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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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