Two high-profile jailbreaks have grabbed headlines across the US. But Americans are used to being captivated by manhunts
As of Tuesday, authorities in Louisiana were still hunting for Antoine Massey and Derrick Groves, more than a week after the two men and eight other – now captured – inmates escaped through a hole in the wall behind a cell toilet in a jail in Orleans Parish.
The sheriff has said the breakout was a 'coordinated effort' involving inside help. Police have charged more than a dozen people with helping the inmates. Adding to the intrigue is Massey's background as a serial escapee.
Meanwhile in Arkansas, multiple law enforcement agencies are trying to track down Grant Hardin, a former police chief for Gateway, a small town near the Missouri border, after his escape from North Central Unit prison in Calico Rock.
Hardin – who was serving decades-long sentences for rape and murder – was spotted on prison surveillance cameras wearing 'a makeshift outfit designed to mimic law enforcement' as he slipped out, according to the Arkansas Department of Corrections.
Americans are no strangers to jailbreaks. Nearly 1,400 individuals were sentenced by federal courts for escaping between 2019 and 2023, according to the United States Sentencing Commission. And that's just at the federal level and those who were recaptured and sentenced.
An American man also holds the Guinness World Record for the longest known escape by a recaptured prisoner. The title belongs to Leonard T. Fristoe, who was convicted of killing two sheriff's deputies in 1920. He fled the Nevada State Prison in Carson City three years later and roamed free under the name Claude R. Willis for nearly 46 years, according to the Guinness World Record. His son handed him over in 1969.
Here's a list of headline-grabbing jailbreaks that captured the nation's attention over the years.
This forbidden prison romance was so captivating it was turned into a seven-episode crime series directed by Ben Stiller.
'Escape at Dannemora' is based on the 2015 prison break in northern New York state by David Sweat and Richard Matt, who developed a romantic relationship with prison tailor Joyce Mitchell and convinced her to help them. They escaped after cutting through steel walls with hacksaw blades Mitchell smuggled into the prison.
It sparked a weeks-long, nationwide manhunt that ended with Matt being shot and killed by police and Sweat being captured near the Canada border.
Mitchell confessed to helping the inmates and was sentenced to up to seven years.
On June 11, 1962, three prisoners escaped from the notorious Alcatraz prison, a former US military base located on a small island off the coast of San Francisco.
Frank Morris and brothers Clarence and John Anglin, all in their 30s, shimmied with a homemade raft through hidden holes in their cell walls, climbed through a ventilation duct onto the roof and shoved off from the island fortress into the freezing, choppy waters of San Francisco Bay.
This escape was also fit for big screen. Clint Eastwood starred in the 1979 telling, which portrayed the unbelievably elaborate lengths the prisoners took to break out.
That included making fake plaster heads of themselves – complete with real human hair – to fool the guards on the night of the escape and secretly assembling a makeshift raft and life vests out of more than 50 stolen raincoats.
While Morris and the Anglin brothers were never found, fans of outlaw drama – and some of the prisoners' own family members – are convinced they actually made it to shore and lived their lives hidden from justice and the public eye.
Alcatraz, now popular tourist destination operated by the National Park Service, was itself cast back in the spotlight earlier this month when President Donald Trump said he would direct federal agencies to reopen the prison to 'house America's most ruthless and violent Offenders.'
Trump later told reporters it was 'just an idea' he had because of 'radicalized judges' citing due process concerns and ruling against some of his tactics to crack down on illegal immigration.
Despite the reportedly cushy conditions at Mexico's Puente Grande prison, drug cartel boss Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman Loera in 2001 escaped from the prison in a laundry cart, with 12 years left in his sentence.
Guzman remained on the run until 2014, when he was captured at a hotel in the Pacific beach town of Mazatlán.
A year later, however, he would break out of a maximum-security prison again. This time, he got out through a mile-long tunnel.
It took nearly six months for investigators to find him again at a hideaway in the coastal city of Los Mochis in January 2016. He was later convicted in the US for running an industrial-scale drug smuggling operation and is now serving his sentence at a maximum-security prison in Florence, Colorado.
Corrections official Vicky White and prisoner Casey White fled a detention facility in Lauderdale County, Alabama, on April 29, 2022.
They were finally captured by authorities on Monday, May 9, in Evansville, Indiana. In those 11 days, the guard and the prisoner, who had formed a 'special relationship' at the county jail, traveled more than 200 miles through at least four states, with tens of thousands of dollars in cash to pay for clothes, wigs, hotel rooms and several vehicles.
Officers took Casey White into custody, while Vicky White died from what investigators believed to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Casey White was booked back into the William E. Donaldson Correctional Facility in Bessemer – the same prison where he had been at the start of that year.
Serial killer Ted Bundy was arrested for the final time on February 15, 1978.
He had been previously arrested on murder charges in Colorado but escaped from custody, before being captured in Aspen a few days later.
Months after that Bundy escaped again, prompting a nationwide manhunt. While a fugitive in Florida, he killed two college students and a 12-year-old girl.
Six weeks after escaping, Bundy was apprehended for a third and final time in Pensacola in a stolen car.
He was convicted on three counts of murder, sentenced to death in the electric chair and executed on January 24, 1989.
Several experts have told CNN that when jails are short of staff, employees are prone to making mistakes, which is the most consistent factor contributing to prison breaks.
Joseph Gunja, a security consultant who previously worked as a warden for several federal prisons, says even small mistakes can lead to problems.
'Sometimes it's just a small mistake, like, you don't pat search somebody, or you don't search a cell, or you let an inmate go into an area he shouldn't be… those things pile up,' Gunja told CNN.
Aging facilities with faulty equipment can contribute to escapes, experts also said.
Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson has cited understaffing as a key contributor to this month's jailbreak. The jail is only about 60% staffed, and 150 more deputies are needed, she said.
She also singled out locks as defective and called for funding to update correctional facilities.
During manhunts, police rely heavily on local communities to tip them off about the sighting of escaped inmates.
A fractured relationship with the public would make it harder for police to recapture escapees, according to Bryce Peterson, a research scientist who studies law enforcement and corrections facilities at CNA, a security-focused research organization.
CNN's Karina Tsui, Cindy Von Quednow, Matt Rehbein, Taylor Romine, Chris Boyette and Zoe Sottile contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Epoch Times
14 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Wants China to Quadruple US Soybean Orders
President Donald Trump says he hopes that China will dramatically increase its purchase of American soybeans. 'China is worried about its shortage of soybeans. Our great farmers produce the most robust soybeans,' the president wrote on his Truth Social platform late on Sunday.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Barack Obama's official portrait moved to non-public area in White House
The official portrait of former President Barack Obama has been moved from the entryway of the White House to an area that is not open to the public. The move was confirmed to USA TODAY by a White House official. Tensions between the former and current presidents have spiked in recent weeks. Obama last month hit back at a report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which claimed the former president and top aides had 'manufactured and politicized intelligence" against Trump after he defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. Obama's office in a statement dismissed the Trump administration's claims as "nonsense and misinformation." Trump also accused Obama of 'treason' during an Oval Office meeting with Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos, calling him a 'ringleader' and his actions 'seditious.' Trump has a long history of going after Obama, starting with the birther conspiracy theory. Now, Obama's portrait, painted by Robert McCurdy and unveiled in September 2022, has been relocated to the top of the White House's Grand Staircase, at the landing of the entrance to the president's private residence. That area is restricted to public during White House tours. This is the second time Obama's portrait has been moved. The 44th president enjoys the highest favorability rating among all living presidents. In April, it was bumped to make space for a portrait capturing the assassination attempt on Trump in Bulter, Pennsylvania, with his face dripping with blood and an American flag in the background. "Some new artwork at the White House," the official White House account posted on the social media platform X. The Obama portrait was relocated across the foyer. The White House Historical Association has acquired and commissioned official portraits of the president and first lady since 1965. After the portraits are presented to the public during an unveiling ceremony, they hang in the White House. It is customary to include the two most recent presidential portraits in the White House's Grand Foyer. The portrait of former President Joe Biden has not yet been completed. The Trump White House also has moved the portraits of former Presidents George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush to the staircase area. Neither of the former presidents endorsed Trump when he ran for the White House in 2016 or in any elections after that. Those aren't the only decor changes made by Trump. He's picked frames and portraits for the Cabinet Room, overseen a massive golden overhaul of the Oval Office, reconstructed the Rose Graden and is in the process of building a grand ballroom in the East Wing. 'I do that in my part-time because it's a natural instinct,' he said during a press conference at the White House on Aug. 11. 'As a real estate person, I was very good at that and I was very good at fixing things up.' Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House correspondent for USA TODAY. You can follow her on X @SwapnaVenugopal This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Obama portrait moved away from public view
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This isn't the death of the American Republic. It's the birth of colour-blind democracy
Is the US Supreme Court about to disenfranchise black Americans and other racial minority voters? You would think so, given the hysterical hyperbole found in the progressive press. In the New York Times, Jamelle Bouie claims that the Supreme Court is seeking to make the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in the electoral process – 'an artefact of the past'. 'The Supreme Court Prepares to End Voting Rights As We Know Them,' shrieks the headline in the Left-wing journal Mother Jones. 'Sixty years ago, the Voting Rights Act ended the Jim Crow regime and transformed the country, finally, into a multiracial democracy – albeit an imperfect one,' the Mother Jones article reads. 'But, with the court's quiet announcement it would return to a paused case, the justices are now preparing to take us back to a time when elected officials at all levels of government were white, and the rights of minorities were trampled.' Is the Republican majority on the Supreme Court really about to strike down or eviscerate the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Will the Court legalise the outlawed methods used by Southern segregationists to deny the right to vote to black Americans, like literacy tests and poll taxes? Of course not. The occasion of these alarms is the willingness of the Court to consider a Louisiana case involving the use of race by state legislatures in drawing congressional districts. What is at issue is the question of whether the half-century-old practice of racial gerrymandering – drawing congressional districts in such a way as to elect representatives of a particular race to the House of Representatives – is compatible with the Voting Rights Act or the US constitution. Partisan gerrymandering is almost as old as the United States. American states, not the federal government, draw the lines of districts that send representatives to the House of Representatives, and following the census every decade state legislatures redraw the lines to take into account population growth or decline. To increase the chances of electing members of their own party, state legislators often draw bizarrely-shaped districts, with extensions bypassing members of the rival party to loop in likely supporters of their own party. The term 'gerrymander' originated in the early 19th century with this kind of cynical partisan congressional redistricting. In 1812, the Massachusetts legislature drew a district which, according to critics, resembled a salamander. Although Governor Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, accepted the redistricting plan reluctantly, claiming it was 'highly disagreeable', the contorted district was named a 'Gerry-mander' in his dubious honour. Partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures still exists. Democratic and Republican majorities in every state legislature, following each federal census, seek to draw congressional districts that will boost their party's representation in the national House of Representatives. Racial gerrymandering, however, arose in the aftermath of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. In racial gerrymandering, congressional districts are drawn to maximise the likelihood that the representative who is elected to Congress will belong to a particular race, as defined by America's arbitrary post-1970s system of official races: non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and native Americans. To put it another way, racial gerrymandering is race-based affirmative action or DEI for non-white politicians, the corollary of the race-based quota system that reshaped college admissions and public, private, and nonprofit hiring, before the recent push-back led by President Trump and Supreme Court conservatives. Both kinds of affirmative action have always betrayed not only the spirit but also the letter of actual civil rights statutes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, for example, makes it illegal for employers or labour unions 'To discriminate against, any individual because of his race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin'. The language of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is equally colour-blind, emphasising the rights of minority voters to vote as they choose for politicians of any race, not the desire of minority politicians to enjoy rigged congressional seats: 'A violation of [the Act] is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. [emphasis added].' While the complete absence of any elected officials belonging to racial minorities might well be evidence of a violation of the law, the Voting Rights Act does not create a right for minority politicians to have districts drawn to give them safe seats. As in the case of race-based affirmative action in general, racial gerrymandering has been practised for more than half a century in defiance of the plain language of the law. Ironically, conservative Republicans in the South teamed up with black Democrats in support of racial gerrymandering for their own selfish reasons, beginning in the 1970s. Some Republican legislatures used a strategy of 'packing' – drawing lines to pack black voters into black-majority districts, while trapping white Democrats as powerless partisan minorities in Republican-majority districts. At the same time, some activists sacrificed the interests of the Democratic Party in winning congressional majorities to the goal of electing as many black Democrats in safe, gerrymandered districts as possible. When I worked for a white liberal Democrat in the Texas legislature in the 1970s, I was told that Texas Republicans had donated large sums of money to black legislators and activists to help them draw black-majority districts. The Democratic Party soon suffered as a result of racial gerrymandering, in Texas and in the House of Representatives. Thanks to racial gerrymandering as well as partisan gerrymandering, Republicans have dominated both houses of the Texas legislature since 2003, freezing out Texas Democrats. In the mid-term elections of 1994, Republicans led by Newt Gingrich recaptured the US House of Representatives for the first time since the 1950s. Not a single black Democrat lost in that election, thanks to their safe districts. But the loss of seven seats held by white Democrats thanks to racial gerrymandering gave Republicans the majority. At the time, David Bositis of the Joint Centre for Political and Economic Studies declared: 'Over the last two elections, the Democrats have lost as many as 15 seats because of majority black redistricting.' Without the loss of those seats, Democrats would have retained the House in 1994 by a margin of 218-216 and Gingrich would have been the frustrated House Minority Leader, not the Speaker of the House. Racial gerrymandering, then, might serve the interests of minority politicians but not necessarily the interests of minority voters. Presumably most black Democrats in 1994 would have preferred to have fewer black Democratic representatives in a House with a Democratic majority instead of more black representatives in a Democratic Party that had lost control of the House. Racial gerrymandering gained some credibility from the extreme racial polarisation along party lines in the immediate aftermath of desegregation half a century ago. Progressive propaganda to the contrary, however, the American electorate is far less polarised by race in the 2020s than ever before. In terms of partisan polarisation, black voters are outliers in the American electorate. In 1994, 86 per cent of black registered voters were Democrats, according to Pew; in 2024, the number was 83 per cent. Hispanic voters (61 per cent Democrat, 35 per cent Republican) and Asian-American voters (63-35) also prefer Democrats but by much smaller margins. And white Americans have long been the least racially-polarised group in the electorate, preferring Republicans by 55-42 per cent in 1994 and 56-41 per cent in 2024. These numbers fail to completely register the decline of racial polarisation, however, with Hispanic and black voters shifting toward Republicans in recent elections. And they do not show the growing trend of class polarisation between college graduates and those without college degrees. What is more, the very categories on which affirmative action in congressional redistricting and other areas rests are rapidly being eroded by intermarriage, now that one in six American newly-weds are estimated by Pew to have a spouse of another race. The federal courts should continue to enforce the law against attempts by federal, state and local governments to deprive individual Americans, of any race, of the right to vote. But individual Americans surely do not have to be represented in Congress by a member of their own race as long as the candidates of the party for whom they vote represent their personal views and values. Let us hope the Supreme Court will vindicate the original mission of the Voting Rights Act of eliminating barriers to voting by individuals, as opposed to setting up racially-gerrymandered safe seats for a few politicians. Michael Lind is a fellow at New America and the author of 'Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages Is Destroying America' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.