'Undeniable truths': Trump's push for state-sponsored death not as supported as he would have you believe

Matthew T. Mangino
Law & Crime News
January 5, 2026

Gov. Josh Shapiro has quietly issued a reprieve to a Pennsylvania inmate on death row.

This was the first reprieve of Shapiro's tenure and, although inconsistent with the actions of a number of other state executives, should not come as a surprise. Soon after he took office, Shapiro called on the legislature to repeal the death penalty. He said that his time as attorney general "revealed two undeniable truths about our capital sentencing system: that it is inherently fallible and that its consequences are irreversible."

In his reprieve, he wrote that although those sentenced to death "have committed the most terrible crimes and deserve to spend the rest of their lives behind bars," the commonwealth "should not be in the business of executing people."

Shapiro's position stands out in comparison to politicians who use the death penalty as a prop to promote or tout their "tough on crime" bona fides.

There were 47 executions in the United States last year — the most since 2010, the year I chose to examine all the executions across the country in my book, "The Executioner's Toll, 2010."

Maybe Donald Trump's executive order on the first day of his current term has had an impact on state-sponsored death. The order established that "It is the policy of the United States to ensure that the laws that authorize capital punishment are respected and faithfully implemented, and to counteract the politicians and judges who subvert the law by obstructing and preventing the execution of capital sentences."

At least one Trump adherent took the machinery of death and ran with it. Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis has presided over a record-breaking surge in capital punishment — 19 executions last year.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to expand the application of the death penalty. Not to mention, the Court denied every request to stay an execution in 2025.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bans, as cruel and unusual punishment, the execution of people who are intellectually disabled. The Court is poised to whittle away at its prior ruling.

Florida's Supreme Court recently upheld a 2023 state law allowing nonunanimous juries to sentence people to death. Florida law permits capital punishment with a jury recommendation of 8-4 in favor of death, the lowest standard in the nation.

Methods of execution were also controversial. Louisiana adopted nitrogen gas as a method of execution and South Carolina adopted — and used — the firing squad in 2025.

What explains the increase in executions?

Probably not public support. Recent polls show about half of Americans favor executions, but the best evidence of what people really think is found in courtrooms, where jurors have increasingly rejected the punishment.

Only 27 states, the federal government and the U.S. military, still allow the death penalty. This year, prosecutors in just 11 of those states sought the death penalty against a total of 51 people, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Jurors chose to send just 23 people to death row. Two-thirds of those death sentences came from only three states — Alabama, California, and Florida. To add some perspective, in 1996 alone 315 people were sentenced to death in the United States.

"The increase in this year's execution numbers was caused by the outlier state of Florida, where the governor set a record number of executions," said Robin Maher, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. ​"The data show that the decisions of Gov. DeSantis and other elected officials are increasingly at odds with the decisions of American juries and the opinions of the American public."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C., New Castle, Pennsylvania.  He is a frequent contributor to Law & Crime News. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can follow him on X @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Law & Crime News CLICK HERE

 

A primer on what Nicholas Maduro faces in U.S. Court

Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela captured in a U.S. military raid, faces criminal charges in Manhattan, where federal prosecutors have targeted him for years, reported Reuters.

Here is a recap of the indictment unsealed on Saturday against Maduro, his wife, his son, and other co-defendants.

WHAT CHARGES DOES MADURO FACE?

The indictment, opens new tab alleged Maduro and other Venezuelan leaders have, for more than 25 years, "abused their positions of public trust and corrupted once-legitimate institutions to import tons of cocaine into the United States."

The indictment alleged Maduro and his allies “provided law enforcement cover and logistical support” to major drug trafficking groups, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua gang. These criminal organizations sent profits to high-ranking officials who protected them in exchange, the Justice Department said.

Among other specific acts, Maduro is accused of selling Venezuelan diplomatic passports to known drug traffickers and facilitating flights under diplomatic cover to bring drug proceeds back from Mexico to Venezuela.

Maduro was indicted on four counts: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

The case was brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, an office within the Justice Department famous for its fierce independence and aggressive prosecutions.

The same prosecutor's office returned an indictment against Maduro in 2020, with the same four charges. The updated indictment made public on Saturday adds some new details and co-defendants, including Maduro's wife, Cilia Flores.

The first lady is accused of ordering kidnappings and murders, as well as accepting bribes in 2007 to arrange a meeting between drug traffickers and the director of Venezuela’s National Anti-Drug Office.

WHAT COMES NEXT IN THE CRIMINAL CASE?

Maduro is expected to make an initial appearance in court on Monday. A judge will likely advise him of the charges against him and ensure he has a defense lawyer.

It could be several months or even more than a year before Maduro stands trial. Prosecutors could eventually offer a plea deal to avoid a trial.

Maduro's case is expected to be overseen by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein because he was assigned to the 2020 case brought against Maduro.

The 92-year-old jurist who has been skeptical of arguments by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration in other high-profile cases. Earlier this year, Hellerstein rejected efforts to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, saying the wartime law had been improperly invoked by the Trump administration.

WHAT DEFENSES WILL MADURO RAISE?

As the case unfolds, Maduro is likely to argue to seek dismissal on the grounds that he is immune, or shielded, from criminal prosecution because he is a foreign head of state.

Judges have in some contexts concluded that foreign officials enjoy immunity from legal claims in U.S. courts.

But Maduro faces an uphill battle with this argument because of a historic precedent: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 that ousted the country's leader, Manuel Noriega.

Like Maduro, Noriega was accused of conspiring to smuggle drugs into the U.S., and was captured in a military raid in his home country.

U.S. courts rejected Noriega's immunity argument, showing deference to the U.S. government's assertion that he was not Panama's legitimate leader. Legal experts have said that precedent will likely undermine Maduro's efforts to get charges dismissed.

Maduro is also likely to invoke a legal doctrine that says criminal charges should be dismissed if prosecutors brought them vindictively or selectively. He might also argue that claims against him are time-barred, meaning they are too old to be pursued in court.

Federal conspiracy charges generally have a five-year statute of limitations, meaning charges must be brought within five years of the alleged crime's completion, with some exceptions.

To read more CLICK HERE

States are moving in sharply different directions on the death penalty

States are moving in sharply different directions on the death penalty, with some looking to broaden when and how executions occur while others try to scale them back or end them entirely, reported Stateline.

Lawmakers in more than half of the states have introduced over 100 bills this year to either expand or limit capital punishment, to alter execution protocols, and to change how death sentences are imposed, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that studies capital punishment. The group does not take a position on the death penalty, but it is critical of how it is carried out.

Some of the bills seeking to expand the death penalty would have included crimes that have been hot-button issues, such as the killing of police officers, sexual offenses against children, abortion and crimes committed by people living in the country illegally. Lawmakers in at least seven states this year also have attempted to legalize alternative methods of execution.

Earlier in the year, however, some Republican legislators in conservative states — including Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio and Oklahoma — proposed measures to abolish the death penalty or impose moratoriums to halt pending and future executions. None of those efforts advanced through their legislatures.

Georgia, meanwhile, enacted a law barring the execution of people with intellectual disabilities.

To read more CLICK HERE

WHY? U.S. ATTACKS VENEZUELA, CAPTURES PRESIDENT

President Trump announced that U.S. forces had carried out “a large scale strike against Venezuela” and were flying President Nicolás Maduro and his wife out of the country. The Trump administration had been building pressure on Mr. Maduro for months, reported The New York Times.

To read more CLICK HERE

What's on the agenda for U.S. Supreme Court in 2026

Here are the Supreme Court cases to watch in 2026, according to Axios:

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court will likely decide Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship in early 2026 in Trump v. Barbara.

Driving the news: Upholding Trump's order, which seeks to bar children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. from citizenship, would overturn a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and upheld by the court for more than a century.

Trump's order was quickly met with legal challenges, and several courts temporarily halted its implementation.

Flashback: The administration argues birthright citizenship applies only to formerly enslaved people who were granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.

Michael LeRoy, an immigration law expert at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, previously told Axios' Avery Lotz that it's impossible to predict how SCOTUS will rule — but a decision in Trump's favor could have sweeping implications for other constitutional protections.

Trump's tariff case

SCOTUS will decide the legality of Trump declaring a national emergency to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval, in what he has called the "most important case ever" in Learning Resources v. Trump.

State of play: A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund more than $100 billion in tariffs already collected and curtail his ability to use declared emergencies to enact his economic agenda.

Trump has repeatedly claimed tariff revenue will help pay down the national debt, bankroll aid to farmers and cover the cost of his new "warrior dividend" — a one-time $1,776 bonus for roughly 1.45 million service members — even though the bonus is actually being paid out of previously approved Pentagon housing funds, not tariffs.

Yes, but: The president has argued his far-reaching tariffs create jobs and boost U.S. manufacturing, claims many economists dispute. Economists also worry the government might ultimately have to return the tariff revenue.

In recent weeks, companies including Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods and the maker of Ray-Ban have sued, seeking refunds if the justices ultimately strike down the tariffs.

What Trump's saying: "Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court," Trump said in Truth Social post in November.

"Pray to God that our Nine Justices will show great wisdom, and do the right thing for America!"

Banning conversion therapy

SCOTUS is expected to rule on a case challenging bans on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy for minors — a discredited practice aimed at changing young people's sexual orientations or gender identities in Chiles v. Salazar.

Zoom out: The justices will decide whether therapists' conversations with patients are protected by the First Amendment or considered medical treatment that states can regulate.

LGBTQ+ advocates, major medical and mental health organizations have condemned conversion therapy as harmful, discriminatory and ineffective.

Worth noting: Twenty-three states had full bans on conversion therapy as of late 2025, with five states imposing a partial ban. Five states prohibit such bans, while 18 have no restrictions.

Trans athletes in women's sports

SCOTUS will hear arguments in two major cases — one from Idaho and another from West Virginia — where states banned transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.

Zoom in: The court could decide Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs, does not protect transgender athletes competing in sports consistent with their gender identity.

A decision against the athletes would mark a major setback for the LGBTQ+ community, adding to Trump's other 2025 actions to limit protections for transgender individuals.

The Voting Rights Act

The high court appears poised to severely curtail Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a decision that would reshape how legislative and congressional maps are drawn nationwide and potentially reduce minority representation by significant margins in Louisiana v. Callais.

Why it matters: The case challenges a core provision of the Voting Rights Act that has created maps that allow minority voters to elect their candidates of choice. Overturning it could allow Republicans to lock in additional congressional and legislative seats across the country.

The ruling could make it significantly harder for minority voters to secure or maintain electoral representation.

Campaign finance

SCOTUS will rule on a Republican-backed challenge that aims to overturn decades-old limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates in NRSC v. FEC.

What we're watching: Election watchdogs warn that removing these limits would destroy the few remaining firewalls between big money and candidates.

The case would further remove campaign finance restrictions on how much an individual or group can donate directly to a candidate, which provides a safeguard against bribery or suspected corruption.

How it works: Under current law, political action committees can raise unlimited funds, but they can't coordinate with candidates.

Parties, on the other hand, are limited in how much they can raise, but they are able to cooperate with candidates.

Republicans argue those limits violate the First Amendment by preventing parties from supporting their nominees.

Firing independent agency heads

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump has the unilateral authority to fire leaders of independent agencies in Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter.

The bottom line: A ruling for Trump would overturn a 90-year-old precedent that shielded independent agency commissioners from political firings.

Catch up quick: The cases stem from Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and his firings of FTC officials Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, who later resigned.

Trump said their service at the agency was "inconsistent with my Administration's policies," in a letter announcing the terminations.

Hawaii law prohibiting guns

SCOTUS will rule on the legality of a Hawaii law that prohibits individuals from carrying guns onto private property unless the owner gives explicit consent in Wolford v. Lopez.

Hawaii's list of "sensitive places," where firearms are banned, includes more than 15 categories — places such as bars, beaches and banks — which plaintiffs argue violates their 2nd Amendment rights.

Context: Hawaii enacted the new restrictions in 2023 after the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which held that the 2nd Amendment included the right to carry in public.

California has faced similar legal challenges after passing laws aimed at tightening firearm restrictions on private property.

The justices have agreed to consider only Hawaii's burden flipping provision, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, finding that the state's law "falls well within the historical tradition," and not the broader sensitive places restrictions as a whole.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mississippi rebuffs confession of murder carried out at direction of prison guards

For months, Chancellor Berrong, a 26-year-old in prison for assault and kidnapping, has been trying to tell the authorities that he killed a man in a Mississippi jail seven years ago, reported The New York Times.

He told a prison guard that he had information about the crime, attempted to confess to a detective and gave a written confession to a prison warden, he said, but agents with the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation, the state agency that typically investigates in-custody deaths, took no action.

In interviews, Mr. Berrong said that he attacked William Wade Aycock IV at the request of a guard in 2018. That allegation is disputed by a former inmate, who told reporters he overheard Mr. Berrong and others planning the assault to stop Mr. Aycock from implicating a member of their gang in an unrelated crime.

Previous reporting on the Rankin County Adult Detention Center, where Mr. Aycock died, revealed that for years, guards relied on some inmates as an attack squad to help keep order and to retaliate against troublemakers.

A review of the initial investigation of the death reveals that the authorities took steps that could have hindered a full accounting of what happened. Guards and inmates cleaned the cell where Mr. Aycock died with bleach before the state investigators arrived, according to four witnesses. In addition, the M.B.I.’s investigation file contains no photos of the cell, no security camera footage and no notes from interviews with inmates.

Days after the death, M.B.I. agents and the state medical examiner determined that Mr. Aycock died by accident after falling off his bunk bed — without documenting the evidence that led them to this conclusion.

Mississippi Today and The New York Times have uncovered evidence that supports Mr. Berrong’s confession and suggests that the authorities ignored or destroyed evidence that could have helped solve the case. His account is the latest allegation of wrongdoing by law enforcement in Rankin County, a Jackson suburb where sheriff’s deputies have been accused of torturing suspected drug users.

Jason Dare, the spokesperson and attorney for the sheriff’s department, said he had forwarded reporters’ request for comment to the M.B.I. He declined to comment further.

The commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Sean Tindell, said that the M.B.I. would reopen the case based on the new information.

Guards and inmates at the Rankin County Adult Detention Center cleaned up the scene of Mr. Aycock’s death before investigators arrived, according to four witnesses.Credit...Rory Doyle for The New York Times

Mr. Berrong, a member of the Latin Kings street gang with a long criminal record, said that in June 2018, he yanked a sleeping Mr. Aycock off the top bunk in his cell, slammed him to the floor and stomped on his head. He said he never intended to kill the man, just to send him a message to keep his mouth shut.

Mr. Berrong said he has come forward out of a sense of guilt.

For seven years, he said, he had gotten away with the crime, in part because of missteps in the investigation. Shortly after killing Mr. Aycock, he watched a group of inmates and guards soak up the blood, which had spread past the cell door, and douse the cell in bleach.

A former inmate named John Phillips said he cleaned the cell before the M.B.I. arrived and compared the scene to a horror film. Two former guards who spoke on the condition of anonymity witnessed the cleanup and confirmed the former inmates’ accounts.

When the investigators arrived, they were “angrily talking with each other about the fact that the whole cell has been bleached,” Mr. Berrong said. “They said, ‘There’s nothing here.’”

The M.B.I.’s investigative report on Mr. Aycock’s death, provided by Mr. Tindell, makes no mention of the cleanup.

Mr. Tindell said he spoke with the agent responsible for the report, who said he did not recall the cell being cleaned or seeing men enter Mr. Aycock’s cell in security camera footage. Mr. Tindell said the footage was not preserved by the M.B.I.

The Rankin County Sheriff’s Department declined to release investigative records related to the case, citing a state law that allows police agencies to withhold such materials.

The M.B.I.’s file on the case amounts to a two-paragraph summary of the investigation and the autopsy report. There are no photos or security camera footage and no interview descriptions, even though several inmates said they were interrogated by investigators.

“The reporting at the time obviously left some things to be desired,” Mr. Tindell said in an interview.

The Rankin County Sheriff’s Department declined to release records related to the case, citing a state law that allows police agencies to withhold such materials.Credit...Rory Doyle for The New York Times

In the years since he took over the department in 2020, the agency has improved its record-keeping practices by “making sure that we had witness lists, that we had narratives, that there was a narrative for everybody that you interviewed and that supervisors had to review their work,” he said. “In this report, there’s none of those things.”

Two days after the M.B.I. filed its report concluding that Mr. Aycock had died from an accidental fall, the Mississippi state medical examiner ruled his death an accident.

Local Investigations

This article was reported and edited as part of the Local Investigations Fellowship, a New York Times program where local reporters produce investigative work about their communities, and supported in part by a grant from the Pulitzer Center.

Three pathologists who reviewed the autopsy at the request of reporters said that while it was reasonable to conclude he had died accidentally given what the authorities knew at the time, Mr. Berrong’s account aligned with the injuries recorded in Mr. Aycock’s autopsy.

Dr. Thomas Andrew, the former chief medical examiner of New Hampshire, said that he would have told the agents assigned to the case to investigate further before he could reach a determination.

Details missing from the report, like pictures of Mr. Aycock’s cell and security camera footage, could have led examiners to a different conclusion, he said.

The M.B.I. had an opportunity to reopen the case in 2022, when an inmate eyewitness told a Rankin County Sheriff’s Department detective that he had seen Mr. Berrong and another inmate leave Mr. Aycock’s cell moments before guards found him lying in a pool of blood.

The witness, who was being held in the jail in 2018, spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity, citing fears of retaliation from Mr. Berrong’s associates.

The detective relayed the information to an M.B.I. agent, the eyewitness said, but the authorities never contacted him again. The witness said that he also wrote a letter to the M.B.I. detailing what he had seen, and that his son called the Rankin County District Attorney’s Office to report the information, but they never heard back from the agencies.

To read more CLICK HERE

Detailed summary of each day of Mangione pretrial hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read more CLICK HERE