Man who posted father's severed head on YouTube gets life for 'horror film' murder

A Pennsylvania man who posted a video of his father's severed head on YouTube has been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Bucks County Judge Stephen A Corr found Justin D Mohn, 33, guilty of killing his father in January 2024 at their home in the Philadelphia suburb of Levittown.

Following the sentencing, Bucks County District Attorney Jennifer Schorn told reporters that Mohn had shown a "complete and utter lack of remorse," describing the killing as an "unimaginable, unfathomable crime". She said: "We are satisfied that this was the right outcome to guarantee that the community at large is safe from Justin Mohn." His defence barrister described it as an "undoubtedly difficult case to preside over".

"Cases involving the loss of life are always the most difficult, and that difficulty is compounded when the prosecution seeks the death penalty. The Commonwealth originally sought the death penalty in this case, and based on the defence that was presented on behalf of Mr Mohn, my client will not face that penalty," Mohn's solicitor, Steven M Jones, said in an email. He declined to say whether Mohn would appeal.

Prosecutors said Mohn used a newly purchased pistol to shoot his father, Michael F Mohn, 68, before decapitating him with a kitchen knife and machete. The gruesome 14-minute video he posted on YouTube remained live for several hours before being taken down.

During the trial, Mohn claimed he had attempted to "arrest" his father for what he described as false statements and treason. He said his father resisted, so he shot him-then severed his head to send a message to federal workers demanding their resignation and other concessions.

In victim impact statements read out in court, relatives described Michael Mohn as a loving husband and father, a man of humility and humour who enjoyed reading, exercising and playing the guitar.

Justin Mohn was arrested later the same day after scaling a fence at Fort Indiantown Gap, the headquarters of the state's National Guard. Prosecutors said he had called on others to join him in an attempted overthrow of the US government.

When detained, Mohn was carrying a USB stick containing photos of federal buildings and what appeared to be instructions for constructing explosives, authorities said.

He had also published years' worth of violent anti-government rhetoric online. During the trial, the judge heard evidence from Mohn's mother, who said police had previously visited the family home to warn him about his online activity.

Denice Mohn testified that she and her husband had been providing their son with financial support and guidance as he searched for work.

Ms Schorn added: "It's unimaginable what the defendant did to his father and to his family. I know this verdict does provide some level of justice, but it will never heal their wounds."

Mohn was also convicted of possessing an instrument of crime, weapons offences, criminal use of a communications facility, making terroristic threats, defiant trespassing and abuse of a corpse.

Prosecutors described the killing as "something straight out of a horror film", alleging Mohn murdered his father - a longtime engineer with the US Army Corps of Engineers - in a calculated attempt to intimidate government workers. They branded it a "cold, calculated, organised plan".

In the YouTube video, Mohn ranted about the government, immigration, fiscal policy, crime, the border and the war in Ukraine. He also described his father as a "traitor" and a 20-year federal employee.

During a competency hearing last year, a defence expert revealed Mohn had written to Russia's ambassador in Washington DC offering to defect, and had apologised to President Vladimir Putin for previously claiming to be the czar of Russia. The judge ultimately ruled that he was fit to stand trial.

Evidence shown in court included graphic photographs and footage from the YouTube video. The judge warned members of the public in attendance about the disturbing nature of the material and said they were free to leave before it was shown. The case was heard as a bench trial, meaning there was no jury.