Matt Mangino

Do military lawyers working as federal prosecutors violate Posse Comitatus Act?

2026-04-09T08:00:00.002-04:00

Following the mass exodus of federal prosecutors in Minnesota, the Justice Department has enlisted lawyers from the armed services to fill the gaps, according to Courthouse News Service.

Now, a federal judge is set to decide the legality of using military judge advocate general lawyers to prosecute civilians.

Paul E. Johnson, a Minnesota resident facing a count of assaulting a federal agent in January, claims Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Hakes-Rodriguez is unlawfully prosecuting him in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

The act bars federal military troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law — most commonly used to prosecute offenses committed by civilians on military intallations.

The Justice Department contends judge advocates may be detailed to “represent the United States in civil and criminal cases” — asserting Hakes-Rodriguez and others have fully satisfied the necessary requirement to practice in Minnesota federal courts.

“The only connection to the military is their membership, which is not part of their enforcement of civilian law," the government said in a reply brief.

Hakes-Rodriguez told Magistrate Judge Shannon Elkins on Friday his appointment falls under an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act allowing judge advocates assigned to civilian offices to perform duties as requested.

But former judge advocates say military regulations never allowed for the general assignment of military lawyers in civilian matters.

“It is so wrong, and it’s inappropriate, and it’s going to undermine the relationship between civil and military authority for a long time going forward,” said attorney John Marti, a former judge advocate and federal prosecutor in Minnesota.

“If it’s OK for the attorney general to designate military attorneys as special assistants to prosecute civilians in civilian courts for civilian offenses with no nexus to military authority, there is no limitation on the attorney general doing that with all U.S. attorney’s offices,” he added.

A group of 11 former U.S. military attorneys, including Marti, submitted an amicus brief in Johnson’s case, urging the government to revert back to the tradition of limiting military attorney participation in civilian matters.

The group said the government typically details military attorneys on occasion to prosecute offenses committed by civilians on military installations, and in other cases where the military has a “clear and defined interest.”

“The government recently expanded this practice far beyond its historical and statutory bounds,” the group said in the March 10 brief — citing the dozens of military attorneys assigned to U.S. attorney’s offices in Minnesota, Washington, D.C. and Tennessee.

“During these temporary duty assignments, JAGs are not prosecuting cases with a nexus to the U.S. Military,” the former military attorneys said in the brief. “Instead, they are prosecuting civilians for the kind of general, domestic federal offense that civilian DOJ prosecutors would normally handle.”

The group said the government’s use of military attorneys is harming civil-military relations by suggesting military-led law enforcement is the “catch-all” substitute for regular civilian constitutional due process.

Military attorneys also have no choice, according to the group, unlike typical federal prosecutors.

“When civilian prosecutors are instructed by their superiors to pursue legally flawed or ethically suspect cases, they can resign, as they have done in this district,” the group said. “But JAGs do not have this option — they must obey their military superior’s lawful orders upon possible penalty of criminal prosecution.”

Reports say as many as 25 military attorneys could work at the depleted Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office in an attempt to keep it afloat after mass resignations during Operation Metro Surge due to ethical conflicts.

Before the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, the office had reportedly more than 40 prosecutors on staff.

With that number now cut in half — not including enlisted military attorneys — it’s unclear how a judicial ruling against the use of military attorneys would impact the office, but Marti said the option to pull lawyers from other government departments — like DHS and ICE — has always existed.

“The question you ask yourself is why do you need military attorneys when all these other agencies have attorneys as well — why not detail them?” Marti said. “I think in part because it’s easier to direct military attorneys to go do a mission.”

Since Operation Metro Surge began, federal prosecutors have faced a reputational downfall through a myriad of court orders threatening contempt over misrepresentations of fact and law, and flouting of judicial instruction. Now, military attorneys sent in to ease the burden face similar challenges.

Hakes-Rodriquez was removed as the prosecutor on Johnson’s case Monday — only to be replaced with fellow military attorney William Richards.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Punishment Without Limits

2026-04-08T20:33:00.007-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
April 8, 2026

A new Tennessee law will make it easier for people with felony convictions to vote. For years, Tennessee prohibited former offenders who were behind on child support or court costs and fines from voting. The state legislature recently approved a measure that would permit people who have complied with child support for one year to rejoin the voting and rolls. In addition, the law no longer ties payment of court costs and fines to the right to vote.

According to the Prison Project, laws in 48 states ban people with felony convictions from voting. In 2022, an estimated 4.4 million Americans, representing 2% of the voting-age population, were ineligible to vote due to similar disenfranchisement laws or policies.

These never-ending penalties are known as collateral consequences of crime. Disenfranchising former offenders is one of a myriad of lifetime penalties piled on people convicted of felonies in this country.

Lawmakers nationwide would do well to eliminate some of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. A criminal record shouldn't be a life sentence. The ever-growing list of collateral sanctions often put former offenders in a position to fail.

A collateral sanction is a penalty, disability or disadvantage that is related to employment or occupational licensing as a result of an offender's conviction. The sanctions apply by operation of law, whether or not the penalty, disability or disadvantage is included in the sentence.

According to The Council of State Governments' Justice Center, a little less than one in three offenders released from prison are reincarcerated within three years, either committing a new crime or violating conditions of parole. While that is an improvement over numbers from a decade ago, it is still too many.

The problems with our crowded prisons are not just the result of punishing offenders for their criminal conduct — the problems are compounded by ongoing sanctions that hinder former offenders from successfully reintegrating into society.

According to a 2024 National Employment Law Project report, an estimated 80 million Americans have a criminal record. The American Bar Association (ABA) has identified over 38,000 penalties — collateral consequences — that can impact people long after they have completed their criminal sentence.

The ABA Task Force on Collateral Consequences found that a former offender "may be ineligible for many federally funded health and welfare benefits, food stamps, public housing and federal educational assistance." As a result, their ability to earn a living in their chosen profession may be limited in that an offender "may no longer qualify for certain employment and professional licenses."

Collateral consequences may prohibit military service, possession of a firearm or federal security clearance. A non-citizen may lose the right to reside in the United States.

Supporting a family is that much more difficult when employers refuse to hire former offenders. Employers may be interested in giving a person a second chance, but they are concerned that hiring a person with a criminal record might expose them to liability for negligent hiring if the person commits a crime on the job.

According to the Vera Institute of Justice, half of all states punish people who cannot pay fines and fees associated with criminal proceedings by taking away their driver's licenses. This practice impacts nearly 11 million people nationwide and diminishes their ability to secure a job, maintain stable housing and participate in their community.

More states, as well as the federal government, need to take action to remove heavy-handed sanctions that drive up costs, increase victimization and often doom offenders to a never-ending cycle of poverty or worse — reincarceration.

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

Trump: The Art of Negotiation

2026-04-07T09:04:00.000-04:00

“Every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again.” War crimes are always a good negotiation ploy.

Tennessee law eases former offenders' right to vote

2026-04-06T08:18:00.004-04:00

A new Tennessee law has eased up on two longstanding financial hurdles for people with felony sentences who want their voting rights back, including a unique requirement among states that they must have fully paid their child support costs, reported The Associated Press.

The Republican-supermajority Legislature approved the Democratic-sponsored change, which now lets people prove they have complied for the last year with child support orders, such as payment plans. The legislation also unties the payment of all court costs from voting rights restoration.

Advocates for years have sought various changes to Tennessee’s voting rights restoration system at the statehouse and in court. They say loosening these two rules marks the biggest rollback of restrictions to voting rights restoration in decades.

“This is huge and this is history,” said Keeda Haynes, senior attorney for the advocacy group Free Hearts led by formerly incarcerated women like her.

To read more CLICK HERE

FOX News: Man who put up $100K to find Nancy Guthrie says tipsters should skip the sheriff and call Crime Stoppers

2026-04-05T10:08:00.000-04:00

As multiple agencies collect tips in the Nancy Guthrie case, the man funding a $100,000 reward says Crime Stoppers — not the sheriff — offers the safest path for witnesses to come forward and an enticing one for people who want to get paid for credible information without giving their name, reported Fox News.

"I believe that people will come forward if they’re anonymous and if they get a reward," said Wisconsin attorney Michael Hupy, who is the president of Crime Stoppers Milwaukee.

In Pima County, Arizona, the local Crime Stoppers affiliate is known as 88-CRIME, and the number is 520-882-7463.

Hupy has paid out $75,000 in rewards and posted another $200,000 in an effort to solve crimes in his hometown. But he told Fox News Digital this week he put up six figures in the Guthrie case due to the alarming circumstances of her disappearance.

To read more CLICK HERE

Ted Bundy executed 27 years ago claims another victim

2026-04-04T10:12:00.003-04:00

The late Ted Bundy, one of the most famous and prolific serial killers in U.S. history, has claimed another victim, reported The Associated Press.

New DNA testing confirmed Bundy was responsible for the 1974 killing of a 17-year-old Utah girl who disappeared after leaving a party alone on Halloween night, the local sheriff’s office said Wednesday.

Laura Ann Aime was found dead on the side of a highway in American Fork Canyon about a month after her abduction. She was bound, beaten and without clothing.

Investigators long suspected that Bundy killed her — police said he confessed without providing any details before his execution in Florida in 1989 — but the case remained open until they could be certain.

“It’s really quite amazing that people are even still interested in Laura’s case,” her sister, Michelle Impala, said at a news conference Wednesday. “Know I speak for my family when I thank you, and thank you media, too, for even caring.”

Bundy was linked to the deaths of at least 30 women and girls across several states in the 1970s. His murders — which occurred in sorority houses, parks and elsewhere — set the nation on edge. Bundy’s arrest drew widespread fascination, in part because many considered him to be charming and handsome.

Investigators had carefully preserved the evidence from Aime’s case, and forensic analysts were able to identify portions that seemed most likely to have usable DNA samples, Utah Department of Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason said.

The state crime lab got new technology in 2023 that allows investigators to extract DNA from samples even if they are small, degraded from age or contain DNA from multiple people, he said. That technology allowed them to identify a single male DNA profile, which they submitted to a national law enforcement database.

Bundy’s DNA was a match, Mason said.

That profile can now be used by other law enforcement agencies who have long suspected Bundy of additional unsolved killings, he said, adding that more families could get similar closure.

“Laura Aime is the quintessential daughter of Utah County,” Sgt. Mike Reynolds said. “We felt the pain the family feels when she was taken. We felt the pain that you felt this whole entire time, and we’ve had the desire to deliver to you some type of healing.”

Impala was only 12 when her older sister died. Even with a five-year age gap, she said they were very close and did everything together. They shared a bedroom on the family’s farm in Fairview, Utah, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southeast of Provo.

Impala reminisced Wednesday about riding horses with her sister and watching Aime feed her horse red licorice nibs.

“When she died, he would not eat those anymore,” she said.

It’s not known when Bundy first began his attacks, but by 1974, young women — many of them college students — began disappearing in Washington state. Authorities were still investigating those cases when Bundy moved to Salt Lake City and began killing in Utah, Idaho and Colorado.

At the time of Aime’s killing, Bundy was studying law at the University of Utah.

In August 1975, he was arrested for the first time in connection with the attacks. Police pulled him over and found incriminating items in his vehicle including rope, handcuffs and a ski mask.

He was found guilty the following year of kidnapping and assaulting a teen in Utah who had managed to get away. Bundy was sentenced to 15 years in prison for that crime, and while imprisoned he was charged in connection with the earlier death of a nursing student.

He was brought to Aspen, Colorado, for a hearing in that case in 1977, and he escaped custody by climbing out a second-story courthouse window when he was left alone for a time. He was caught after about a week, but escaped again six months later by breaking through the ceiling of a jail.

Bundy fled across the country, eventually making his way to Tallahassee, Florida. On Jan. 15, 1978, he entered the Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University, bludgeoning two women to death with a large branch and leaving two more badly injured. He then went to another house nearby, badly injuring another woman.

Less than a month later, he abducted, sexually assaulted and killed a 12-year-old girl in Lake City, Florida. Kimberly Leach was believed to be his last victim before he was arrested again and executed by electric chair years later.

To read more CLICK HERE

Ohio AG wants to end eight year moratorium on executions

2026-04-03T13:00:00.006-04:00

The state’s outgoing Attorney General is again urging Ohio to resume executions, even though it is highly unlikely before the end of his term or Gov. Mike DeWine’s, reported Statehouse News Bureau.

Ohio’s death row wait time now stretches longer than 22 years, with more and more inmates dying from natural causes—or by suicide—than from a sentence, according to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s mandatory 2025 capital punishment report. The state ranks 12th of 28 states for its wait time.

“During my years as attorney general, not a single sentence has been carried out—a mockery of the justice system and of the dead and their families,” Yost writes in the report, released Wednesday. “Yet other states, which get their life-ending drugs from the same companies Ohio could, have found the will and a way to carry out these sentences since 2019.”

The de facto execution moratorium is closing in on eight years and extending the entirety of Gov. Mike DeWine’s tenure. DeWine has delayed every scheduled one since January 2019, some more than once, blaming pharmaceutical companies’ opposition to use of their products in the drug concoction that creates a lethal injection.

But with his time in office closing, DeWine has for months hinted at coming out against capital punishment altogether. That announcement hasn’t come yet.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, which opposes capital punishment, has asked DeWine to grant some death row inmates clemency.

“There is a real opportunity to address Ohio’s broken capital punishment system by reviewing individual cases and commuting sentences before it’s too late,” ACLU of Ohio Chief Policy and Advocacy Officer Jocelyn Rosnick wrote in an email statement.

More than 100 men and one woman are incarcerated on death row in Ohio, according to Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections data.

To read more CLICK HERE

Rejection Board: South Carolina granted parole to 4% of applicants in 2024

2026-04-02T09:49:00.000-04:00

“Have a seat please, and tell us what we can do for you today.”

This is the kind of greeting parole seekers receive in South Carolina when they sit down to discuss their chance at freedom. But the warm welcome belies a cold, harsh statistic.

In 2024, South Carolina granted parole to 4% of applicants, or 25 out of 3,000 people. Prison Policy Initiative rates South Carolina as the lowest of the 35 states that grant discretionary parole, which allows people to leave prison before their sentence is complete. It’s so low that one lawyer who works on parole cases nicknamed the parole board the “rejection board," reported the Prison Journalism Project.

Even as parole rates have plummeted across the country in recent years, South Carolina remains an extreme outlier. Nearby Southern states grant parole at much higher rates, including Georgia (28%), Alabama (20%) and Mississippi (49%).

Shifting criteria

What does it take to win freedom via parole in South Carolina?

James T. had what he thought was a promising application. He was officially deemed “minimal risk” to reoffend and had no disciplinary record, and that wasn’t all. “I had five character witnesses, a home plan, job plan, no write-ups and I still got turned down,” he said.

Most prisoners I spoke to said they received a standard form letter that stipulated the primary reason for denial as “the nature and severity of the crime.”

“Tell me just how I’m supposed to change the nature of my crime?” asked James T., who was convicted of aggravated assault. “They can use that so-called reason ’til doomsday. No matter what programs I take or how perfect my conduct is, it won’t change what I did.”

In fact, 27 of the 35 state parole boards use “nature or severity of crime” as a primary reason to deny parole, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that researches the U.S. prison system. It is only superseded by one’s “criminal history” — which includes one’s history of incarceration, supervision and arrests.

No one I spoke to argues that it’s unreasonable for the parole board to ask applicants to demonstrate that they have “reformed” and will lead a productive life if paroled. The problem, they said, is the vague and subjective criteria used by the parole board to make their decision.

“We’ve found that in practically every state, parole boards cite a denial based not just on the nature of the crime but [on the idea] that to grant parole would diminish the severity [of the crime] and promote a disrespect for law and order,” said Brian Scott, director of Our Journey, a North Carolina-based transition service for people released from prison. “It’s all just rhetoric.”

‘They answer to nobody but themselves’

South Carolina’s parole board considers at least 15 criteria when granting parole, according to a memo from the state Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. Good conduct while in prison, participation in programs, education and treatment (such as for substance abuse and addiction) are touted as central to parole decisions.

Billy D. checked all of those boxes.

“I plum ran out of programs to take years ago,” he said with a chuckle. “I took every class, got a college degree in business that’s not worth the paper it’s printed on, and have been in recovery for over 20 years.”

Billy D. is an accredited HVAC technician and has a commercial driver’s license and carpentry certificate, along with a record of serving as a peer support specialist to others in recovery.

“It really don’t make any difference to the parole board of South Carolina,” said Billy D., who was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, breaking and entering, larceny and driving under the influence. “They do what they want. They answer to nobody but themselves.”

While South Carolina does give you the standard form citing the reason for their parole denial, they do not explain the reasoning.

Each member of the state parole board is appointed by the governor for a six-year term. There are no term limits. The board has more independence than most parole boards as they control not only parole, but all pardons in the state — South Carolina is one of only a few states where the governor cannot grant pardons.

When denied parole, your lawyer can request a parole reconsideration, but it must be filed within 15 days of the denial, according to a manual from the South Carolina Board of Pardons and Paroles. Reconsideration is far from guaranteed. Your lawyer must prove to the board that they can provide additional pertinent information that the board did not have during the hearing, or that the board based their decision on “erroneous information.” I have not heard of a case in which someone has had their denial reversed.

Some reformers have argued for replacing discretionary parole with presumptive parole. Presumptive parole means that a prisoner would automatically be granted parole if they met certain criteria, usually involving good behavior, completed programming and a certain amount of time served. These advocates have argued that greater use of presumptive parole, as has been adopted in states such as New Jersey and Vermont, would free up parole boards to devote more time to complex parole hearings.

Still, as long as public officials fear being painted as soft on crime, the prospect of parole reform remains unlikely.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: No More Mandatory Life for Felony Murder in Pennsylvania

2026-04-01T08:39:00.000-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
March 31, 2026

A 2021 report by the Philadelphia Lawyers for Social Equity found that there were 8,242 people serving life without parole (LWOP), or virtual life sentences of 50 or more years in Pennsylvania, the second-highest number not only in the country, but around the world.

Over 1,100 of those sentenced to life without parole were the result of the state's second-degree murder — "felony murder" — statute. That number may begin to decline.

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional to require mandatory life sentences without parole for people convicted of felony murder. The key to that ruling is "mandatory."

Under the law, anyone convicted of participating in a felony that results in death — such as a robbery — receives an automatic life sentence, even if the person didn't commit the killing or intend for anyone to die.

Life sentences will still be allowed for second-degree murder on a case-by-case basis, but the state high court said mandatory life violates the state constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but Pennsylvania has its own constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments — Article I, Section 13.

Across the country few states still impose mandatory life without parole. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, in light of the ruling in Pennsylvania, only Louisiana has mandatory LWOP for a felony murder conviction

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reasoned that "a mandatory life without parole sentence for all felony murder convictions, absent an assessment of culpability, is inconsistent with the protections bestowed upon our citizens" under Article I, Section 13.

Recognizing the gravity of a life without parole sentence, the court wrote, "Life without parole imposes the harshest imprisonment sanction permitted under the law — imprisonment until death without the opportunity for consideration of release — regardless of culpability."

The decision will have a significant impact, and as a result, the court stayed the imposition of the ruling for 120 days to allow the Pennsylvania legislature to remedy the unconstitutional sentencing scheme through legislation.

The most pressing question is, will the decision be retroactive? If so, how does retroactivity affect the sentences of people already behind bars? How lawmakers approach that process — and what remedies they might settle on — could be the subject of intense debate.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, options could include seeking resentencing hearings for every person already convicted under the law, to more narrow approaches that might invite additional questions — and litigation — about how to apply the new finding to cases that were decided decades ago.

In addition, what will be the sentencing scheme for felony murder in future cases? As the court made clear, LWOP is still an option. But what are the options short of LWOP? The legislature will have to set the parameters and have only 120 days to do it.

Marsha Levick, the Phyllis Beck chair at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, and former chief legal officer of the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, coauthored briefs in a series of cases that struck down mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders, and said Pennsylvania's high court in this case appeared to be positioning its ruling for retroactive application — even if it stopped short of saying so.

Levick told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the opinion echoes the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court used to make similar decisions retroactive in juvenile cases, though she cautioned that "we're going to have to wait for action."

According to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, if no legislation is passed, or a bill is approved that doesn't address existing life sentences, that will likely kick the issue back to the courts. And that could result in further delay for those subject to unconstitutional sentences.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

SCOTUS will soon hear what may be the most important case since the Civil War

2026-03-31T10:14:00.002-04:00

Garrett Epps writes in the Washington Monthly:

On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear Trump v. Barbara, which will test the theory that the president, with the stroke of a pen, can strip millions of American-born children of the birthright citizenship the Constitution grants them.

The birthright citizenship case is easily the most important case that will come before the Court this year. I’ll add: Barbara may be the most important case the Court hears in this century.

It may be the most important case the Court has heard since the Civil War.

Epps sums up the issue like this:

The first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Since the amendment’s adoption in 1868, these words have applied to those born in the U.S.—except for two classes: First, children born to the families of foreign diplomats, whose diplomatic immunity means they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.; and, second, children born to members of Native American nations living on reservations, who were, in 1868, not “subject to the jurisdiction” because, by treaty, they could not be arrested or sued in federal court. (This provision was undone by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.) The birthright of all other American-born children has been recognized by the Supreme Court for 125 years and by Congress since at least 1940.

To read more CLICK HERE

PA Supreme Court strikes down mandatory LWOP for felony murder

2026-03-30T08:13:00.001-04:00

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled it’s unconstitutional to require mandatory life sentences without parole for people convicted of felony murder, The Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

“Life without parole imposes the harshest imprisonment sanction permitted under the law ─ imprisonment until death without the opportunity for consideration of release ─ regardless of culpability,” Chief Justice Debra Todd wrote in the majority opinion. “Due to this scheme’s mandatory nature and its unique severity, it poses a great risk of disproportionate punishment.”

Life sentences will still be allowed for second-degree murder on a case-by case-basis, but Todd writes that it violates the state constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to mandate it in all cases.

The decision was near-unanimous, with only one judge, Justice Kevin Brobson, dissenting in part.

But what the ruling means for the more than 1,000 Pennsylvanians serving life sentences without parole on felony murder charges is still unclear.

The ruling gives the general assembly 120 days to come up with a legislative fix to the state’s sentencing laws, but that could take many different shapes. And it will likely kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort the commonwealth has ever taken, though the timeline will depend on decisions made by lawmakers.

To read more CLICK HERE

Balko: 'You know we’re lying. We know that you know we’re lying. And there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it'

2026-03-29T10:42:00.005-04:00

The Watch by Radley Balko on substack:

For me, it became clear that we were in a uniquely dangerous era after the shooting of Marimar Martinez and the killing of Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez in Chicago. I’m pretty jaded about these things, but I was jarred at how the administration openly gloated and shamelessly lied about the use of lethal force by DHS against people who posed no threat. It only got worse after the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. The lies the administration told after those killings aren’t the lies you tell to cover something up. They’re the lies you tell when you want to project to the country that you can get away with anything. The lies themselves are their own display of authoritarianism. The government is telling us, “You know we’re lying. We know that you know we’re lying. And there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino appears on Law and Crime's Scandal with Sierra Gillespie

2026-03-28T09:59:00.002-04:00

Watch my interview with Sierra Gillespie of Law and Crime's Scandal to discuss the horrific murder in Wales of a mother by her 18-year-old son.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses verdict in Meta and You Tube trial

2026-03-27T08:11:00.004-04:00

Watch my interview with Lindsay McCoy on WFMJ-TV21 regarding landmark California social media suit.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ends Mandatory Life Without Parole For Those Who Did Not Intentionally Kill

2026-03-26T16:04:00.000-04:00

Sentencing Project
PRESS RELEASE

(Washington, D.C.) Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court barred mandatory life without parole (LWOP) sentences for people convicted of felony murder. The court’s ruling in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Derek Lee establishes that a mandatory life without parole sentence imposed for felony murder without consideration of the person’s individual culpability violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s prohibition of “cruel punishments”, marking a major shift from automatic and unforgiving policies that had condemned over a thousand to die in prison.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion states: “We find that the sentencing framework imposing a mandatory sentence of life without parole for second degree murder convictions in all cases, regardless of the culpability and characteristics of the defendant - including such as the extent of an offender’s participation in the conduct, and the details of his offense - without individualized assessment either at sentencing or through parole, prevents the sentencer from considering whether this harshest of sentences proportionately punishes the offender. . . . Ultimately, we find that the mandatory sentencing scheme for second degree murder poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment, and, thus, find it to be cruel.”

The Sentencing Project joined 16 other organizations, including the ACLU, MacArthur Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, and Pennsylvania Prison Society, in filing amicus briefs urging the Court to strike down Pennsylvania’s lifetime ban on parole eligibility for individuals convicted of felony murder. As noted in its brief, “The reduced culpability of a person convicted of felony murder… renders life without parole disproportionately harsh and unconstitutional.”

Pennsylvania remains a national outlier, with over 5,000 people serving life without parole—nearly 1,100 for felony murder—ranking among the highest in the country. The Sentencing Project’s research shows these laws disproportionately impact Black Pennsylvanians, who make up 70% of those serving time for felony murder, despite being just 12% of the state’s population.

“This decision is a critical step toward ending the use of extreme sentences that ignore the human capacity for change and do nothing to prevent crime or keep our communities safe,” said Sara Cohbra of The Sentencing Project. “Mandatory LWOP sentences for these crimes are a clear violation of how our legal system is supposed to work, where a criminal sentence is proportional to the moral weight of a crime. We urge lawmakers to repeal cruel and ineffective felony murder statutes to address the scourge of mass incarceration and racial disparities in the criminal legal system.”

Read the full amicus brief for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Derek Lee here. For more information about how The Sentencing Project is advocating against extreme sentences, please visit https://www.sentencingproject.org/ending-extreme-sentences/.

Minnesota sue DHS over failure to provide investigative materials from three shooting

2026-03-26T08:07:00.000-04:00

Minnesota sued the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over their refusal to provide state investigators with access to evidence regarding three shootings by DHS agents in the state, reported JuristNews.

The complaint alleges that DHS and DOJ unlawfully denied the state’s requests for evidence pertaining to the shootings. According to the state, it has a legal right to investigate the shootings that took place, asserting that it “retain[s] the sovereign authority—and responsibility—to investigate crimes committed within [state] borders.” By refusing to cooperate with state investigators, Minnesota claims that the federal government is violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

The lawsuit stems from three shootings by federal authorities in Minnesota that occurred during “Operation Metro Surge,” the DHS immigration enforcement effort within the state that saw thousands of DHS agents deployed to Minneapolis and St. Paul. The shootings include those of Alex Pretti, Renee Good, and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. Pretti and Good were both killed, while Sosa-Celis was shot in the leg. The federal government has defended the shootings on grounds of self defense.

Minnesota alleges that it has requested evidence in connection to the three shootings from the DHS and DOJ, following the proper procedure as required by the Supreme Court in Touhy v. Ragen and by 5 U.S.C. § 301. Minnesota argues that agencies may prescribe regulations for state requests for information connected to investigations, but they cannot prohibit any disclosure. The state further claims that DHS denied its request for evidence on the grounds that the Department would not release matters regarding criminal investigations. Minnesota rebuffed this argument by citing 6 C.F.R. § 5.41, which allows for disclosure related to criminal investigations. The DOJ has likewise refused to provide evidence, the state contends, citing Department policy to not disclose information pertaining to Operation Metro Surge. Minnesota maintains that both of these refusals unlawfully interfere with its ability to investigate under Touhy.

The lawsuit comes against the backdrop of ongoing controversy surrounding Operation Metro Surge. Following the shooting of Pretti and Good, the Trump administration decided to end the operation. Though DHS agents remain in the state, hundreds have been recalled. The DOJ also opened a civil rights investigation into the shooting of Pretti, but refused to do so for Good.

Minnesota is seeking a declaration from the court that the withholding of evidence is unlawful, and an order to release the evidence.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: America Needs More Robert Muellers

2026-03-25T08:35:00.006-04:00

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
March 24, 2026

Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who later served as special counsel overseeing the controversial probe into alleged collusion between the 2016 Trump Campaign and the Russian government, is dead.

While his former colleagues at the Department of Justice, FBI and special counsel's office mourned his death, one person made it clear that he was pleased by Mueller's demise. In a March 21 post on Truth Social, Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America, said, "I'm glad he's dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!"

Mueller's dedication to public service began at an early age. After earning a bachelor's degree from Princeton University and a master's degree in international relations from New York University, he then joined the Marines. He served three years as an officer during the Vietnam War. He was awarded a Bronze Star, Purple Heart and two Navy Commendation Medals.

After law school, he joined the Justice Department. He prosecuted criminals for U.S. attorneys in San Francisco and Boston. He later served as a senior litigator in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., where he prosecuted homicides.

In 2001, former President George W. Bush nominated him to serve as the director of the FBI. Mueller was sworn in a week before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In 2017, after a stint in private practice, he was appointed special counsel to investigate Russia's involvement in the 2016 presidential election that resulted in Trump defeating former senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

When the investigation concluded in March 2019 with a more than 400-page report, the special counsel found that the investigation did not establish that Trump's campaign, or associates, colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

Mueller and his team issued 2,800 subpoenas, executed 500 search warrants, obtained 230 orders of court for communication records and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

Mueller conceded that Justice Department guidelines would not allow him to charge a sitting president. But he also refused to exonerate Trump. "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller later told Congress.

In the end, the Mueller's team charged 37 people and entities, including former campaign chair Paul Manafort, national security adviser Michael Flynn and 25 Russians. Before leaving office after his first term, President Donald Trump granted full pardons to both Flynn and Manafort.

While Trump and his supporters celebrated the inability of Mueller to prosecute Trump, they ignored an equally sinister effort by a foreign government to influence the outcome of a national election in this country.

At the time, Attorney General Bob Barr disclosed in a letter to Congress that the Special Counsel outlined the "Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts."

Barr did not initially release the full Mueller Report. Instead, he released a four-page summary. The summary suggested that there were two elements to Mueller's investigation regarding Russian influence. First, an Internet disinformation operation — fake news — by a Russian organization to "sow social discord, [and] eventually ... interfering with the election." Second, the Russian government hacked into the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic Party and disseminated information through WikiLeaks to influence the election. Trump's "victory" in not getting indicted resulted in any effort to prevent Russian interference in future elections being pushed aside, and, yes, Donald Trump is once again president.

Mueller insisted on following law, policy and precedent. He refused to submit to political pressure. Trump, who has successfully pushed for his political enemies to be prosecuted, should be grateful that Mueller was a man of integrity and principle.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

SURPRISE! California sheriff, a GOP candidate for governor, launches curious election investigation

2026-03-24T07:58:00.002-04:00

A Republican sheriff who is running for governor of California recently seized more than 650,000 ballots cast in a 2025 statewide election, prompting criticism from the state’s top election official, who said the sheriff’s concerns about fraud “lack credible evidence,” according to The New York Times.

The sheriff, Chad Bianco, on Friday said he was investigating allegations by an election activist group that vote tallies did not match the number of ballots received. “This investigation is simple,” he said at a news conference. “Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported.” His office confirmed the ballot seizure and investigation on Sunday.

Mr. Bianco’s investigation involves ballots cast in the 2025 special election over Proposition 50, which asked voters whether they wanted to allow Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts in response to the nationwide redistricting war Republicans sparked in Texas last year. The outcome was not close: Voters overwhelmingly supported the redistricting effort, with about 7.4 million voting in favor and 4.1 million voting against it.

State and local and election officials have described the investigation and Mr. Bianco’s justification for seizing the ballots as baseless. Democrats and Republicans in the state have also said they believe that politics was a motivating factor in the probe. When asked for comment, Mr. Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, criticized the state’s Democratic attorney general.

To read more CLICK HERE

Forum examines rising attacks on judges

2026-03-23T09:07:00.000-04:00

Federal judges read profane death threats and praised U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ recent comments condemning personal criticism of judges during an unusual forum to highlight rising attacks on the judiciary, reported The Associated Press.

None of the four judges singled out President Donald Trump or members of his administration, who have railed against judges that have ruled against them. One of the judges on the panel, U.S. District Judge Mark Norris in Tennessee, was appointed by the president.

He recalled receiving pizza deliveries at his rural home one night for Daniel Anderl, the slain son of a federal judge in New Jersey. Dozens of judges have had unsolicited pizzas delivered to their homes, often in Anderl’s name.

Norris said such threats have become routine against judges.

The event was sponsored by Speak up for Justice, a nonpartisan group supporting an independent judiciary. The group held a similar event last year — both of them unusual because judges mostly limit their comments to the courtroom and written decisions. But more judges have recently begun talking about personal threats and attacks.

The U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for protecting judges, reported 564 threats in the government fiscal year that ended in September, up from the year before. On Tuesday, Roberts warned that personal criticism of federal judges is dangerous and “it’s got to stop.”

Norris and the other panelists pushed back on criticism that their rulings reflect the political affiliations of the presidents who appointed them.

“I sit with four other judges who were appointed by President Trump, and they are phenomenal judges,” said U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who sits in Washington.

She would trust them to handle any case, she added, though they wouldn’t always reach the same decision.

Last month, Reyes used part of a court hearing to read email and social media death threats she received following her ruling blocking the Trump administration from ending temporary immigration protections for Haitians living in the United States. She read the threats again during the forum.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee read messages that threatened to kill her at home. One of the messages led to an indictment, she said.

“I think everybody needs to speak up,” she said. “It’s not just the judges who need to speak up.”

Roberts’ comments came two days after Trump called a federal judge who ruled against the administration “wacky, nasty, crooked and totally out of control.” The chief justice, too, did not single out the president.

U.S. District Judge Michelle Williams Court said Roberts had helped open up a discussion about the threats. Court recalled a threat against her children years ago that led her and her husband to inform their school.

She also said she has seen a rise in “veiled threats” in court filings by attorneys.

To read more CLICK HERE

Texas civil commitment office: Since 2015 more than 700 detained, only 30 released

2026-03-22T10:25:00.001-04:00

According to The Marshall Project, the Houston Chronicle reported on the state’s civil commitment office, which holds people convicted of sex crimes when they are deemed to have a “mental abnormality” that makes their behavior uncontrollable. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed this kind of commitment in a 1997 decision.

The population is old by design, since all of those admitted are coming off long prison sentences, and unlike prisoners serving criminal sentences, those in civil commitment are not eligible for compassionate release. According to the Chronicle, the program spent $7.2 million on medical care in 2025 after budgeting just $1.8 million. Of the more than 700 men (and one woman) who have been admitted since the program began in 2015, only 30 have ever been released.

“They say it’s rehabilitation,” Gene Anthes, an Austin attorney, told the Chronicle. “But that’s bull. It’s an opportunity to lock them up and throw away the key.”

A win for free press and supporters of the U.S. Constitution

2026-03-21T11:59:00.004-04:00

A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Pentagon’s restrictions on news outlets violate the First Amendment and issued an order tossing parts of the Defense Department’s policy, handing a victory to The New York Times, which filed suit in December over the restrictions.

Judge Paul Friedman, of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also ordered the Pentagon to restore the press passes of seven journalists for The Times. They had surrendered those passes in October instead of signing the policy, which empowered the Pentagon to declare journalists “security risks” and revoke their press passes if they engaged in any conduct that the Pentagon believed threatened national security.

In his 40-page ruling, Judge Friedman wrote that the Pentagon’s policy rewarded reporters who were “willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by department leadership.”

Siding with an argument advanced by The Times, Judge Friedman added that the Pentagon had given itself too much power to enforce its new rules. The policy also violates journalists’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, he said, writing that it “provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The ruling was a defeat for the Trump administration, which has been engaged in a multifaceted pressure campaign against the news media. ABC News and CBS News’s parent company agreed to multimillion-dollar settlements to resolve suits that President Trump brought against the networks. The ABC late-night star Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily pulled off the air last year after Mr. Trump’s top communications regulator assailed his program and suggested that he might take regulatory action against the broadcaster.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former host on Fox News, has continued Mr. Trump’s adversarial stance toward the news media. He proposed denying access to Pentagon to a reporter from NBC News, then removed several news organizations from their on-site workstations. Months later, he curtailed the unescorted roaming privileges of journalists within the complex.

Friday’s ruling against the Pentagon followed a similarly stark decision this month from a federal judge to restore the operations of Voice of America, a government-funded news organization that Mr. Trump had ordered shuttered a year ago in an executive order.

A spokesman for The Times said Judge Friedman’s ruling “reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf,” adding that “Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars.”

Sean Parnell, the chief spokesman at the Pentagon, said in an X post, “We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump ally Lewandowski sought payment for DHS contract

2026-03-20T09:13:00.003-04:00

More than a year ago, The GEO Group founder George Zoley asked for a meeting with Corey Lewandowski, a close ally of President Donald Trump who had just started a powerful position as a top adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, reported NBC News.

As a titan of the private prison industry, GEO Group stood to benefit from Trump’s mass deportation agenda, which would require the federal government to spend tens of billions of dollars to transport, detain, monitor and deport undocumented immigrants. The company’s federal contracts in those areas already totaled more than $1 billion per year.

But Zoley and his advisers were worried that the road to securing new government contracts now ran through Lewandowski. The two had history: Lewandowski and Zoley had butted heads during the transition between Trump’s November 2024 election and his January 2025 inauguration, before Lewandowski officially worked for the government, according to two industry sources and one senior DHS official familiar with the matter.

During the transition, Lewandowski told Zoley that he wanted to be paid in exchange for protecting and growing GEO Group’s DHS contracts, according to a senior DHS official and three people familiar with their discussion. Zoley, concerned about the propriety of the ask, told Lewandowski he would have no part of it, the sources said, describing the confrontation as tense.

Lewandowski took a role as an unpaid “special government employee” at DHS once the new administration was sworn in, where he advised and acted as a “de facto chief of staff” to Noem and, sources said, influenced contract awards. Zoley scrambled to find a way to assuage tensions from the meeting during the transition, two industry sources familiar with the matter said. He secured a follow-up with Lewandowski in late February or early March 2025.

That second meeting did not go much better.

Zoley offered to put Lewandowski on retainer — a recurring consulting fee — with GEO Group, according to two industry sources familiar with the matter.

Lewandowski balked, saying he wanted to be compensated based on the company’s new or renewed contracts with DHS, the two sources said.

“He wanted payments — what some people would call a success fee,” said a person with knowledge of the meeting.

Zoley declined, the two sources said. In the months that followed, the length of two of GEO Group’s federal contracts shrank, and currently several of its facilities that could house migrants sit idle, even as Congress and Trump have poured money into DHS to execute the mass deportation campaign. GEO Group officials believe that is tied to their not agreeing to Lewandowski’s solicitations, said a source familiar with the GEO Group officials’ thinking.

A senior DHS official told NBC News that within weeks of Lewandowski’s second meeting with Zoley, Lewandowski told him not to award more contracts to GEO Group. Lewandowski, through a spokesperson, denied that. Months later, in December 2025, GEO Group did receive a new contract for $121 million for services that help locate immigrants DHS is trying to find.

Lewandowski‘s spokesperson denied this account of his interactions with GEO Group. “This is absolutely false and did not happen — Mr. Lewandowski never demanded any payment or compensation from the Geo Group, at any time,” his representative said.

Asked whether he has ever received “any money from any of the contracts” he has signed off on, Lewandowski previously told NBC News in an interview, “zero, not one penny.”

To read more CLICK HERE

THIEL COLLEGE: Comment No. 3

2026-03-19T10:00:00.003-04:00

What is the impact of Miller v. Alabama on juvenile punishment?

Why do states continue to enact laws that apply the death penalty to non-death cases i.e. child rape?

'Campus Carry' arming college students and staff is a lousy idea

2026-03-19T09:47:00.002-04:00

In at least six statehouses this year, lawmakers are revisiting a long-running debate over whether guns should be allowed on college campuses, reported Stateline.

Republican lawmakers in Florida, Louisiana, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming have introduced bills that would allow students, staff or visitors with concealed carry permits — and in some cases, without permits — to bring firearms onto public college campuses.

Supporters say the proposals would allow people to defend themselves during emergencies. Opponents argue they could make campuses less safe and increase the risk of accidental or impulsive violence.

The push comes amid another year of intense debate over gun policy in state legislatures, where lawmakers are advancing sharply different measures.

And it comes as college campuses continue to grapple with the threat of gun violence.

On March 12, a gunman opened fire inside a classroom at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, killing one person and injuring two others before ROTC students fought back. One of the students stabbed the gunman, killing him, according to law enforcement officials.

Virginia law currently prohibits firearms on public college and university campuses. The FBI is investigating the attack as a possible act of terrorism.

The Old Dominion University attack was the most recent of 17 deadly shootings on college campuses nationwide since 1966, according to Stateline research.

More than half of the states prohibit firearms on public colleges and universities. In some states, individual institutions may decide whether to allow guns on campus.

At least 14 states currently allow firearms on public college campuses, though some restrict them to people who have a valid carry license.

Legal debates

The U.S. Supreme Court has long suggested that governments can bar guns in certain locations — including schools and government buildings — but it has offered little guidance on how far those gun-free zones can stretch across today’s sprawling college campuses.

“It’s fair to say that states and universities still have broad authority to make decisions about guns on campus, to regulate them or to deregulate them,” Blocher said.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen said that modern gun laws must align with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Bruen also limited the extent to which states can restrict who may carry guns in public, which has shifted some legal debates to focus on where guns can be carried.

Courts generally accept that schools fall within the category of “sensitive places,” Blocher said, but the doctrine is still underdeveloped: Judges have said far less about how to treat off-campus housing, remote research sites or other university properties.

“It is the category that we kind of have the least guidance on — what locations are OK to restrict guns in, and why,” he said.

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida carries out nation leading fourth execution of the year

2026-03-18T10:48:00.003-04:00

The 7th Execution of 2026

A Florida man, Michael Lee King was executed on March 17, 2026 for killing a young mother who frantically called 911 from her attacker’s cellphone while tied up in his car, reported The Associated Press.

King, 54, was pronounced dead at 6:13 p.m. following a three-drug injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. He had been convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery and kidnapping in the 2008 killing of Denise Amber Lee, 21.

The curtain to the death chamber went up at 6 p.m., the scheduled execution time, and King gave a nearly inaudible statement, its text relayed by Gov. Ron DeSantis office.

“Since finding Jesus in prison, I have tried to live as His disciple obeying the Two Great Commandments: To love God with all my heart, my mind and all my being, and to love my neighbor to include everyone — my family, Denise Lee’s family, everyone in the gallery,” as well as Catholic volunteers who visit the prison and “those on the team to end my life,” he said.

King did not apologize or seek forgiveness. Meanwhile, a clergy member was at the foot of the gurney beside him.

As the drugs started flowing, King began breathing heavily, his body twitching. All movement ceased minutes later, and the warden shook King and yelled his name, but he did not respond. A medic subsequently pronounced him dead.

Court records show the victim was outside her North Port home on Jan. 17, 2008, with her two sons — a toddler and an infant — when King drove by, spotted her, and later abducted her while leaving the children home alone.

King took Lee to his home where he bound and raped her, investigators said. Later that day, King drove to his cousin’s house to borrow a flashlight, shovel and gas can, according to prosecutors. While Lee was bound in King’s car, she managed to get his cellphone and called 911. She can be heard on a recording of the call begging for her life so that she could see her husband and children again.

King eventually drove Lee to a remote area of North Port, a southwest Florida community, where he shot her in the face and buried her, authorities said. A state trooper pulled King over a short time later because his 1994 green Chevrolet Camaro matched the description give by another 911 caller. A woman had heard screams coming from the vehicle while stopped at a traffic light and had called police to report a possible child abduction.

Investigators later recovered Lee’s hair and belongings from King’s home and vehicle, authorities said.

Months later, the Florida Legislature unanimously passed the Denise Amber Lee Act, which provides better training for 911 operators. The Denise Amber Lee Foundation, created by her husband Nathan Lee, continues to promote training and raise public awareness nationwide.

The foundation said that besides Lee’s 911 call, at least four other 911 calls were made by others that day, including from her husband and people who saw parts of the crime unfolding — but that communication failures and other issues prevented help from being sent.

Nathan Lee, as well as the victim’s father and one of Lee’s two sons were among relatives who witnessed the execution. All wore shirts in pink, her favorite color.

Afterward, the husband said he was relieved to close out this chapter and continue to focus on improvements to the nation’s 911 system.

”I’m just super blessed that I got to know Denise, let alone marry her and have two amazing kids with her,” he said.

Richard Goff, the woman’s father, pointed out that King didn’t even apologize.

”If you can’t say something from your heart, don’t say it,” Goff said. He added his daughter was a hero after purposely hiding hair and other DNA in King’s car and making sure to leave fingerprints for investigators to find.

Noah Lee was 2 years old when his mother was killed and said he still feels her loss.

“I unfortunately didn’t get the opportunity to know her and be raised by her,” the young man said.

King’s execution was the fourth this year in Florida and the seventh overall in the U.S. in 2026, including two executions in Texas and one in Oklahoma. Two more Florida executions are scheduled this year on March 31 and April 21.

A total of 47 people were executed in the U.S. in 2025, including a record 19 executions last year in Florida.

All Florida executions are carried out by injecting a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the Department of Corrections.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected King’s final appeals without comment Monday.

To read more CLICK HERE