Mangino discusses Nikolas Cruz sentence on Law and Crime Network

Listen to my reaction on the Law and Crime Network to the sentencing of Nikolas Cruz the Margory Stoneman Douglas school shooter who will serve life without parole.

To watch CLICK HERE

State and local government referendums on legalizing marijuana

 As he plied the streets of Killeen in his silver Volvo SUV on a recent Sunday, Louie Minor recalled his time as a deputy constable whose duties included arresting marijuana users, reported Stateline.  

Minor, a 43-year-old Iraq war veteran, wanted to reach as many voters as possible in a mission that might have seemed improbable during his career in law enforcement. At each stop, Minor handed out a light-blue card emblazoned with a cannabis leaf and the message, “Decriminalize Marijuana Possession.”

In next week’s midterm elections, voters in Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota will consider statewide initiatives that would legalize recreational marijuana use for adults. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia already have legalized recreational marijuana. Medical cannabis is legal in nearly 40 states, plus the District of Columbia. 

Marijuana-related measures also will be on the ballot in dozens of municipalities in six other states, including Texas, another indication of how the nation’s attitudes toward marijuana are quickly evolving.

Four of the six states — Colorado, Michigan, Montana and Rhode Island — already have legalized recreational marijuana. Local voters in those states will consider whether to expand availability or, in a few cases, reduce it by overturning or curtailing previously approved types of marijuana sales, according to a compilation of upcoming ballot initiatives by The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, commonly known as NORML. 

In Ohio and Texas, the question on some local ballots will be whether to decriminalize possession of small amounts of the drug.

In Ohio, which has legalized medical marijuana, seven communities will vote to eliminate penalties for misdemeanor possession of cannabis. A poll released in early October by Spectrum News in partnership with Siena College Research Institute showed that 60% of likely voters in Ohio supported legalizing adult use of cannabis while 37% opposed it. 

Killeen, which sits adjacent to the sprawling Fort Hood U.S. Army base, is one of five Texas cities where voters are being asked to bar local police from making arrests or issuing citations for misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Ultimately, proponents hope to persuade Texas lawmakers to legalize marijuana statewide. But Texas prosecutors, police departments and municipal governments already have scaled back enforcement: According to a review conducted for Stateline by the Texas Office of Court Administration, misdemeanor marijuana convictions dropped from 25,671 in fiscal 2018 to 7,531 in fiscal 2022.

The Texas initiatives in Denton, Elgin, Harker Heights, Killeen and San Marcos are the result of months of petition drives and coalition-building by Ground Game Texas, which former Democratic congressional nominees Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver founded in the spring of 2021 to build strength for progressive Democrats. Republicans have dominated state politics in Texas for more than two decades.

Ground Game’s first test on marijuana enforcement was in the capital city of Austin, and it succeeded overwhelmingly. In May, voters in the nation’s 11th most populous city, a liberal enclave in a largely red state, chose to decriminalize marijuana possession (and ban no-knock warrants) by 86% to 14%.

To read more CLICK HERE

Indiana doctor who provide abortion to 10-year-old rape victim sues attorney general

Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio, is suing Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, alleging he has relied on "baseless" consumer complaints to launch "overbroad" investigations into physicians who provide abortion care, and issued subpoenas seeking the confidential medical records of their patients, reported CBS News.

The lawsuit, filed by lawyer Kathleen DeLaney on behalf of Bernard and her medical partner Dr. Amy Caldwell in Indiana Commercial Court in Marion County, claims Rokita opened investigations into seven consumer complaints filed against Bernard after she came under scrutiny for performing the medication-induced abortion on June 30, days after the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade.

Bernard was thrust into the national spotlight after she told the Indianapolis Star that a child abuse doctor in Ohio had called her about the pregnant 10-year-old, who was seeking an abortion out of state due to Ohio's near-total abortion ban. A man was arrested and charged with rape two weeks later. Ohio's abortion law, which bans the procedure once an embryonic heartbeat is detected, typically around six weeks of pregnancy, took effect after the Supreme Court issued its decision overturning Roe.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino a guest on Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

Listen to my interview with Nancy Grace on Crime Stories with Nancy Grace discussing the glam yoga teacher Kaitlyn Armstrong charged in murder of ex-boyfriend's new love interest.

To listen to the interview CLICK HERE

TCR: The Games Defendants Play

Mathew T. Mangino
The Crime Report
November 3, 2022

Nearly a year ago, Darrell Brooks drove his red Ford Escape SUV into the Waukesha, Wisconsin holiday parade, killing six people and injuring 61 others. The horrific tragedy was punctuated by a bizarre, recently concluded, four-week trial.

The trial, which began October 3, was presided over by Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow. I followed the trial closely for The Law and Crime Network.

When the trial began, I was taken aback by Judge Dorow’s overt efforts to placate the defendant who insisted on representing himself.  It was clear, on the eve of trial, that Brooks was attempting to deploy the ruse of representing himself as a means to delay the trial.

The judge figuratively bent-over-backward to ensure Brooks knew his legal rights and the responsibilities incumbent on representing oneself. Dorow had warned Brooks that he would proceed “at (his) own peril,” noting he would have to abide by unfamiliar laws and court processes.

However, she made it clear, with counsel or without, there would be no delay.

Once trial began, Brooks made repeated attempts to portray himself as a “sovereign citizen” and, as a sovereign citizen, outside the court’s “subject matter jurisdiction.”

Brooks continually talked over Judge Dorow, challenged her in unorthodox ways and argued with her repeatedly. I can assure you that no attorney could get away with a fraction of what Brooks got away with in Dorow’s court.

In fact, most defendant’s representing themselves would have felt the wrath of the court long before Brooks did—if he ever did feel the court’s wrath.

Dorow provided a written ruling outlining on the court’s jurisdiction and provided wide latitude for Brooks to make objections that were inappropriate and out of context—each time patiently saying “overruled.”

Brooks had two things in mind—delay and disruption.

He did both rather well. As a result, his conduct spurred heated arguments with Dorow. Judge Dorow on several occasions removed Brooks to an adjacent courtroom.

However, each time she relented and invited Brooks back into the courtroom.

As Brooks continued to make baseless claims and meritless legal arguments, Judge Dorow continued to plough forward, and I realized what an important statement Judge Dorow was making for the criminal justice system.

Brooks had nothing to lose.  He had no defense; he was sitting in jail with little chance of ever getting out—so he’d make a mockery of the system.  Judge Dorow couldn’t hold him in contempt for his conduct.

What would she do: send him to jail?

She couldn’t declare a mistrial; his conduct would only be more unsettling during a second trial.

Judge Dorow did exactly what she needed to do.  She was committed to finishing the trial. She did her best to protect the defendant’s right, but refused to succumb to his theatrics.

The judge knew what Brooks wanted—delay and disruption—she could not prevent the latter, but she made sure he didn’t succeed in grinding the trial to a stop.

Delay would have been a victory for Brooks, and victories are dangerous in the hands of a guy like Brooks.  Judge Dorow has proven a disruptive and defiant defendant can get a fair trial of his or her own making.

Courts do not have to give in to outrageous conduct. A defendant might not always get what he wants, but often he gets what he deserves.

If I heard it once, I hear it a hundred times during Brooks’ trial—the well-known quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “If you represent yourself, you have a fool for a client.”

The jury deliberated for three hours, after a four-week trial.  There were 76 counts and Brooks was found guilty on every count.

Another, lesser-known statement of Lincoln’s may give us a glimpse into what is in store for Brooks.

Brooks will undoubtably appeal.  The underpinning of his argument on appeal will surely be “ineffective assistance of counsel”—he had a bad lawyer (himself).

That argument brings to mind Lincoln’s lesser known anecdote about the man who killed his parents and then asked for mercy from the court because he was an orphan.

It didn’t work then and won’t work now.

Matthew T. Mangino, of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George. P.C. and the former district attorney of Lawrence County, PA, is a frequent contributor to The Crime Report.    He is the author of The Executioner’s Toll. You can follow him on twitter @MatthewTMangino or contact him at mmangino@lgkg.com)

To visit The Crime Report CLICK HERE

 

Violent crime emerges as an issue in midterm elections

Political candidates around the United States have released thousands of ads focusing on violent crime this year, and most registered voters see the issue as very important in the Nov. 8 midterm elections. But official statistics from the federal government paint a complicated picture when it comes to recent changes in the U.S. violent crime rate, according to a study by Pew Research Center.

With Election Day approaching, here’s a closer look at voter attitudes about violent crime, as well as an analysis of the nation’s violent crime rate itself. All findings are drawn from Center surveys and the federal government’s two primary measures of crime: a large annual survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and an annual study of local police data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

How we did this

Around six-in-ten registered voters (61%) say violent crime is very important when making their decision about who to vote for in this year’s congressional elections. Violent crime ranks alongside energy policy and health care in perceived importance as a midterm issue, but far below the economy, according to the Center’s October survey.

Republican voters are much more likely than Democratic voters to see violent crime as a key voting issue this year. Roughly three-quarters of Republican and GOP-leaning registered voters (73%) say violent crime is very important to their vote, compared with around half of Democratic or Democratic-leaning registered voters (49%).

Conservative Republican voters are especially focused on the issue: About eight-in-ten (77%) see violent crime as very important to their vote, compared with 63% of moderate or liberal Republican voters, 65% of moderate or conservative Democratic voters and only about a third of liberal Democratic voters (34%).

Older voters are far more likely than younger ones to see violent crime as a key election issue. Three-quarters of registered voters ages 65 and older say violent crime is a very important voting issue for them this year, compared with fewer than half of voters under 30 (44%).

There are other demographic differences, too. When it comes to education, for example, voters without a college degree are substantially more likely than voters who have graduated from college to say violent crime is very important to their midterm vote.

Black voters are particularly likely to say violent crime is a very important midterm issue. Black Americans have consistently been more likely than other racial and ethnic groups to express concern about violent crime, and that remains the case this year.

Some 81% of Black registered voters say violent crime is very important to their midterm vote, compared with 65% of Hispanic and 56% of White voters. (There were not enough Asian American voters in the Center’s survey to analyze independently.)

Differences by race are especially pronounced among Democratic registered voters. While 82% of Black Democratic voters say violent crime is very important to their vote this year, only a third of White Democratic voters say the same.

Annual government surveys from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show no recent increase in the U.S. violent crime rate. In 2021, the most recent year with available data, there were 16.5 violent crimes for every 1,000 Americans ages 12 and older. That was statistically unchanged from the year before, below pre-pandemic levels and far below the rates recorded in the 1990s, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey.

For each of the four violent crime types tracked in the survey – simple assault, aggravated assault, robbery and rape/sexual assault – there was no statistically significant increase either in 2020 or 2021.

The National Crime Victimization Survey is fielded each year among approximately 240,000 Americans ages 12 and older and asks them to describe any recent experiences they have had with crime. The survey counts threatened, attempted and completed crimes, whether or not they were reported to police. Notably, it does not track the most serious form of violent crime, murder, because it is based on interviews with surviving crime victims.

The FBI also estimates that there was no increase in the violent crime rate in 2021. The other major government study of crime in the U.S., the National Incident-Based Reporting System from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, uses a different methodology from the BJS survey and only tracks crimes that are reported to police.

The most recent version of the FBI study shows no rise in the national violent crime rate between 2020 and 2021. That said, there is considerable uncertainty around the FBI’s figures for 2021 because of a transition to a new data collection system. The FBI reported an increase in the violent crime rate between 2019 and 2020, when the previous data collection system was still in place.

The FBI estimates the violent crime rate by tracking four offenses that only partly overlap with those tracked by the National Crime Victimization Survey: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault and robbery. It relies on data voluntarily submitted by thousands of local police departments, but many law enforcement agencies do not participate.

In the latest FBI study, around four-in-ten police departments – including large ones such as the New York Police Department – did not submit data, so the FBI estimated data for those areas. The high nonparticipation rate is at least partly due to the new reporting system, which asks local police departments to submit far more information about each crime than in the past. The new reporting system also makes it difficult to compare recent data with data from past years.

 

While the total U.S. violent crime rate does not appear to have increased recently, the most serious form of violent crime – murder – has risen significantly during the pandemic. Both the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a roughly 30% increase in the U.S. murder rate between 2019 and 2020, marking one of the largest year-over-year increases ever recorded. The FBI’s latest data, as well as provisional data from the CDC, suggest that murders continued to rise in 2021.

Despite the increase in the nation’s murder rate in 2020, the rate remained well below past highs, and murder remains the least common type of violent crime overall.

There are many reasons why voters might be concerned about violent crime, even if official statistics do not show an increase in the nation’s total violent crime rate. One important consideration is that official statistics for 2022 are not yet available. Voters might be reacting to an increase in violent crime that has yet to surface in annual government reports. Some estimates from nongovernmental organizations do point to an increase in certain kinds of violent crime in 2022: For example, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, an organization of police executives representing large cities, estimates that robberies and aggravated assaults increased in the first six months of this year compared with the same period the year before.

Voters also might be thinking of specific kinds of violent crime – such as murder, which has risen substantially – rather than the total violent crime rate, which is an aggregate measure that includes several different crime types, such as assault and robbery.

Some voters could be reacting to conditions in their own communities rather than at the national level. Violent crime is a heavily localized phenomenon, and the national violent crime rate may not reflect conditions in Americans’ own neighborhoods.

Media coverage could affect voters’ perceptions about violent crime, too, as could public statements from political candidates and elected officials. Republican candidates, in particular, have emphasized crime on the campaign trail this year.

More broadly, the public often tends to believe that crime is up, even when the data shows it is down. In 22 of 26 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993, at least six-in-ten U.S. adults said there was more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the general downward trend in the national violent crime rate during most of that period.

To read more CLICK HERE

School shootings reach record level nationwide

As criminologists have built a comprehensive database to log all school shootings in the U.S., we know that deadly school gun violence in America in now a regular occurrence – with incidents only becoming more frequent and deadlier.

Records compiled by The Conversation show that seven more people died in mass shootings at U.S. schools between 2018 and 2022 – a total of 52 – than in the previous 18 years combined since the watershed 1999 Columbine High School massacre.

Since the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, moreover, more than 700 people have been shot at U.S. schools on football fields and in classrooms, hallways, cafeterias and parking lots.

Many of these shootings were not the mass killing events that schools typically drill for. Rather, they were an extension of rising everyday gun violence.

There have been shootings at U.S. schools almost every year since 1966, but in 2021 there were a record 250 shooting incidents – including any occurrence of a firearm being discharged, be it related to suicides, accidental shootings, gang-related violence or incidents at after-hours school events.

That’s double the annual number of shooting incidents recorded in the previous three years – in both 2018 and 2019, 119 shootings were logged, and there were 114 incidents in 2020.

With more than two months left, 2022 is already the worst year on record. As of Oct. 24, there have been 257 shootings on school campuses – passing the 250 total for all of 2021.

Many of these incidents have been simple disputes turned deadly because teenagers came to school angry and armed.

To read more CLICK HERE