Mangino discusses Diddy trial on Court TV

Watch my interview with Ted Rowlands on Court TV as we analyze the latest testimony in the Diddy sex trafficking trial in federal court. 

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Texas man executed for setting 76-year-old convenience store clerk on fire during a robbery

 The 18th Execution of 2025

A Texas man was executed on May 20, 2025, 13 years to the day of a convenience store robbery in which he set a clerk on fire in a Dallas suburb, reported The Associated Press.

Matthew Lee Johnson, 49, received a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville. He was condemned for the May 20, 2012, attack on 76-year-old Nancy Harris, a great-grandmother he splashed with lighter fluid and set ablaze in the suburb of Garland. Badly burned, she died days afterward.

Asked by the warden if he had a final statement, Johnson turned his head and looked at his victim’s relatives, watching through a window close by.

“As I look at each one of you, I can see her on that day,” he said, speaking slowly and clearly. “I please ask for your forgiveness. I never meant to hurt her.” He added, “I pray that she’s the first person I see when I open my eyes and I spend eternity with.”

“I made wrong choices, I’ve made wrong decisions, and now I pay the consequences,” said Johnson, who also asked forgiveness from his wife and daughters.

There was little reaction from Harris’ relatives — three sons, two daughters-in-law and a granddaughter — who witnessed the execution and declined to speak with reporters afterward.

As the lethal dose of the sedative pentobarbital began taking effect, Johnson gasped several times, then made repeated sounds like snoring. Within a minute, all movement stopped. He was pronounced dead at 6:53 p.m. CDT, 26 minutes after the drugs began flowing into his arms.

Johnson’s execution was the second carried out Tuesday in the United States. Hours earlier in Indiana, Benjamin Ritchie received a lethal injection for the 2000 killing of a police officer.

The day’s executions were part of a group of four scheduled within about a week’s time. On May 15, Glen Rogers was executed in Florida. On Thursday, Oscar Smith is scheduled to receive a lethal injection in Tennessee.

Security video captured part of the attack against Harris who, despite her burns, was able to describe the suspect before she died.

Johnson’s guilt was never in doubt. During his 2013 trial, he admitted to setting Harris on fire and also expressed remorse. “I hurt an innocent woman. I took a human being’s life ... It was not my intentions to -- to kill her or to hurt her, but I did,” he had said at the time.

Johnson said he had not been aware of what he had done as he had been high after smoking $100 worth of crack. His attorneys told jurors Johnson had a long history of drug addiction and had been sexually abused as a child.

Harris had worked at the convenience store for more than 10 years, living only about a block and a half away, according to testimony from one of her sons. She had four sons, 11 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.

Prosecutors said Harris had only been working her Sunday morning shift for a short time when Johnson walked in, poured lighter fluid over her head and demanded money.

To read more CLICK HERE

Indiana executes cop killer state's second execution in 15 years

 The 17th Execution of 2025

An Indiana man, Benjamin Ritchie, 45,  convicted in the fatal shooting of a police officer in 2000 was executed on May 20, 2025 by lethal injection in the state’s second execution in 15 years, reported The Associated Press.

Ritchie had been on Indiana’s death row since 2002, when he was convicted of killing Beech Grove Police Officer Bill Toney during a chase on foot.

Ritchie was executed at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, according to Indiana Department of Correction officials. IDOC said in a statement that the process started shortly after midnight and Ritchie was pronounced dead at 12:46 a.m.

Ritchie’s last meal was from the Olive Garden and he expressed love, support and peace for his friends and family, according to the statement.

Under state law, he was allowed five witnesses at his execution, which included his attorney Steve Schutte, who told reporters he had a limited view of the process.

“I couldn’t see his face. He was lying flat by that time,” Schutte said. “He sat up, twitched, laid back down.”

The process was carried out hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case, exhausting all of Ritchie’s legal options to fight the death sentence.

Dozens of people, both anti-death penalty advocates and supporters of Toney, stood outside the prison until early Tuesday.

The Rev. Richard Holy leads a prayer vigil Monday, May 19, 2025, before a scheduled execution at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, Ind. (AP Photo/Ed White)

Indiana resumed executions in December after a yearslong hiatus due to a scarcity of lethal injection drugs nationwide. Prison officials provided photos of the execution chamber before Joseph Corcoran’s execution, showing a space that looks like an operating room with a gurney, fluorescent lighting and an adjacent viewing room. They’ve since offered few other details.

Among 27 states with death penalty laws, Indiana is one of two that bars media witnesses. The other, Wyoming, has conducted one execution in the last half-century.

The Associated Press and other media organizations filed a federal lawsuit in Indiana seeking media access, but a federal judge denied a preliminary injunction last week that would have allowed journalists to witness Ritchie’s execution and future ones. The judge found that barring the news media doesn’t violate the First Amendment nor does it single out the news media for unequal treatment.

The execution in Indiana is among 12 scheduled in eight states this year. Ritchie’s execution and two others in Texas and Tennessee will be carried out this week.

The 2000 fatal shooting of a police officer

Ritchie was 20 when he and others stole a van in Beech Grove, near Indianapolis. He then fired at Toney during a foot chase, killing him.

At the time Ritchie was on probation from a 1998 burglary conviction.

Toney, 31, had worked at the Beech Grove Police Department for two years. The married father of two was the first officer of the small department to be killed by gunfire in the line of duty.

Relatives spoke at a clemency hearing last week in support of the execution.

“It’s time. We’re all tired,” said Dee Dee Horen, who was Toney’s wife. “It is time for this chapter of my story, our story, to be closed. It’s time for us to remember Bill, to remember Bill’s life, and not his death.”

Appealing a death sentence

Ritchie’s attorneys have fought the death sentence, arguing his legal counsel at trial was ineffective because his lawyers failed to fully investigate and present evidence on his fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and childhood lead exposure.

Current defense attorneys say Ritchie suffered “severe brain damage” because his mother abused alcohol and drugs during pregnancy and he’s struggled with decision-making. He was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2005.

Disability rights advocates argued that Ritchie’s brain damage should have excluded him from the death penalty.

“This is a foolish, senseless, agonizing waste of time and money,” said Schutte, who added that Ritchie was no longer “the same person who committed that crime.”

Attorney General Todd Rokita said the execution honored Toney’s “sacrifice to the community.”

Republican Gov. Mike Braun rejected Ritchie’s clemency bid last week without explanation.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied a request to stop the execution. Ritchie’s attorneys challenged that decision in federal court, which a judge rejected. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the lower court on Sunday.

As the sun set Monday, the Rev. Richard Holy, a Catholic priest, recited the rosary with about 20 people in the prison parking lot.

“We don’t have to keep taking one life to exact justice for taking another,” he said.

Dozens also showed up to honor Toney’s memory.

“I support the death penalty in certain cases and this is one of them,” said Mark Hamner, an Indianapolis-area officer.

Expressing regret and awaiting execution

Attorneys said Ritchie changed during his more than two decades behind bars and had shown remorse.

In court as a young man, Ritchie smiled at Horen and laughed as the verdict was read.

He told a parole board he deeply regretted his actions, especially how he acted with Toney’s widow.

“I wish I could go back to the day in court, because that man’s wife deserved to say everything she needed to say to me, and that punk kid should have just kept his mouth shut and let her say whatever she needed to say,” Ritchie said.

Ritchie, who was also a father, spent his last days getting visits from friends and family.

“I’ve ruined my life and other people’s lives, and I’m so sorry for that night,” he told the parole board earlier this month. “You can’t take back what you did.”

To read more CLICK HERE

States make it a felony to bring illegals across their borders

Alabama lawmakers have passed legislation that would make it a felony to knowingly bring someone into the state who is in the U.S. illegally, echoing similar bills nationwide that could restrict domestic travel for some immigrants, reported The Associated Press.

The legislation given final approval Wednesday protects “not only the citizens of Alabama but also the people that are immigrating here legally and doing everything the right way,” said the bill’s Republican sponsor, Sen. Wes Kitchens.

The measure carves out exemptions for medical professionals such as ambulance drivers and employees for law firms, educators, churches or charitable organizations carrying out “non-commercial” tasks. The bill also outlines a process for law enforcement to determine whether a person who is arrested is in the country legally. It now goes to Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, who has 10 days to sign the legislation or else it fails by a pocket veto.

Alabama joins at least nine other states that have considered legislation this year that would create crimes of transporting immigrants who are unlawfully in the U.S., according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural. It’s one of many recent bills passed by conservative statehouses seeking to aid President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration.

Activists say Alabama could end up ensnaring people who provide transportation across state lines for essential services, such federal immigration court hearings in New Orleans and Atlanta, mandatory trips to out-of-state consulates and visits to family.

Jordan Stallworth, 38, works as a civic engagement coordinator for the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice and lives in Wedowee, Alabama, a rural town of about 800 people that is just a 20-minute drive from Georgia. His wife has relatives living without legal status in both states and he often assists family members and other immigrants in the community with transportation.

Recently, he drove a family member lacking legal status to the maternity ward in Carrollton, Georgia, 35 miles (56 kilometers) away, since the local hospital doesn’t have one. Stallworth worries that similar trips will be criminalized.

“I’m not gonna sit here and somebody’s dying in front of me just to have a baby — I’m not gonna sit here and just let her die, family or not,” Stallworth said.

Federal law already makes it a crime to knowingly transport someone who is in the U.S. illegally. That law has been used in border areas against drivers picking up people who illegally cross into the U.S. But it has not historically been used for minor things like giving someone a ride to the grocery store, said Kathleen Campbell Walker, a longtime immigration attorney in El Paso, Texas.

But immigrant advocates are watching to see whether that changes under Trump.

“The likelihood of that being enforced is higher now because of the focus on removing undocumented people from the United States,” Walker said.

To read more CLICK HERE

SCOTUS Supreme Court Deals New Blow to President Trump on Immigration

The Supreme Court on Friday denied the Trump administration's request to swiftly resume deportations of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law, according to Newsweek.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices rejected the emergency appeal filed by administration lawyers seeking to remove Venezuelan men accused of gang affiliations, an allegation the administration says qualifies them for expedited deportation under the rarely used 1798 statute.

President Donald Trump quickly took aim the decision on Truth Social. "THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!" he posted Friday afternoon.

Newsweek reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice via contact form and the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the original suit, via email for comment.

Why It Matters

President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in March, on the basis that the United States is under alien invasion due to immigration. The order was aimed at alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, allowing for swift removals without court hearings.

The Court had previously paused AEA deportations to El Salvador's high-security CECOT prison in a late-night order last month, temporarily blocking removals from a detention center in North Texas.

Friday's decision, in which conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, also related to those being held in Texas. Conservative justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch joined the liberal justices in the unsigned order.

In their decision, the justices sent the case back to an appeals court to decide on the underlying issue of the use of the Alien Enemies Act, while calling out the federal government over the time frame given to plaintiffs to launch legal challenges to their imminent deportations.

"Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster," the unsigned ruling said.

At least three federal judges have said Trump was improperly using the AEA to speed deportations of people the administration says are Venezuelan gang members.

On Tuesday, a judge in Pennsylvania signed off on the use of the law.

The court-by-court approach to deportations under the AEA flows from another Supreme Court order that removed a case from a judge in Washington, D.C., and ruled that detainees seeking to challenge their deportations must do so where they are held.

Other courts have sought to enforce longer time frames for immigrants to file challenges, with at least two judges calling for 21 days, rather than the current 12-24 hours.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines ordered immigration officials to give people 21 days in her opinion, in which she otherwise said deportations could legally take place under the AEA.

The Supreme Court also clarified on Friday that it was not blocking other ways the government may deport people.

Earlier on Friday, Trump posted on Truth Social, criticizing the court after it heard oral arguments on his attempt to amend birthright citizenship. Justices appeared skeptical of the idea of limiting the scope of the 14th Amendment while also leaning toward limiting lower court powers.

To read more CLICK HERE

Context matters in split second use of force decision by police

Marco Poggio of writing at 360.com:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for a civil rights lawsuit against a Houston-area traffic officer who shot and killed a fleeing man, ruling that courts must weigh the full sequence of events — not just the instant a threat arises — when deciding if police used excessive force.

The decision broadens legal protections for civilians and could open new avenues for holding officers accountable for split-second decisions they make during encounters, especially when it was their own actions that put them in danger.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that a federal court erred in dismissing a civil suit against Roberto Felix Jr., who fatally shot 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes during a 2016 traffic stop in Houston. The court found the Fifth Circuit erred in upholding that decision.

The majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan held that the Fourth Amendment requires courts to consider the "totality of circumstances," including whether an officer's actions prior to a shooting helped create the danger they later claim justified deadly force.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan said that "by limiting their view to the two seconds before the shooting, the lower courts could not take into account anything preceding that final moment."

The decision reinforces precedent the Supreme Court set in 1989 with the case Graham v. Connor, where the court first embraced the "totality of circumstances" approach. Eight circuit courts have been using such a test when probing excessive force claims, while the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth circuits have only looked at the "moment of threat" arising in a police encounter.

"While the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often matter most, earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones," Justice Kagan wrote.

The ruling sends the case back to the lower courts where Barnes' estate will get a renewed chance to argue that Felix provoked the fatal confrontation.

Katie Wellington of Hogan Lovells — counsel of record for Barnes' mother, Janice Hughes Barnes — told Law360 in an email that she was "incredibly pleased" by the ruling.

"This was a hard-fought victory through three federal courts, and Janice Barnes will continue fighting for the constitutional rights of her son, Ashtian Barnes, when this case returns to the Fifth Circuit," she said.

Craig B. Futterman, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and expert in civil rights law and police accountability, said in an email that "the court rightly recognized that context matters." The Fifth Circuit could still affirm the district court's dismissal of Barnes' suit as long as it uses the standard the Supreme Court endorsed on Thursday, Futterman said.

Attorneys for Felix did not respond to a request for comment.

The shooting occurred on April 28, 2016, after Felix, a traffic enforcement officer with the Harris County Precinct 5 Constable's Office, pulled Barnes over on a Houston highway, citing unpaid tolls linked to the rental car Barnes was driving. Barnes, who was unarmed, ignored instructions to get out of the car and instead began to slowly drive away.

Felix leapt onto the hood of the moving car and, seconds later, shot Barnes through the windshield. The officer later claimed he fired in self-defense, believing Barnes' erratic driving put his life at risk.

Janice Barnes sued Felix and Harris County in Texas state court under Section 1983 of the federal civil rights statute, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Felix invoked qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields officers from civil liability unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights.

The case was moved to federal court, where U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett sided with Felix. The court found the shooting was reasonable under the Fifth Circuit's moment-of-threat doctrine, which limits judicial review to the seconds before force is used.

Still, Judge Bennett noted in his decision that the doctrine was too narrow and that by following it the Fifth Circuit "has effectively stifled a more robust examination of the Fourth Amendment's protections when it comes to encounters between the public and the police." The judge ultimately said he was bound to apply the rule.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, calling the moment-of-threat framework "well established" and refusing to consider whether Felix's decision to jump onto the moving car had contributed to the deadly outcome.

"We may only ask whether Officer Felix was in danger at the moment of the threat," the panel wrote. "Any of the officer's actions leading up to the shooting are not relevant."

In a separate concurrence, U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Errol Higginbotham warned that the doctrine conflicted with Graham v. Connor, and called on the justices to resolve the circuit split.

Attorneys for Barnes' mother saw a path opening. They appealed to the Supreme Court in May, arguing the doctrine was "profoundly wrong" and that Felix had no legitimate reason to kill an unarmed man who posed no imminent threat.

During oral arguments on Jan. 22, several justices signaled unease with adopting a legal standard that narrowly looks at the exact moment a threat arises during a police encounter.

Charles L. McCloud of Williams & Connolly LLP, who argued on behalf of Felix, told the justices that once an officer is in danger, the use of deadly force is presumptively reasonable.

"That conclusion should end this case," he said.

Justice Kagan suggested sending the case back to the lower courts to assess the broader circumstances.

"It seems as though we should kick it back and let you guys fight it out," she told the attorneys.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared less sympathetic toward Barnes' arguments.

"What's an officer supposed to do when at a traffic stop and someone pulls away, just let them go?" he asked.

Arguing for Barnes, Nathaniel Avi Gideon Zelinsky, then an attorney with Hogan Lovells who has since joined Milbank LLP, responded by saying that Felix could have opted to chase Ashtian Barnes in his car or request backup from other police units instead of shooting.

Ultimately, the justices rejected the moment-of-threat doctrine as "improperly narrowing" the Fourth Amendment analysis in excessive force claims.

Still, in Thursday's opinion, Justice Kagan made clear that the high court was not weighing in on whether dangerous situations officers themselves create during stops must be part of the analysis to determine whether use of deadly force is reasonable.

"The courts below never confronted that issue, and it was not the basis of the petition for certiorari," Justice Kagan wrote.

Janice Hughes Barnes and the Estate of Ashtian Barnes are represented by Katie Wellington of Hogan Lovells.

Roberto Felix Jr. and Harris County are represented by Charles Luther McCloud of Williams & Connolly LLP.

The case is Janice Hughes Barnes, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Ashtian Barnes v. Roberto Felix Jr. et al., case number 23-1239, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida serial killer's last words 'President Trump, keep making America great'

The 16th Execution of 2025

A serial killer used his last words on Earth to shout-out President Donald Trump on May 15, 2025, according to USA TODAY.

"President Trump, keep making America great. I'm ready to go," Glen Rogers, known as the "Casanova Killer," said as he lay strapped to an execution gurney seconds before three drugs coursed through his veins and ended his life at the Florida State Prison in Raiford.

His last words were reported by the Tampa Bay Times and the Associated Press, with reporters representing both outlets as witnesses to the execution.

Randy Roberson, whose mother Andy Lou Jiles Sutton was a victim of the Casanova Killer, witnessed the execution and said that Rogers' comment about Trump seemed to confuse people in the room.

"I was like, 'Where did that even come from?'" he said.

His wife, Amy Roberson − also a witness to the execution − said she thought: "What the hell?"

In addition to his support for Trump, Rogers expressed his love for his family. He also addressed the victims of his crimes.

“I know there’s a lot of questions that you need answers to," he said. "I promise you in the near future the questions will be answered and I hope in someway will bring you closure."

Here's what you need to know about Rogers and his victims, and what Trump has said about the death penalty.

Why was Rogers executed?

Glen Edward Rogers, 62, was executed Thursday by lethal injection for the murder of Tina Marie Cribbs, one of four single mothers in their 30s with reddish hair who fell victim to the so-called "Casanova Killer." Rogers was known both as the "Casanova Killer" for his good looks and ability to charm his future victims, and as the "Cross Country Killer" because the victims all lived in different states: California, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida.

"He's an animal," one of his victim's sisters said in court before Rogers was sentenced to death, according to an archived report from the Associated Press. "He's about the evilest thing I think I've ever imagined."

Soon after his arrest, Rogers claimed to have killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in Los Angeles in June 1994, and about 70 people overall. There was no evidence to back that up.

Rogers − a native of Hamilton, Ohio − was pronounced dead at 6:16 p.m., becoming the 16th inmate executed in the U.S. this year and the fifth in Florida. Another three men are set to be executed in the U.S. next week, in Texas, Indiana and Tennessee.

Authorities connected five victims to the Casanova Killer. Four of them were mothers with reddish hair in their 30s. Three of the murders happened within a six-day period.

·         Mark Peters, a 72-year-old retired electrician in Hamilton, Ohio, with whom Rogers lived with briefly, was found dead in a shack owned by Rogers' family in January 1994 in Beattyville, Kentucky.

·         Sandra Gallagher, a 33-year-old mother of three, of Santa Monica, California, killed on Sept. 28, 1995 in Van Nuys. Her body was found in her burning vehicle. She had met Rogers in a bar the night of her murder.

·         Linda Price, a 34-year-old mother of two, found stabbed to death in the bathtub of her home in Jackson, Mississippi, on Nov. 3, 1995. Price briefly lived with Rogers, telling her mother: "He is my dream man," according to an archived story in the Dayton Daily News.

·         Tina Marie Cribbs, a 34-year-old mother of two, found stabbed to death in a Tampa, Florida hotel bathtub on Nov. 7, 1995. Like Gallagher, she had met Rogers at a bar on the night of her murder.

·         Andy Lou Jiles Sutton, a 37-year-old mother of four: three sons and a daughter who were 19, 17, 8, and 6 when she was found stabbed to death in her bed on Nov. 9, 1995 in of Bossier City, Louisiana. Sutton and Rogers met before her murder and are believed to have slept together.

What has Trump said about executions?

Trump is a staunch supporter of the death penalty and has called for the ultimate punishment to be carried out expeditiously for murderers languishing on death row for decades.

He has also said the punishment should be used for migrants who kill Americans, people who kill police officers, and drug dealers and human traffickers.

Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order restoring federal executions.

"Before, during, and after the founding of the United States, our cities, States, and country have continuously relied upon capital punishment as the ultimate deterrent and only proper punishment for the vilest crimes," his order said. "Our Founders knew well that only capital punishment can bring justice and restore order in response to such evil."

To read more CLICK HERE