Man executed by firing squad in South Carolina
Mikal Mahdi, 42, was executed for the 2004 murder of 56-year-old James Myers, an off-duty police officer, and the murder of a convenience store employee three days earlier.
According to a statement from the prison, "the execution was performed by a three-person firing squad at 6:01 pm (2201 GMT)," with Mahdi pronounced dead four minutes later.
"Tonight, the state of South Carolina executed him by firing squad -- a horrifying act that belongs in the darkest chapters of history, not in a civilized society," defense lawyer David Weiss said in a statement. "Mikal died in full view of a system that failed him at every turn -- from childhood to his final breath."
Myers found Mahdi hiding in a garden shed at his home before Mahdi killed him and set the body on fire. Mahdi also pleaded guilty to murdering a convenience store clerk three days before he killed Myers.
South Carolina gives its death row inmates a choice between lethal injection, the electric chair and the firing squad. Mahdi chose the firing squad.
The first execution by firing squad in the United States in 15 years was carried out in South Carolina on March 7, when a man convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend's parents was put to death.
A three-person squad of Department of Corrections volunteers opens fire on the condemned man, who is restrained in a chair with a hood over his head 15 feet (five meters) away.
Mahdi had requested clemency from Governor Henry McMaster but South Carolina's Republican chief executive did not grant it, or any previous clemency petitions.
Mahdi's lawyers had argued that he had suffered his entire life. He was four when his mother fled her abusive husband, leaving the boy to be raised by his volatile mentally ill father, they said.
"Between the ages of 14 and 21, Mikal spent over 80 percent of his life in prison and lived through 8,000 hours in solitary confinement," his lawyers said.
They described Mahdi as "deeply remorseful and a dramatically different person from the confused, angry and abused youth who committed the capital crimes."
Mahdi's execution was the 12th in the United States this year. There were 25 last year.
The vast majority of US executions since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 have been performed using lethal injection.
Alabama has carried out four executions using nitrogen gas, a method that has been denounced by United Nations experts as cruel and inhumane.
The death penalty has been abolished in 23 of the 50 US states, while three others -- California, Oregon and Pennsylvania -- have moratoriums in place.
President Donald Trump is a proponent of capital punishment and on his first day in office called for an expansion of its use "for the vilest crimes."
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced last week that federal prosecutors would seek the death penalty for Luigi Mangione, charged with the high-profile December 4 murder in New York of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
sst/sla/acb
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
Chicago Tribune
10 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Will County Board member Jacqueline Traynere charged with computer tampering
Will County Board member Jacqueline Traynere faces three counts of computer tampering, according to a complaint filed this week in Will County Circuit Court. Traynere, a Bolingbrook Democrat, allegedly accessed the email account of board member Judy Ogalla, a Monee Republican, in March 2024 without Ogalla's authorization, according to the charges. The misdemeanor charges filed by special prosecutor William Elward state Traynere forwarded emails from Ogalla's account to herself and others. Ogalla, who was the Will County Board chairman at the time, said that Traynere knowingly accessed her email and knew it was unethical. Ogalla questioned whether Traynere had opened her email more than once. She said she doesn't know what all Traynere saw. 'Was she in my email other times and I just didn't know?' Ogalla said. 'She shouldn't have done it.' An email exchanged between board member Steve Balich, a Homer Glen Republican, and Ogalla regarding the controversial 143rd Street road widening project had been forwarded to the county executive, who replied to the email, Balich said during a July 2024 news conference with other County Board Republicans. Reached Wednesday, Traynere said she was unaware of the charges. Traynere said she had been testing out a rumor that all County Board members were given the same password when they were issued new devices. At the time the incident occurred, Traynere said she contacted Ogalla to explain what happened and believed it amounted to nothing. She said it was a simple mistake to see if it were true that all board members had the same password and she was exposing a problem with the system. A summons was issued for Traynere to appear in court Sept. 9. Traynere said Wednesday she believes the charges are political. Traynere has been on the Will County Board since 2008 and is the past Democratic Leader. She chairs the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Her term expires in 2026. Already, Sheldon Watts and Tyler Giacalone have announced they are running for the two seats that are up for election next year to represent District 11. Earlier this year, Traynere was issued a traffic citation stemming from an accident with a minor on a bicycle. That case was dismissed May 15, according to her lawyer and Will County Court documents.
31 minutes ago
A timeline of the Menendez brothers' double-murder case
LOS ANGELES -- After serving nearly 30 years in prison for killing their parents, the Menendez brothers will plead their case in front of a panel of California state parole board commissioners starting Thursday. Erik and Lyle Menendez were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison for fatally shooting their father, Jose Menendez, and mother, Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills mansion in August 1989. They were 18 and 21 at the time. For years after their convictions, the brothers filed petitions for appeals of their cases that were denied. But the brothers became eligible for parole after a Los Angeles judge in May reduced their sentences from life in prison without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life, marking the closest they've been to freedom since their convictions. Even if the board grants their parole, it could still be months before the brothers walk free — if at all. If the board grants each brother's parole, the chief legal counsel has 120 days to review the case. Then, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to affirm or deny the parole. Here's a look at their case over the last three decades: ___ March 1990: Lyle Menendez, then 21, is arrested. A few days later, Erik Menendez, 18, turns himself in. They are charged with first-degree murder. July 1993: The Menendez brothers go on trial, each with a separate jury. Prosecutors argued that they killed their parents for financial gain. The brothers' attorneys don't dispute the pair killed their parents, but argued that they acted out of self-defense after years of emotional and sexual abuse by their father. January 1994: Both juries deadlock. October 1995: The brothers' retrial begins, this time with a single jury. Much of the defense evidence about alleged sexual abuse is excluded during the second trial. March 1996: Jurors convict both brothers of first-degree murder. July 1996: The brothers are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. February 1998: A California appeals court upholds the brothers' conviction, and three months later, the state Supreme Court agrees. October 1998: The brothers file habeas corpus petitions with the California Supreme Court. After they are denied the next year, they file petitions in federal district court, which are also denied. September 2005: The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denies their habeas corpus appeal. May 3: Attorneys for the Menendez brothers ask the court to reconsider the convictions and life sentences in light of new evidence from a former member of the boy band Menudo, who said he was raped by Jose Menendez when he was 14. In addition, they submit a letter that Erik wrote to his cousin before the killings about his father's abuse. Sept. 19: Netflix releases the crime drama ' Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, ' a nine-episode series about the killings. Oct. 4: Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón says his office is reviewing new evidence in the case. Oct. 16: Multiple generations of family members of the Menendez brothers hold a news conference pleading for their release from prison. The relatives say the jurors who sentenced them to life without parole in 1996 were part of a society that was not ready to hear that boys could be raped. Oct. 24: Prosecutors say they will petition the court to resentence the brothers, and that it could lead to their release. Nov. 18: California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he would not decide on granting the brothers clemency until after the newly elected district attorney has a chance to review the case. Nov. 25: A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge holds a hearing regarding the request for resentencing but says he needs more time to make a decision, delaying the resentencing hearings. Dec. 3: Nathan Hochman is sworn into office as the new district attorney of LA County. Feb. 21: Hochman says his office will oppose a new trial for the Menendez brothers. He cast doubt on the evidence of sexual abuse. The following week, Newsom orders the state parole board to conduct a 'comprehensive risk assessment' to determine whether the brothers have been rehabilitated and if they would pose a danger to the public if released. March 10: Hochman says his office won't support resentencing the brothers because they have repeatedly lied about why they killed their parents. April 11: A judge denies prosecutors' request to withdraw their resentencing petition. The following week, resentencing hearings scheduled are delayed due to disputes among prosecutors and the brothers' lawyers, who say they will ask to remove Hochman's office from the case. May 9: Hochman's office remains on the case as the judge again denies prosecutors' request to withdraw their resentencing petition. May 13: Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic reduces the brothers' sentences from life without parole to 50 years to life. They are immediately eligible for parole because they committed the crime under the age of 26. The state parole board must still decide whether to release them from prison. Aug. 21 and 22: Erik and Lyle Menendez are scheduled to have their hearings with the California state parole board. They will take place virtually.
