Supreme Court was initially skeptical of that development, expressing concern about the power of prosecutors to coerce guilty pleas by threatening defendants with additional charges and penalties if they insisted on making the government prove its case. But by 1971, the Court was describing plea bargaining as "highly desirable," something "to be encouraged," and "an essential component of the administration of justice."

Why was it essential? "If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial," the Court worried in Santobello v. New York, "the States and the Federal Government would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities."

The Court reiterated that view six years later in Blackledge v. Allison. "Whatever might be the situation in an ideal world," it said, "the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country's criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned."

What does a "properly administered" plea bargaining system look like? The Court provided a clue in the 1978 case Bordenkircher v. Hayes, which considered what happened after a Kentucky man was charged with forging a check for $88.30.

Based on that charge, Paul Hayes faced a sentence of two to 10 years in prison. If Hayes pleaded guilty, the prosecutor said, he would recommend a five-year sentence. But if Hayes insisted on going to trial, the prosecutor warned, he would be charged under Kentucky's "three strikes" law, which authorized a life sentence. Uncowed, Hayes said he wanted a trial. The prosecutor delivered on his threat, and Hayes was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court saw no problem with the prosecutor's tactics.

Appeal waivers add another dimension to this situation, and now the Court has recognized that justice may require overriding them. In addition to the examples offered in the majority opinion, Gorsuch says the "miscarriage of justice" rule should also apply to "sentences imposing penalties the law reserves for offenses different [from] those of which the defendant stands convicted." Hunter's 51-month sentence fits that description, and there are many other examples.

Under the Court's decision in Hunter, "a defendant may be able to appeal a sentence imposing a condition of release that violates his right to be free from forced medication, or a condition that violates his right to speak or worship freely, or any other condition that violates one of his recognized constitutional rights," Gorsuch says. "I would think a miscarriage of justice all but certain to arise whenever a sentence infringes a constitutional right that was 'firmly established at the time of sentencing.'"

The majority also said sentences "marred by serious procedural errors" should be appealable notwithstanding waivers, Gorsuch notes. In his view, that would include "not only a sentence chosen by an orangutan" but also penalties "reflecting a marked departure from mandatory sentencing procedures."

Even "aspects of sentencing that can require a degree of judicial discretion," such as "the application of the advisory sentencing guidelines," "the imposition of supervised release conditions within statutory and constitutional bounds," and the weighing of sentencing factors, could trigger the exception recognized by the Court, Gorsuch says. "A miscarriage of justice would seem to arise, as well, when a district court metes out punishment that is so substantively unreasonable that it would fail under the 'deferential abuse-of-discretion standard' that appellate courts already apply in sentencing challenges."

Gorsuch sees "deeper problems" with appeal waivers. "The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, this Court has held, tolerates only 'voluntary and knowing' guilty pleas," he notes. A guilty plea "must be made both 'voluntarily' and 'with full understanding of the consequences.'" But "how can a defendant 'know' and 'fully understand' at the time he signs a plea agreement that a court might later order punishment that defies the Constitution, a federal statute, or this Court's precedents?"

Gorsuch also notes that the Supreme Court "has found prospective waivers of
many other statutory rights invalid and unenforceable." He says the Trump administration, which urged the justices to uphold the 5th Circuit's decision in Hunter's case, "has offered no colorable explanation why a defendant's prospective waiver of his statutory right to appeal his sentence should be treated differently."

If a defendant "may prospectively waive the right to appeal his sentence," Gorsuch writes, "one might wonder what's to stop prosecutors from pushing their luck further yet. Might we eventually face plea agreements that include prospective waivers of the defendant's right to complain about future unreasonable searches and seizures of his home? Or prospective waivers of a defendant's right to seek a jury (rather than bench) trial in future proceedings if he ever is charged with another crime?"

Two centuries ago, "it was likely unimaginable that almost every federal criminal case would be resolved by plea bargain," Gorsuch says. "Forty years ago, it may have been no easier to foresee that plea bargaining defendants would be pressed to waive their statutory right to appeal sentences yet to be imposed. Let alone that the federal government would argue these waivers prevent defendants from appealing even blatantly unlawful or unconstitutional sentences chosen by an orangutan."

Although the Supreme Court "is not responsible for all these developments," Gorsuch writes, "it has encouraged some of them and stood silent while others took hold. Today, the Court finally begins to correct course, taking an important step toward reining in appeal waivers. It is not a solution to all of plea bargaining's excesses, and perhaps not even those associated with appeal waivers. But it is a start."

To read more CLICK HERE

Why did Bryan Kohberger Kill?

Bryan Kohberger's past tells us a lot about his motivations, experts say. During his childhood, he was isolated and bullied and eventually became addicted to heroin and struggled with his weight, reported the USA TODAY.

Experts interviewed by USA TODAY agree that we can conclude a lot about Kohberger's motives based on the evidence and his history: He was bullied, he felt rage toward women, he fantasized about violence and ultimately, wanted power more than anything, they say.

"A lot of killers feel powerless their whole lives and that’s why killers become serial killers. Because for the first time they feel like an all-powerful god," said Rachel Toles, a clinical psychologist and criminal expert based in Greenville, South Carolina. "He wanted to feel powerful for once in his life."

At some point Kohberger was able to kick the heroin habit, lose weight and get lean, according to the 2025 book, "The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy." 

"He grew up kind of bullied, kind of ostracized and he decided to change his life ... and I think he started viewing himself as a possessor of power. Before he was someone without power and now he possesses it," said John Delatorre, a psychologist based in San Antonio, Texas, who works on criminal cases.

Ultimately, "he viewed himself as someone who could take what he wanted whenever he wanted," Delatorre said. "I think what interested him was the idea that you could legitimately hold someone's life in your hands and take it away whenever you choose to do so."

Bryan Kohberger, who is accused of killing four University of Idaho students, is escorted to an extradition hearing at the Monroe County Courthouse in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S., January 3, 2023. Matt Rourke/Pool via REUTERS

Toles added: "He probably also wanted revenge on a world that made him feel unwanted."

Kohberger's past addiction, weight gain and loss, Toles said, also show that he "clearly felt empty his whole life" and may have been attracted to studying criminology at the University of Washington because it "gave him a language for his alienation."

Kohberger seemed particularly interested in three killers: Ted Bundy, the BTK Killer and Elliot Rodger. Through them, he identified with a narrative arc that "rejection moves to resentment moves to obsession moves to control moves to violence moves to infamy," Toles said.

"It’s a storyline he could place himself in and one that made him feel more powerful instead of invisible," she said, adding that Kohberger may have thought: "Maybe I'm not a problem. Maybe I'm like them. Maybe I'm a predator."

Kohberger likely felt the urge to kill for years, Delatorre said, relying on fantasies and stalking before he ultimately acted on it.

"The idea of taking someone's life with a knife was probably something he was think about for quite some time, it just required a target," he said. "People don’t snap. People brew, they fester. The negative emotionality is over a long period of time to get them to a breaking point to act out."

What is happening with the case?

Kohberger, 30, pleaded guilty to the killings earlier this month after accepting a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid the death penalty and instead face four consecutive life sentences.

The agreement also means he'll avoid a lengthy and highly publicized trial.

He's scheduled to be officially sentenced on Wednesday, July 23. The families of the victims will be allowed to address the court at that time to talk about the impact of the crime and who their loved ones were.

To read more CLICK HERE

Kohberger's zealous defense fizzles agrees to plea deal

Bryan Kohberger, the man charged in the brutal stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students, has reached a plea deal to avoid the death penalty, according to a letter that prosecutors sent to relatives of the victims, reported The New York Times.

Mr. Kohberger had been set to go on trial on murder charges in August, nearly three years after the killings, which occurred at a residence near the university in Moscow, Idaho. A plea hearing is set for Wednesday.

In a letter to the victims’ families on Monday, prosecutors said that Mr. Kohberger’s defense team asked for a plea offer last week. Under the proposed agreement, which must be approved by the judge in the case, Mr. Kohberger would plead guilty to all charges, face four consecutive life sentences and waive all rights to appeal.

The family of Kaylee Goncalves, one of the victims, criticized the prosecution team for failing to consult with the families. Some of them had worked to change Idaho law to allow the firing squad as a form of capital punishment.

“After more than two years, this is how it concludes, with a secretive deal and a hurried effort to close the case without any input from the victims’ families on the plea’s details,” the Goncalves family said in a statement.

In their letter to the families, prosecutors wrote that the plea deal was “our sincere attempt to seek justice.”

“This agreement ensures that the defendant will be convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison, and will not be able to put you and other families through the uncertainty of decades of post-conviction appeals,” they wrote. “Your viewpoints weighed heavily in our decision-making process, and we hope that you may come to appreciate why we believe this resolution is in the best interests of justice.”

Prosecutors did not respond to messages seeking comment, nor did lawyers for Mr. Kohberger. The families of the other victims did not comment immediately on the proposed agreement.

Mr. Kohberger, now 30, was a criminology Ph.D. student at Washington State University, about a 20-minute drive from the crime scene. He grew up in Pennsylvania and studied psychology in college. He was arrested in December 2022 at his parents’ home in the Pocono Mountains area of Pennsylvania about six weeks after the killings.

Mr. Kohberger’s defense team tried unsuccessfully for months to undermine key pieces of evidence that investigators collected against him. Prosecutors have said that his DNA was found on a knife sheath recovered at the crime scene, and that records showed he had purchased a knife of a kind matching the sheath in the months before the killings. Video footage showed a car similar to his circling the neighborhood around the time of the deaths.

But investigators have yet to suggest a motive or offer any details on how the victims were chosen.

Mr. Kohberger’s lawyers filed a flurry of motions in recent months, including one trying to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty — in part, they said, because Mr. Kohberger had been diagnosed with autism. They unsuccessfully sought a delay in the trial, arguing that their team had not had enough time to comb through the vast amount of evidence in the case. But the judge ordered jury selection to commence on Aug. 4.

Just hours before news of the plea deal on Monday, one of Mr. Kohberger’s lawyers was in court in Pennsylvania, where she successfully argued that two witnesses who knew Mr. Kohberger as a teenager should be forced to testify at trial even though they did not want to.

Mr. Kohberger has been in jail since his arrest. His lawyers have given few hints about what defense they planned to offer, but have said that he was “out driving” on the night of the murders.

In the years before the killings, Mr. Kohberger indicated that he was interested in studying criminals. In a message to a friend in 2018, he wrote that he would like a job “dealing with high-profile offenders.” A few months before the murders, he posted on Reddit asking people who had spent time in prison to describe their “thoughts, emotions and actions from the beginning to end of the crime commission process.”

Investigators have said that the murders happened sometime around 4 a.m. on Nov. 13, 2022. The victims — Ms. Goncalves, 21; Madison Mogen, 21; Xana Kernodle, 20; and Ethan Chapin, 20 — had spent a typical Saturday night out near the university campus and returned to the house in the early hours of Sunday.

A roommate who survived the attack said she had heard what sounded like crying coming from the room of one of the women. She later told the police that she had opened her door and seen a man with bushy eyebrows in black clothes and a mask. The man left the house and the roommate began texting with another surviving roommate downstairs before taking refuge in her room.

But neither she nor anyone else called the police until more than seven hours later, when a friend came to the house and discovered the body of one of the victims.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: The Obsolescence of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 17, 2025

Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy acknowledged in 2012 — when writing an opinion to establish the right to competent counsel for defendants negotiating a plea — that plea bargaining "is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system."

In 2022, a little more than 1 in 100 federal defendants and 1 in 20 state defendants went to trial. A significant majority of criminal cases are resolved by plea bargaining.

A plea bargain is a negotiated agreement between the government and a person accused of a crime. The accused agrees to accept responsibility in exchange for reduced charges or a more lenient sentence.

Many of those who choose to plead guilty serve their jail time before they are sentenced. How can an inmate serve his sentence before he is determined to be guilty?

The American criminal justice system has prided itself on the heavy burden placed on the government to prove those accused of a crime guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — yet very few are actually subject to that burden.

One of the most significant factors in resolving criminal cases is poverty. An accused is arrested on a felony. The defendant does not have the wherewithal to make bond. She sits in jail. The state realizes their case isn't great — witnesses disappear, evidence is weaker than first thought, the defendant has an alibi — the prosecutor offers a plea to a lesser charge and time already served in jail.

The defendant could refuse to plead guilty and go to trial. That might mean sitting in jail for months while the case is prepared and scheduled for trial.

Here is what the scales of justice are weighing in many cases. Liberty right now or further incarceration with the risk of conviction at trial, along with a harsh sentence.

There seems to be something inherently wrong with locking up poor people who can't afford a bond and then offering the time they already served as the penalty. In America, it is not just the poor who negotiate their way through the system.

Most defendants who pass through the criminal justice system waive the right to a trial and the panoply of constitutional protections that come with being charged. Those rights are some of the most fundamental rights afforded a person by the U.S. Constitution. For one, the right to confront witnesses. The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime can cross-examine witnesses to determine if they are biased or their memory is faulty or unclear. A defendant can't do that at a plea hearing.

At trial, a defendant has the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. No one can be forced to be a witness against oneself. That right doesn't exist at a plea hearing. The defendant is often the only witness and must acknowledge guilt.

A defendant has the right to pick an impartial jury of his or her peers, but not when pleading guilty. A defendant has the right to a speedy trial ... that right must be waived to enter a guilty plea.

The defendant may have a basis to challenge a search or arrest under the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure. However, if the defendant wants a favorable plea bargain, those rights must be waived.

For those without the ability to post bail, plea bargaining is often the only avenue to freedom. Two defendants charged with the same exact crime in the same jurisdiction — one has money, he can post a monetary bond and walk the streets until trial, just like any law-abiding citizen.

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

Law & Crime--George Santos: A cautionary tale in an important election year

Matthew T. Mangino
Law & Crime News
August 22, 2024

 As we move toward Labor Day and the traditional start of the election season, the run-up to the 2024 election has not disappointed in its historic twists and turns. President Joe Biden is out, Vice President Kamala Harris is in, and former president Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt and is about as agitated as he has been since losing his reelection bid in 2020.

The recalibrated Democratic National Convention is underway in Chicago. It’s not quite the show we expected several weeks ago, when there was talk of an open convention to force out Biden. Instead, Biden magnanimously stepped down and is being exalted by Democrats far and wide.

While all this is going on, there is little mention of the guilty plea of George Santos – a cautionary tale for everything that is wrong, misleading and impossible to understand about modern American politics.

Santos, whose trial on 23 felony charges was scheduled to begin on Sept. 9, entered a guilty plea on Monday. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, and admitted he committed other crimes that could land him in prison for about seven years under the terms of a plea agreement, ABC News reported.

When Santos flipped New York’s Third Congressional District in 2022, he became the first openly gay non-incumbent Republican elected to Congress. Although his campaign biography said he lived in Long Island with his husband and four dogs, his husband never campaigned with Santos and there was no marriage license on record for a marriage to a man.

There was a marriage license to a woman in 2012 and a divorce in 2019.

That was only the beginning of the lies that Santos apparently told. He created a bio out of whole cloth. He was running for Congress, for the second time, in New York City. NYC may have one of the greatest newspapers in the world, The New York Times, and Santos’ deceit wasn’t exposed to the voters.

It wasn’t as though Santos had a sophisticated cover story that insulated him when he told mistruths. Santos apparently lied about everything. He lied about where he went to high school, where he went to college and where he worked.

This is the 21st Century — I can do a search to find out what Donald Trump had for breakfast this morning.

Santos said his mom was at the World Trade Center on 9/11. She was not.

He said his grandmother died during the Holocaust. She didn’t.

He said four of his employees died as a result of the Pulse Nightclub mass shooting. Not true.

Don’t forget this guy got elected to Congress! Then he used campaign money for Botox, travel and clothes. He deposited campaign contributions into private accounts. He used donor credit card information to make unauthorized charges.

He lied to Congress, and became only the sixth member of the House of Representatives to be expelled — although 114 members of Congress voted not to expel him.

Then, he was indicted.

He showed up for Biden’s State of the Union this year and announced he would be running for Congress in 2024, but that did not happen — and now he is more than likely headed to prison.

In Santos’ wake of lies and crimes, we are reminded of a couple important failures. As newspapers struggle to sustain their important role in American politics — remember Watergate? — failure to vet candidates opens the door to charlatans like Santos.

Social media has blurred the line between truth and fiction. Trump has reminded us, time and time again, that it does not matter what the media says about you as long as they keep talking about you.

Voters need to demand answers. There are red flags when things seem too good to be true. In the case of Santos, the red flags were revealed long before his election — but simply ignored. As former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told reporters in January 2023, “I always had a few questions” about Santos’ resume.

However, McCarthy needed every vote he could get to become Speaker of the House, including Santos’ vote. McCarthy was apparently willing to overlook, downplay or hide the truth about Santos – and in politics, acts of omission can be as dangerous as the commission of mistruth, lies or deceit.

Voters — as the 2024 election approaches, keep up your guard.

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

To read more CLICK HERE

Expelled former GOP congressman George Santos to enter guilty plea

George Santos, the former Republican congressman from New York undone by a mind-bending array of biographical lies and moneymaking schemes, has told prosecutors that he intends to plead guilty and avoid a federal trial that was expected to begin next month, according to two lawyers involved in the case and two other people with knowledge of the matter, reported The New York Times.

The plea, which is expected to occur on Monday in Federal District Court in Central Islip, N.Y., would spare Mr. Santos from a trial that almost certainly would have been a colorful spectacle.

Mr. Santos, whose trial on 23 felony charges was scheduled to begin on Sept. 9, could still change his mind. But this week, two lawyers representing multiple witnesses in the case were told by federal prosecutors that Mr. Santos had decided to plead guilty.

Two others with knowledge of the plans confirmed that he intends to plead guilty on Monday; one of the people said Mr. Santos is expected to give a statement in court acknowledging his crimes. The terms of his expected guilty plea and what sentence he might face were not clear.

Public court records show that an in-person hearing has been scheduled for Monday afternoon at the request of prosecutors and Mr. Santos’s lawyers. The records did not explain the purpose of the hearing. Mr. Santos and one of his lawyers, Joseph Murray, did not respond to requests for comment.

The expected plea was first reported by Talking Points Memo.

Mr. Santos, 36, was first indicted on 13 charges in May 2023 after a lengthy investigation into a series of financial crimes that federal prosecutors accused him of. Ten more counts followed in October.

Mr. Santos had initially pleaded not guilty to all counts, and, in an apparent effort to invoke former President Donald J. Trump, declared the prosecution to be “a witch hunt.” His apparent decision to change course comes months after two-thirds of his colleagues in the House of Representatives voted to expel him in December — making him only the sixth member of the House to be expelled in the body’s history.

To read more CLICK HERE

Creators: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Doesn't Guarantee a Fair Outcome

Matthew T. Mangino
Creators Syndicate
August 6, 2024

Everyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty — guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Those fundamental rights are well known, but are they well understood?

America's criminal justice system is an adversarial process. The prosecutor is pitted against defense counsel. The trial is a "fight." The most flamboyant presentation; the ability to cast the opposition in an unflattering light can often have more impact than the underlying facts.

The system is contentious and competitive. Those who practice the art of trial advocacy believe the best way to get at the truth is to have each side advocate as strenuously as possible, in a partisan battle, to convince the trier of fact that their side should prevail.

Much of what we know and perceive about the adversarial system in America is shaped by movies and television shows. Hollywood had the first try at bringing trials to the screen. Movies like "Anatomy of a Murder," "12 Angry Men," "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Witness for the Prosecution" are courtroom classics that still resonate today.

On the small screen, Perry Mason was the hero of his day. Mason's character originated in 82 bestselling novels written by author Erle Stanley Gardner. Mason was portrayed on television by actor Raymond Burr. He starred in 271 hour-long shows from 1957 to 1966. Mason beat up on inept prosecutors, conniving witnesses and corrupt police officers.

"L.A. Law," "Law and Order," "The Good Wife," "Ally McBeal" and "Better Call Saul," to name a few, have — for good or for bad — influenced the way we look at lawyers and the law. Heck, today you can stream live trials on your iPad and take to social media to critique the participants in real time.

We have learned that, at times, real life can be creepier, scarier and stranger than any classic movie or long running television series.

The criminal justice system is not foolproof and has never claimed to be. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt or guilt by some mathematical certainty. What's more, a finding of not guilty is not a claim to innocence. The system can convict the innocent and set the guilty free.

In an adversarial system, judges focus on issues of law and procedure and act as a referee in the contest between the prosecution and defense. Juries decide the facts. Those laws and facts can often be convoluted.

The law has become more complex and trials more protracted. It was little more than 60 years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court finally decided that individuals accused of a felony were entitled to legal counsel. Today, merely having a lawyer in a capital case is not enough. Lawyers without specialized training are off-limits in matters of life and death.

The complexity of trials and the time and effort that must be committed to trying a case have all but eliminated trials as a reasonable and accessible way to resolve disputes. According to the American Bar Association, in nearly 98% of federal criminal cases and about 95% of state criminal cases there is no trial at all, cases are resolved by plea bargain.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a pair of cases in 2012, "In today's criminal justice system the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for a defendant."

Kennedy wrote that plea bargaining "is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system."

The adversarial process has been replaced by the negotiation process. The burden of proof — beyond a reasonable doubt — has been replaced by a "reasonable" agreement. The American criminal justice system is the best in the world, but it is far removed from what the founders envisioned.

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

Guantánamo plea: Twenty years in the making

The man accused of plotting the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and two of his accomplices have agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy and murder charges in exchange for a life sentence rather than a death-penalty trial at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prosecutors told The New York Times.

Prosecutors said the deal was meant to bring some “finality and justice” to the case, particularly for the families of nearly 3,000 people who were killed in the attacks in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field.

The defendants Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi reached the deal in talks with prosecutors across 27 months at Guantánamo and approved on Wednesday by a senior Pentagon official overseeing the war court.

The men have been in U.S. custody since 2003. But the case had become mired in more than a decade of pretrial proceedings that focused on the question of whether their torture in secret C.I.A. prisons had contaminated the evidence against them.

Word of the deal emerged in a letter from war court prosecutors to Sept. 11 family members.

“In exchange for the removal of the death penalty as a possible punishment, these three accused have agreed to plead guilty to all of the charged offenses, including the murder of the 2,976 people listed in the charge sheet,” said the letter, which was signed by Rear Adm. Aaron C. Rugh, the chief prosecutor for military commissions, and three lawyers on his team.

The letter said the men could submit their pleas in open court as early as next week.

The plea averted what was envisioned as an eventual 12- to 18-month trial, or, alternatively, the possibility of the military judge throwing out confessions that were key to the government’s case. Col. Matthew N. McCall, the judge, had been hearing testimony this week and had more hearings scheduled for later this year to decide that and other key pretrial issues.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Creators: The 'Poverty Penalty': No Cash, No Freedom

Matthew T. Mangino
Creators
March 18, 2024

A fundamental tenet of Anglo-American jurisprudence, dating back to the Magna Carta, is that all those accused of a crime are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Today, about four out of five people sitting in local county jails and municipal lockups have not been convicted of the crime that brought about their detention.

Every day across the country, thousands of people are locked up because they don't have money. The idea of "debtors' prison" has long been repugnant. However, the concept of "pay or go to jail" is still around. Whether it's getting locked up for not paying fines or penalties after a conviction, or not having the wherewithal to post bail pending trial — there are still a lot of poor people in jail.

In most jurisdictions, the difference between being charged with a crime and walking the street pending trial, or sitting in jail awaiting trial, comes down to cash. Those who have it stay out of jail; those who don't, stay in jail. Those unfortunate people without money for bail are at risk of losing their jobs, their homes and their families.

Every year, about 11 million people funnel through local municipal and county jails. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, between 1970 and 2017, the number of people incarcerated in the nation's 3,000-plus local jails ballooned — from 150,000 to about 720,000 per day.

The millions of people who go to jail each year are there, generally, for brief periods of time. Most are released in days or hours after their arrest, while others are held for months or even years — often because they can't afford to make bail, are unable to get a speedy trial, or can't gain timely access to a public defender.

Defendants accused of particularly serious violent crimes or who pose a credible threat to public safety may be detained in jail while awaiting trial. However, most defendants are entitled to pretrial release. Judges may impose conditions on a defendant's release, such as electronic monitoring or supervision through a pretrial services agency, but they are entitled to bail if they can afford it.

Correcting the bail crisis is not out of reach. This isn't about being tough on crime. It's about being fair. For some, even a nominal bond is out of reach. When an accused has no money, $1,500 might as well be $150,000.

Cash bail was historically intended to provide a financial incentive for defendants to show up at required court dates, but reforms adopted in the 1970s and 1980s allowed judges to also consider potential risks to public safety when making bail decisions. Cash bail can, under the right circumstances, be an appropriate tool for ensuring defendants cooperate throughout the pretrial period.

However, in most instances, cash bail creates a wealth-based, two-tiered system of pretrial detention. Those who can't afford bail suffer a "poverty penalty." No system of justice can endure when a person's wealth, or lack of it, can determine their freedom. Mariam Krinsky, executive director of the nonprofit Fair and Just Prosecution, said in 2019, "Common sense dictates that people should not be held in jail simply because they cannot afford a monetary payment." Yet the widespread use of cash bail continues.

Keeping an accused in jail for an extended period of time without trial creates other grievous problems in the criminal justice system. For instance, some inmates being detained pretrial, without the resources to post bail, see a guilty plea as their only path to freedom. Some defendants sitting in jail will take a plea offer, even if they're innocent, just to get out of jail. What could be worse than being locked up because you can't afford bail?

Pleading guilty to a crime you didn't commit to regain your freedom.

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

West Virginia man who threatened jurors in synagogue massacre trial enters guilty plea

A West Virginia man pleaded guilty to obstructing the federal hate crime trial of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter after sending threatening messages to jurors and witnesses in the case, reported The Hill. 

Hardy Lloyd, 45, admitted to relaying hostile social media posts, comments and emails throughout the trial of Robert Bowers, who in 2018 killed 11 congregants at the Tree of Life Synagogue. Bowers was convicted on 63 counts; a jury recommended a death sentence in August. 

A self-identified “reverend” of a white supremacy, Lloyd previously described Bowers as a “lone wolf hero” and criticized jurors who convicted him as “guilty of anti-White racism,” according to the Justice Department.

“Free Robert Bowers Now!! … We need to support anyone who kills jews,” he posted on one Russian social media site, according to prosecutors. 

Lloyd’s white supremacist organization’s website also contained an “enemies page,” which lists those individuals’ home addresses, workplaces, family photos and contact information. He threatened to post online the jurors’ information — which was sealed during the trial — to “keep the trial honest,” according to court filings.

“Y’all who are on the jury, make sure to vote what you know in your heart is morally correct,” he wrote online with two winking-face emoticon. “Free Richard Bowers, city of Pittsburgh or else there will be ‘legal’ consiquences (sic)!”

As part of his plea agreement, Lloyd stipulated that he intentionally picked jurors and government witnesses as targets “due to the actual or perceived Jewish religion of the witnesses and the Bowers victims,” the Justice Department said in a statement. 

“Hardy Lloyd attempted to obstruct the federal hate crimes trial of the deadliest antisemitic attack in American history,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “His guilty plea underscores that anyone who attempts to obstruct a federal trial by threatening or intimidating jurors or witnesses will be met with the full force of the Justice Department.” 

FBI Director Christopher Wray said the agency “will not tolerate the intimidation of citizens participating in our criminal justice system.” 

If a judge accepts Lloyd’s plea deal, he will spend 78 months — about six-and-a-half years — in prison, according to the Justice Department. 

To read more CLICK HERE

PLW: ABA Report on Plea Bargains Reveals Need for Reform

Matthew T. Mangino
The Legal Intelligencer
May 11, 2023

More than a decade ago, in a case known as Missouri v. Frye, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that plea bargaining “is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system.”

Recently, the American Bar Association (ABA) released its 2023 Plea Bargain Task Force Report. Three years in the making, the report revealed that in 2018, only 2% of federal criminal cases ended in a jury trial. The task force examined how the emphasis on resolving criminal cases through plea bargains negatively impacts the integrity of the criminal justice system by creating “perverse incentives” for lawyers and judges to conclude cases quickly instead of justly.

The plea bargain, however unpopular or unseemly, is an important tool in the administration of justice. Plea bargains save the government time, money, and the trouble of actually proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the plea bargain were to disappear the criminal courts would grind to a halt.

However, just because the plea bargain is needed doesn’t mean it is fair, just, and in line with some of America’s most fundamental constitutional rights.

The ABA report lays out a number of principles for reform—including that people should not be penalized with harsher sentences by exercising their right to a trial, and that people are often incentivized to plead guilty for reasons that have nothing to do with their actual guilt or innocence.

A 2018 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ report found, “There is ample evidence that federal criminal defendants are being coerced to plead guilty because the penalty for exercising their constitutional rights is simply too high to risk. This ‘trial penalty’ results from the discrepancy between the sentence the prosecutor is willing to offer in exchange for a guilty plea and the sentence that would be imposed after a trial.”

The problem is best exemplified by the reality that one in four people exonerated by DNA in the United States confessed to the crime charged. It seems astonishing that a person would plead guilty to a crime they did not commit.

Here are some things to consider. In the United States of America, a police officer can lie to an accused about incriminating evidence during an interrogation and elicit a confession, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said there is nothing wrong with such conduct.

Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the potentially innocent pleading guilty. Henry C. Alford was indicted for first-degree murder, a capital offense in North Carolina. Although he proclaimed his innocence, he pleaded guilty to killing a man with a shotgun. He said in court, “I’m not guilty, but I plead guilty.”

The Supreme Court ruled in North Carolina v. Alford, “An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.”

Then there is the trial penalty—the act of accepting a plea bargain due to the fear of a harsh sentence if convicted at trial. There are reams of data to support the existence of the trial penalty. The trial penalty—and the need to have one—point to the dire state of the criminal justice system. The burden of proof—beyond a reasonable doubt—is rarely employed. The prosecution is rarely forced to prove anything beyond probable cause to make an arrest.

There is an incentive in the system to plead guilty to crimes that were charged but not committed. Police often over-charge defendants. The most serious charges are dropped and the defendant is expected, under oath, to make admissions to crimes he did not commit. The benefit of the plea bargain often comes at a high price to the defendant and to the system. The impact of race in plea bargaining cannot be overstated. The ABA report details significant racial disparities in the plea bargaining. Hannah Dean wrote in Jurist Magazine of Duquesne University School of Law, “Prosecutors’ decisions to drop or reduce charges as part of a plea bargain reveal stark racial bias. White defendants are 25% more likely than Black defendants to have their most serious charge dropped or reduced as part of a plea bargain, and Black defendants frequently receive higher sentences for the same charges as their white counterparts.”

For the most part, plea bargaining is not governed in detail by rules of court or established policy. What Kennedy called “the criminal justice system” has few safeguards and little oversight. A plea offer can be arbitrary and subject to the whim of the prosecutor. In fact, a prosecutor has no obligation to even negotiate a plea with a defendant.

In Pennsylvania if one is looking for guidance of plea bargains here is what is codified on the subject:

Plea Agreements

At any time prior to the verdict, when counsel for both sides have arrived at a plea agreement, they shall state on the record in open court, in the presence of the defendant, the terms of the agreement, unless the judge orders, for good cause shown and with the consent of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and the attorney for the commonwealth, that specific conditions in the agreement be placed on the record in camera and the record sealed.

The judge shall conduct a separate inquiry of the defendant on the record to determine whether the defendant understands and voluntarily accepts the terms of the plea agreement on which the guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere is based.

The ABA report’s 14 principles for reform are a small step in a long journey toward fairness and transparency in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, those accused of criminal conduct do not have a very strong lobby. One way to change this process is through the legislation. The prospect is daunting; there are 50 different legislatures and a Congress that needs convincing.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George. and the former district attorney of Lawrence County. He is the author of “The Executioner’s Toll.” You can follow him on twitter @MatthewTMangino or contact him at mmangino@lgkg.com. 

To read more CLICK HERE

The trial penalty: 'Plead before trial, you get mercy; after trial, you get justice'

"I've read transcripts in which judges say things like, if you plead before trial, you get mercy; after trial, you get justice," said Martín Sabelli, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told NPR. "That's a threat."

Sabelli said the system is most harsh on Black and brown people, and low-income people — those who tend to have the least power.

"Every day, this results in the virtual extinction of criminal trials from our criminal legal landscape and converts our courtrooms into these ... assembly lines where people are just being brought in one after another in these red, yellow, green, black jumpsuits," he said.

Sabelli and a group of other legal and civil liberties advocates are working to focus public attention on the trial penalty, which they say has contributed to the near disappearance of criminal trials in many places.

In the federal system, about 98% of cases end in plea deals. In big states like Texas and New York, the numbers are similar. And in one county in Arizona, there were no criminal trials at all from 2010 to 2012, according to a recent report from the American Bar Association.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees that people accused of crimes have the right to a trial. But in recent years, trials have become an endangered species.

"That's not what justice should be about," said Miriam Krinsky, a former prosecutor who now directs the reform-minded group Fair and Just Prosecution. "You know, to the extent that there should be some kind of an incentive to plead early and not put survivors or others through the process and the trauma of going to trial, what does that look like? And is something far more modest the right starting point, as opposed to that draconian, three-time increase in a hammer over somebody's head?"

Cully Stimson is another former prosecutor and a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, where he writes about crime and justice. Stimson said the system works pretty well as it is.

"The fact that many cases result in a guilty plea is not a problem, because in many cases — and I've been a criminal defense attorney — the person is guilty and they're taking advantage of a plea deal that subjects them to less time," he said. "So I don't think there is a trial penalty. I think it's a trial privilege."

Stimson said there are lots of good reasons for defense lawyers to encourage their clients to plead guilty. For example, the clients may have a prior criminal record, and a plea bargain may be their only way to win a shorter prison term.

But the advocates pressing for change say prosecutors have too much power to stack up charges against defendants and create a situation where they face so much prison time that even innocent people feel pressure to strike plea deals.

To read more CLICK HERE

George Will: Plea bargaining nullifies the right to trial

 George Will writing in the Washington Post:

Herewith a two-question quiz: What is the only right affirmed both in the Constitution of 1787 and in the Bill of Rights? And what governmental practice produces the most pervasive and glaring civil rights deprivations?

The answer to the first question is: the right to trial by jury. (Article III, Section 2: “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury”; Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”) The answer to the second is: plea bargaining as currently practiced, which often effectively nullifies this right.

A just-published report by an American Bar Association task force says plea bargaining has not only become the primary way to resolve criminal cases, “some jurisdictions have not had a criminal trial in many years.” Think about that: Years can pass without a defendant exercising the constitutional right to an adversarial process conducted in public in front of a neutral judge and a jury of the defendant’s peers.

Eighteen percent of the more than 2,000 persons known to have been exonerated of crimes — not just found to have been convicted in flawed legal proceedings: exonerated — had pleaded guilty. As of 2020, according to the Innocence Project, of 375 convicts exonerated by DNA evidence, 11.7 percent had pleaded guilty. Many of the exonerees, caught up in an intimidating process that can be fast-moving and bewildering, were from racial minorities.

Last year, 98.3 percent of federal criminal convictions, and about 95 percent in the states, resulted from bargained guilty pleas. Why? To a significant extent, coercion.

This often begins with detention in frightening conditions: To be arrested is to be suddenly plunged into control by a government speaking an often arcane legal language. Then there is “stacking” — prosecutors piling on charges which, in a context of mandatory minimum sentences, force defendants to choose between risking potentially life-ruining trials and pleading guilty to lesser charges, even if innocent.

This “trial penalty” for exercising a fundamental constitutional right is intolerable. In terms of justice, what is the superiority of confessions achieved by the coercion of “stacking” in a courthouse negotiation, and those achieved in the bad old days by beatings with truncheons in the back rooms of police stations?

The task force’s report stresses that plea bargaining has legitimate uses. It incentivizes defendants to accept responsibility for criminal conduct, and offers finality to their victims and the community. Furthermore, prosecutorial resources are scarce, and plea bargaining is a mechanism for efficiently resolving cases. No value in life, however, invariably supersedes all others, and the pursuit of efficiency has too often become “the driving force of criminal adjudication,” supplanting transparency and justice.

A consequence of excessive plea bargaining is, the ABA’s report says, that “police and government misconduct often goes unchecked because so few defendants proceed to pre-trial hearings where such misconduct is litigated.” Furthermore, prosecutors become less skeptical of their witnesses, and less scrupulous about not advancing weak cases. Defense lawyers become less rigorous in investigating cases that seem destined for a plea deal. With such deals, defendants waive the right to confront adverse witnesses, and perhaps to challenge unconstitutionally procured evidence and to receive materials prosecutors acquired during discovery.

The task force recommends, among other reforms, that “sentences should not be punitively inflated simply because a defendant exercised” the right to a trial. So, judges should be allowed to judge, departing from any mandatory minimum sentences in order “to avoid a substantial differential between the trial sentence and any lesser sentence offered as part of a plea bargain.” And there never should be the “inherently coercive” use of the threat of capital punishment or life without parole to induce a guilty plea.

Policies pursued by ideologically blinkered progressive mayors and district attorneys (hello, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) have, to say no more, coincided with surges of violent crime. This is, therefore, an unpropitious moment to pursue criminal justice reforms that sensible progressives might favor — e.g., concerning plea bargaining — but that opportunistic politicians can stigmatize as coddling criminals.

Undaunted, the Cato Institute’s Clark Neily and others suggest that plea bargaining on today’s “industrial scale” could be countered by a “trial lottery”: A small percentage of cases in which plea agreements have been reached should be randomly sent to trials. How often would the government be unable to secure a conviction after it has managed to induce a pre-trial guilty plea? Let’s find out.

To read more CLICK HERE

Here is a bit of irony: Man who bought gun for Rittenhouse pleads guilty

The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17 has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he’d been facing, according to The Associated Press.

The Journal Sentinel reports Dominick Black, 20, was charged in November 2020 with two counts of delivering a dangerous weapon to a minor, resulting in death. The two counts related to Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, the protesters Rittenhouse fatally shot the night of Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha.

Black was 18 when he purchased the rifle for Rittenhouse at a hardware store in Rusk County in May of that year. At 17, Rittenhouse was too young to legally purchase the weapon. 

In August 2020, Rittenhouse used the rifle to kill two people and wound a third during protests in Kenosha. In November, a jury found him not guilty, based on his claim of self-defense.

Black was the first prosecution witness at Rittenhouse’s trial, but the status of his own charges were up in the air after Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed to throw out one of the charges against Rittenhouse — that he unlawfully possessed a firearm as a minor. The defense convinced Schroeder that an exception in the law allows 17-year-olds to possess rifles and shotguns, or at least left the law too vague to be enforceable.

On Friday, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger filed a proposed plea agreement. It suggested Black would plead no contest to a pair of citations, and pay a $2,000 fine, and the felony counts would be dismissed. 

 A hearing is scheduled Monday morning. Schroeder could reject the deal, or dismiss the original felony counts based on his ruling about the minors-with-firearms law in the Rittenhouse case.

To read more CLICK HERE

PA Report: Prosecutorial misconduct undermines justice system

 Prosecutorial misconduct undermines the legitimacy of the justice system, says the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice, reported The Crime Report.

While a number of states have adopted measures to address instances where prosecutors fail to provide timely evidence that could prevent the conviction of innocent individuals or neglect other rules of procedure, the aberrant conduct is largely “invisible” to public scrutiny in most jurisdictions across the country, said the Center in a new report.

“American citizens lack the ability to make even the most cursory inquiry into whether their prosecutors operate within the rules,” the report asserted.

Researchers at the Quattrone Center, based at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, created what they said was a unique dataset of 4,644 opinions in which allegations of misconduct were raised in the more than 1.5 million judicial opinions published between 2000 and 2016 by federal and state courts in Pennsylvania.

They identified 7,207 separate claims of prosecutorial misconduct over that 17-year period. Courts failed to address 1,774 of those claims. In the remaining 5,432, misconduct was found in just 204 cases―or less than 4 percent.

But the apparent low figure, they suggested, was “almost certainly a substantial undercount.”

And, they argued, there is little reason to suggest that Pennsylvania was atypical.

“We have found no jurisdiction in the United States that regularly assembles and publishes information about how frequently allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are made, how often they are upheld, and what actions are taken when misconduct has been identified,” the report said.

“Without such basic information, communities are left with vague reassurances that misconduct is rare; that when it occurs, it is rapidly identified and addressed; and that no additional oversight or accountability measures are needed to improve the criminal justice system and ensure that good prosecutors will continue to serve our system, while bad prosecutors are weeded out.”

One likely reason for the undercount is that the cases examined in their database only corresponded to cases which went to trial.

The majority of Pennsylvania criminal cases are resolved through pretrial bargaining—when prosecutors strike deals with defendants to lower sentences in response to a guilty plea. Allegations of misconduct during the pretrial period never appear in final opinions.

“What became clear during our review is that the true extent of prosecutorial misconduct eludes a full analysis due to a number of systemic factors keeping such incidents from scrutiny,” said the report.

The 85-page report, entitled “Hidden Hazards: Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims in Pennsylvania, 2000-2016,” recommended ten steps that Pennsylvania legislators and judicial bodies could take both to develop a more comprehensive database on prosecutor misconduct, and to hold prosecutors accountable for “intentional” and “unintentional” courtroom mistakes.

To read more CLICK HERE