News
A gay man was brutally killed in Arizona. Was it a hate crime?
PHOENIX — The first man was found dead in the driver’s seat of his car on March 20. He’d been shot twice — once in the head and once in the back. He’d been led to the area, north of downtown Phoenix, for what authorities described as a sexual encounter with another man.
The second victim, who family members have said was openly gay, was discovered in a park eight months later, in November. He’d been shot and mutilated in a manner that a cousin said reminded her of a horror movie.
Last month, three people were charged with various crimes in the November killing of Bernardo “Bernie” Pantaleon, 30. A fourth suspect was arrested and later released after prosecutors asked police to continue investigating.
One of the suspects, Leonardo Santiago, 21, later confessed to the March killing of Osvaldo Hernandez Castillo, 20, officials said, and he has since been indicted on first-degree murder charges in both cases. He has pleaded not guilty. No one else has been charged in Hernandez Castillo’s death.
Authorities have not accused the suspects of targeting gay men — despite calls from Pantaleon’s family to charge them with hate crimes in connection with his killing.
Law enforcement documents allege Santiago initially told authorities he killed Bernie over an “unwanted advance.” The documents also suggest there was a sexual relationship between Santiago and Hernandez Castillo.
Juan Pantaleon said a conversation days after the November death leaves little doubt as to why his cousin was killed.
In the online conversation, which occurred in a group chat and was included in a probable cause statement from the Phoenix Police Department, some of the suspects made “derogatory remarks regarding the victim’s sexuality and a derogatory statement about homosexuals not being allowed in the northside” of Phoenix.
“There’s more than enough evidence here,” Juan said. “It’s clear as day to everybody who sees this — he was targeted for being gay.”
Juan said his family has pleaded with local and federal prosecutors to pursue hate crime charges. To their great frustration, he said, they’ve made little headway, prompting the family to call for a reform to the state’s hate crime statute.
In Juan’s view, calling the crime what he believes it is is key to heading off an inaccurate and demeaning portrayal of the murder — “another brown-on-brown gang crime,” Juan said. (Authorities have charged the suspects with assisting in a criminal street gang. Bernie, who worked for a local author and sold e-cigarettes for extra income, was “absolutely” not in a gang, Juan said.)
Another of Bernie’s cousins, Gasdeli Pantaleon, said she hoped the family’s effort might offer a measure of protection to Arizona’s LGBTQ community.
In an email to Juan last month, Jordan Uglietta, a Maricopa County prosecutor trying the case, said the state has no hate crime charge, but that state law allows prosecutors to allege bias against a person’s sexual identity as an “aggravating circumstance” that can help secure a stiffer prison sentence.
“The prosecution will continue to review the evidence obtained through the police investigation of this case and, in consideration of such evidence, determine whether to allege this aggravating circumstance in this case at the proper time,” Uglietta wrote.
A spokeswoman for the prosecutor’s office declined to comment, citing the status of the case. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Phoenix — which could potentially file hate crime charges that are separate from the state’s case — declined to comment. A spokesman for the FBI’s field office said his office is aware of the killing but cited a policy barring the agency from confirming or denying the existence of an investigation.
NBC News could not reach Hernandez Castillo’s family.
Lawyers for Santiago, who is being held in lieu of $4 million bond, either declined to comment or did not respond to a request for comment. Lawyers for Santiago’s alleged accomplices did not respond to requests for comment.
Santiago’s next court appearance is scheduled for Feb. 1.
The family ‘rock’
Bernie’s family described him as their “rock.” Gasdeli said Bernie lost much of his childhood to familial obligations: His parents were deported and later died when he was a teenager, she said, so Bernie became the primary caregiver for his younger siblings and grandparents.
“Bernie just thought that he had to care for everybody,” she said. “He was a very caring person.”
The added responsibilities prompted Bernie to drop out of high school, she said. He worked with another cousin doing home remodeling and later began working for the author and selling e-cigarettes, she said.
Bernie had an eye for home organization and interior design, Gasdeli said, and had planned on launching a business. After his death, his family found business cards he’d made for the new venture.
Juan, who now lives in New York but lived in Phoenix as a teenager and was close with Bernie, remembered the moment his cousin came out. Bernie was 15, Juan said, and he and some other cousins were hanging out at a relative’s house.
“He just, like, took a deep breath,” Juan recalled. “He’s like, ‘Guys, I want to tell you something. He’s like, ‘I’m gay.’ And we’re like, yeah, ‘We know.’”
“We saw this weight come off of him,” Juan said. “And then from that point forward, little by little, he started becoming his true self.”
Juan, now 30, moved to New York in his teens, but when he returned to Phoenix for a visit two years ago, he said he and Bernie picked up like he’d never gone.
“When I left he was still wearing polos and closeted in his style,” Juan said. “When I went out there again, he was lashes up and nails on, and I could tell that he was happy.”
During the visit, Juan recalled, he and Bernie talked about their dating lives. At one point, he said, Bernie mentioned a man he was having sex with and showed Juan the man’s dating profile.
When Bernie said the man belonged to a gang, Juan warned his cousin to be careful, he said.
The conversation “echoes in my mind. It just haunts me,” Juan said.
A frantic search
On the morning of Nov. 26, a Sunday, Gasdeli learned that Bernie wasn’t answering his phone and no one had talked to him since Saturday.
Bernie was supposed to go to a bar Saturday night, she said, but the friends he planned to meet up with said he was a no-show. From Bernie’s younger brother, Gasdeli said, she learned someone had been messaging Bernie all Saturday, trying to make a deal for e-cigarettes.
The brother had warned Bernie against it, saying it seemed like a setup, Gasdeli said. But that afternoon, Bernie decided to go. He put on a hoodie and walked to a nearby park, she said.
When Bernie’s family couldn’t find him the next morning, Gasdeli said, they checked the location of his cellphone and discovered it was still at the park. When they drove by the area, she said, it was surrounded by police officers.
Investigators at the scene couldn’t confirm a body that had been discovered was Bernie’s, she said, but when they finally did, the moment left the family “shattering in pieces.”
“My whole family’s crying, screaming,” she said. “We’re trying to find answers.”
A few days later, on Nov. 30, the apparent answers came in a grim message. Another cousin who was close with Bernie, Roman Pantaleon, said someone sent him graphic and disturbing images of Bernie. There were other people in the images, as well.
One of the images, which were being shared on a messaging platform, showed Bernie’s body, Roman said. Standing over him was a man flipping off the camera, Roman said.
“It makes you really angry,” Roman said. “It enrages you.”
Roman said he shared the pictures with the Phoenix Police Department and then deleted them. Days later, on Dec. 2, three men were arrested in the killing. In the probable cause statement, authorities described the images the family had received — a second picture showed Bernie’s mutilated body — and said they were shared on Instagram. The statement says only that the profile that shared the image belonged to one of Santiago’s co-defendants.
Investigators obtained a warrant for the Instagram profile and discovered a group message that showed a conversation about robbing and killing Bernie, the statement says. A co-defendant was part of the thread, the statement says, where members “repeatedly asked for updates” about the alleged crime and “lamented they were not invited.”
An hour after the slaying, the statement says, Santiago’s co-defendants discussed returning to the scene to mutilate Bernie’s body.
The probable cause statement says that days after the slaying, the thread showed some of the suspects discussing news coverage of Bernardo’s death and making derogatory statements about his sexuality and stating that gay people were not allowed on Phoenix’s north side.
The statement doesn’t say if the suspects learned that Bernie was gay from the coverage or if they already knew.
‘It was personal’
After his arrest, Santiago told investigators that he’d met Bernie around 6 p.m. on Nov. 25. After an initial denial, Santiago allegedly told investigators that he killed Bernie over an “unwanted advance that made him uncomfortable,” the probable cause statement said.
Santiago later changed his story, the statement said, and said the original plan had been only to rob Bernie. He then blamed a person whom he couldn’t fully identify for the killing, the statement adds, and he blamed others for coming up with the idea to mutilate Bernie — although he acknowledged being there when it happened.
That effort to shift blame was “contradicted by the codefendant during their interview,” the statement says. “A second codefendant provided statements indicating the defendant” — Santiago — “was responsible for killing the victim.”
To Gasdeli, her cousin’s horrific death appeared to reveal a crime that wasn’t just a robbery. He’d been shot multiple times and cut with a sharp-edged object, police said, and had suffered significant injuries to his head, neck and torso.
“It was personal,” Gasdeli said.
Juan rejected the claim that his cousin made an unwanted pass at Santiago and also believes Bernardo’s slaying was personal. He believed he recognized Santiago as the man from the dating profile Bernie showed him two years earlier — the man he warned his cousin about.
A police spokesman declined to comment on how or if Santiago and Bernie knew each other and referred the question to the prosecutor’s office. A spokeswoman for the prosecutor’s office declined to comment. Santiago’s lawyer also declined to comment.
A confession in an earlier slaying
After Santiago’s arrest, authorities linked him to a second killing. A man who was arrested in what authorities described as an unrelated investigation on Dec. 4 told officials about a video he’d seen of Santiago fatally shooting a man inside a car, according to a probable cause statement reviewed by NBC News.
Authorities said in the statement they searched Santiago’s phone and found a clip of him fatally shooting Osvaldo Hernandez Castillo in March.
In an interview with investigators, Santiago admitted to the killing, saying he’d been forced by another man to carry out the murder and that he’d done so to be recognized by his gang, the statement says. Santiago also told investigators he’d threatened to rob Hernandez Castillo, according to the statement.
Santiago acknowledged using a Snapchat handle — “IPEEPNIKE10” — to message Hernandez Castillo, and a chat thread between them showed that they’d met up for sexual encounters, the statement says. On March 19, the day before Hernandez Castillo was found dead, the messages showed they’d planned to meet, according to the statement.
The affidavit pointed to evidence at the scene — including an unused condom — as well as interviews with Hernandez Castillo’s family and friends and said: “It is believed the victim was engaged in a sexual encounter with a male at or around the time of his murder.”
The statement does not provide additional information about the relationship.
At Santiago’s initial court appearance Dec. 8, he stood quietly at a lectern wearing an orange jumpsuit. Hernandez Castillo’s mother offered a brief, tearful statement.
Santiago had taken a piece of her, she said through an interpreter, and another man had to die before they found her son’s killer.
Brittany Morris reported from Phoenix. Tim Stelloh reported from Alameda, Calif.
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.
U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation. My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry.
Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components. As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country. We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.
It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.
Sec. 2. Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:
(i) expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;
(ii) establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and
(iii) facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.
(e) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.
(f) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.
Sec. 3. Secure Frontier Model Deployment. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:
(a) develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate. Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.
(b) design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:
(i) engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;
(ii) provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and
(iii) collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.
Sec. 4. Protection Against Criminal Actors. The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime. This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 2, 2026.
-
San Francisco, CA5 minutes agoWhat’s Worth More Than Cash in San Francisco Real Estate? Anthropic Stock
-
Dallas, TX10 minutes agoDallas weighs $500 million‑plus repair plans as City Hall’s future comes up for debate
-
Miami, FL17 minutes agoMiami biotech executive was followed into his condo by man who allegedly threw him from 25th floor
-
Boston, MA20 minutes agoWhat a World Cup ‘fan zone’ is and what Boston fans can expect in 2026
-
Denver, CO24 minutes agoDefensive lineman Jordan Miller has a tough battle to make the Broncos’ final 53-man roster
-
Seattle, WA32 minutes agoVIDEO: Mayor Wilson proposes renewing, expanding Seattle Transit Measure by doubling the sales-tax percentage that funds it.
-
San Diego, CA35 minutes agoMorning Report: Runoffs Largely Set
-
Milwaukee, WI40 minutes agoMPS staffer who got plea deal in slapping case had earlier incident
