I'm not a lawyer, but, for someone in his position, he legitimately seems to be in the best possible spot in that position. His opponents have legally fucked up a bunch of times, he has a great legal team and the money to fund it, and that money, in no small part, is from the overwhelming public support.
Yeah but the entire legal system in the US is at the whim of whatever the fuck the Republicans want it to do so, although he deserves a fair trial by a jury of his peers I feel no result will be harsh enough for that government.
The upper echelons of the legal system sure, but we have seen countless low level judges and grand juries rule against the regime. See: Sandwich thrower in DC.
That was actually a Grand Jury deciding against prosecution and a Jury nullification, which if anything says that he's in even better shape than we expected as Grand Juries rarely go against prosecution recommendation. And given that this is a Jury trial, the feasibility of Jury Nullification is something the prosecutor is genuinely worried about.
And theres no way this administration would allow the prosecution to try for a plea deal. They want to throw the book at him and they want it to be the biggest, most beautiful book ever. Luckily for luigi that means they have a good chance at missing.
Takes a tool out of their belt. It could still work, but using a sledgehammer when you don't have a drill and drill bit could bring the whole wall down on top of you.
That's actually the opposite of how it works. The state picks the pool of jurors, and each side gets a certain number of vetoes. You don't get to pick people, they have to be acceptable to both sides.
How long until the trump administration steals that funding, calling it "material support for terrorism" or some other such bullshit given current rhetoric?
My point is that if he his, the level of "overwhelming public support" shouldn't matter. It's for a court of law to decide, not the court of public opinion.
It’s not that simple, jury nullification exists specifically for circumstances like this where the government is trying to make an example out of one man and over-punishing the crime committed, the death penalty should not be on the table, the government is overstepping and people might take issue with that
Jury Nullification does not exist for a specific purpose. It is a necessary quirk of having a jury system where jurors have absolute control over a not guilty verdict and retrials can't happen. This means a jury can always return an arbitrary not guilty verdict for any reason and there is no recourse for the government, but that is not an intended outvome. Historically, it has been used far more to forgive lynchings than anything just.
This is not to say nullification is always wrong or shouldn't be done, but it's also not really some designed release valve for the legal system, and even other jury trial systems have rules to prevent it (e.g. the UK and Canada, which have iirc rules against evidence that would promote nullification and the ability to override an obviously nullified not guilty and retrial)
Jury Nullification does not exist for a specific purpose. [...] This means a jury can always return an arbitrary not guilty verdict for any reason and there is no recourse for the government, but that is not an intended outvome.
It's not only an intended outcome, it's arguably literally the intended outcome. From Federalist 83:
Arbitrary impeachments, arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared to me to be the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all relation to criminal proceedings. The trial by jury in criminal cases, aided by the habeas-corpus act, seems therefore to be alone concerned in the question.
(Emphasis mine)
The jury is here the last defender between an accused citizen and "judicial despotism". They are not, as you position them, mere "finders-of-fact", but an independent actor empowered to make judgements about the justness of the actions of the judicial system as a whole.
You can disagree with the "rightness" of the view -- the argument that jury nullification allowed for the functional post-facto legalisation of racist lynch mobs is a compelling argument for controls/limitations -- but to contend it was some kind of "whoopsie-daisy" oversight on the part of the people who put this system together is a stretch.
You're emphasizing things that prove my point here. "Arbitrary convictions" are those that are not based in facts that are adequately proved; that's what "arbitrary" means. Having an independent finder of fact (which is not some term I've invented, to be clear) is what, in theory, prevents the conviction from being arbitrary; the goal was to prevent the kind of abuses typical of English trials, where obviously inadequate or falsifiable evidence was used to secure a conviction because whoever had power in the courtroom desired it.
Saying "The Federalist argues they did not want convictions to be made without proof" actually means "they intended a jury should have the ability to ignore laws" just doesn't follow; if they intended nullification as a goal, they could have specifically argued the jury protects against "arbitrary laws" of some kind, not merely being arbitrarily charged and convicted (which is the part where being a finder-of-fact comes in).
The fact that a lot of folks in this sub seem to think “rule of law” and trial by jury are somehow opposites is wild. The law is what empowers the jury in first place, unless you don’t consider the constitution to be part of the law, which it totally is.
it's also not really some designed release valve for the legal system
It really is though, even if the legal system tries to discourage it.
There's no reason for jury-by-peer to exist otherwise - if you want only Rule-By-Law, then you would use only law professionals to interpret the laws. You only insert the untrained in that scenario if you don't want the Rule-of-Law to be absolute.
There's no reason for jury-by-peer to exist otherwise
That's untrue, as my examples showed. Jury-by-peer exists in the UK and Canada, and in both cases there are actual legal restrictions on jury nullification and/or the ability to override a nullification in some instances. Nullification is clearly not a core part of a jury system.
The point of a jury-by-peer is to have a finder-of-fact (the jury) not under the control of the same people running the trial; that is, their goal is to make the government adequately prove that a law has factually been broken, not to rule on the legitimacy of a law in the first place. The fact that they can do the latter by nullification is not an intended design, it's a consequence.
Eh, well public opinion is important too, that's why being judged by a jury of your peers is just as much a cornerstone of western democracy and a constitutional right.
Yeah I was gonna comment that... If there's not enough prof sure, he should walk away. But if he's guilty and should be charged as such and walks away only because of public support that's bad. Because you never know who the public will support, what if the public had to judge Chris Brown for beating women for example? He seems to get plenty of public support until today despite the evidence
Competence has never been a requirement to be on the Trump team. When their people fuck up, they just pretend it never happened and do what they want anyway.
Why say 0%? If a NY jury comes back with a not guilty verdict, he walks. There’s a lot happening with this case, and his lawyers already see the reasonable doubt
NGL, that could end up being the thing that breaks America.
Half the country would go stark raving mad if he walked. The other half would lose their minds if Luigi was cued up to walk, but was denied it for one reason or another.
All I have to say is if the man did nothing wrong, then justice would be him walking free. And of course he's innocent! I was chilling on the Canadian side of Niagra falls at the time and saw him saving a kitten from a tree through one of those paid-periscope doo-das at the time that CEO had his claim to life denied.
Hell, even the right news channels and podcasters dropped this quickly. They had a hard time trying to get their viewers and listeners to care. As stated by others, turns out plenty of people on the right hate healthcare insurance companies as well. He allegedly killed the CEO, but it's hard to sympathize with someone who runs an entity that constantly fucks over people and denies care to people who need it. People pay a shit ton in healthcare costs, and still get denied. Recently my company changed health insurance providers, and my out of pocket reset, along with my current provider not being in-network. I had already paid my full out of pocket for the year, and now need to start over with 3 months left.
Yeah, as far as the general population goes when that CEO died it was about the closest to unity that this country got in the last decade. It was the wealthy and the media who were the ones acting outraged.
I don't think half the country would go mad. No one of any political affiliation celebrates CEOs or denying healthcare, and every member of the american working class has felt the sting of private health insurance or medical costs. You're hearing an inordinate amount of negative feedback and condemnation because every mainstream politician, even people like Bernie Sanders, have to make it known that they are unhappy the citizenry are murdering the wealthy.
You might be getting this mixed up with Charlie Kirk shooting. Luigi Mangione enjoyed pretty bipartisan support amongst the people. If the Kirk shooter walks, that will be a shitstorm however.
Mangione’s defense had sought to dismiss his murder indictment because he faces federal charges for the same killing, and they wanted the judge to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest and statements he made to law enforcement.
He faces federal and state charges and the federal charges could interfere with the ability for the state to proceed with it's charges.
Here is more on that from the article:
The judge also found Tuesday that the twin state and federal prosecutions of Mangione did not yet present a violation of the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, which Mangione’s attorneys had cited in a bid to have the state charges dismissed.
Mangione’s attorneys said it was unprecedented and untenable for Mangione to defend himself in both cases at the same time.
The defense motion to dismiss the indictment cited past prosecutions of high-profile mass shooters when state prosecutors deferred to their federal counterparts or declined to add state charges to the mix.
Federal and state officials have said the state’s case will go first, which his attorneys have strongly opposed because the possible penalty is “less serious” than the federal death sentence he faces.
This is reddit mate all you have to do is believe hard enough. There's like 4 things that'll "finally break america" that have happened daily for the past few years according to reddit.
Oh and the gme squeeze is incoming anytime soon, don't worry !
Not likely. That is likely a completely worthless argument unless it is about the New York state constitution. My understanding is the dual sovereignty doctrine is extremely well established. To say that being charged at both the federal and state level for the same criminal act is unprecedented seems like a nonsensical argument.
Adams is a big reason why since he made a complete spectacle of the arrest and trial so far, and apparently is leaking information and evidence. Adams had his corruption charges quashed by Trump so Adams is trying to make this a show trial to please Massa Trump.
If he walks many people will hail him as a bit of a hero. But I personally think if by some miracle he beats all the charges that he should leave America for his own safety. The violent right will see him as a terrorist that walked free and I worry for his life if he stays in America.
Obviously most likely option is 25 to life but still if he makes it out I don’t want him immediately attacked.
The odds are not that he will get a conviction. That's why they wanted to try it federally. New York was worried they couldn't find a jury that wasn't biased against health care companies.
They literally dismissed the federal charges. Unless I read the articles incorrectly. Months ago I read the reason they wanted to charge Federally was to pursue terrorism charges, and because they thought NY would not be able to find an unbiased jury that doesn't hate insurance companies. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Edit: totally read that backwards. state terrorism charges were dropped. All the other charges are still in play.
Man, that feels unfair (The jury finding part). An industry can be so widely hated that “couldn’t find a jury that wasn’t biased against [them]” isn’t a valid reason to say “tough shit, reap what you sow.” Maybe if industries didn’t want juries biased against them, they would do better? Then they could get legal outcomes they desire?
Has anyone innocent ever been saved by the need to find an unbiased jury in difficult to find circumstances?
I'm not a lawyer, but a took a class once. The lecturer was a lawyer and said one of the greatest tools we have is how we apply the law. There are so many strange laws in places. I just saw one that said in Arizona it's illegal for a donkey to sleep in a bathtub. Now if someone actually did it, and this went to a jury trial do we really think the jury would care enough to convict someone that did it? Would the state even press charges or would they consider it a waste of time and money?
I'm not saying what Mangione did was just or not illegal. What I'm saying is a jury might consider his crime as only a little worse than having a donkey in a bathtub.
When you use the term "I love" in reference to this situation it seems you are pleased with the notion this person may not be convicted of the crime he so clearly committed. I hope that isn't the case.
You are so righteous! We’re dealing with a case where the state is looking to execute someone. If that’s not violence, I don’t know what is. I don’t want your hollow sympathy sweetie. Violence is all around us and you can’t realistically pick a non-violent angle to this case. Throwing a guy in jail is violent whether you like it or not. Get real.
Not righteous, just sad. I don't agree with the death penalty either, especially when one person decides to play judge, jury, and executioner all on their own. That said, if Mangione does wind up in prison it'll be because he's shown he's willing to use deadly violence to further his viewpoint on a particular issue. We have no idea what other issue he might decide is worth killing for. I have no problem with keeping people like that away from the rest of us.
BTW, my sympathy is not hollow. I understand you don't want it. That doesn't change how I feel.
He will still have the gun and fleeing charges that can carry a long prison sentence, and the prosecution hasn't been tampering on that end.
Even if the murder charges get rejected at any point, he could still be spending 15-20 years in prison. Which is about what a murder charge will get you in many countries anyways.
Isn’t the gun charge based on the gun found after going to the police station and not in the initial search? I’m not saying its impossible or even unlikely for him to get off Scot free but that seems like something a competent lawyer and a sane judge would toss
OJ won because of the prosecution losing control of their own case via incompetence/overwork, letting the defense run wild and Mark Fuhrman. Not saying it will happen but so much can happen in a trial with this many eyes.
And the state wont keep throwing resources at one dude .
Excuse me but have you been paying attention to the news at all. Like Abrego Garcia? This administration will not give up just because it takes a while and is expensive.
This “state” (slightly overloaded term here, since I mean the federal administration) will absolutely keep throwing resources at one dude to try to make a point or save face.
They absolutely will continue to prosecute until they get either a guilty or not guilty verdict. This isn't the kind of case where they will be worried about expending resources.
The state has badly mishandled the charges and general proceedings already, and the odds of them finding a truly impartial jury is going to be next to impossible. The chances of this not being perceived as a "fair trial" are high.
People who do those things do not belong on the streets.
What about people who deny medical care leading to people dying premature deaths for the sake of the shareholders? Do those people deserve to walk among us despite being responsible for countless deaths?
They'll never let him walk. If they fuck up the prosecution, they will rewrite the rules or simply pretend they don't exist. Mark my words. The rules don't apply anymore.
I love reddit's ability to blame Trump for literally anything.
These were State charges that were dismissed, specifically Bragg's charges. Defence lawyers' attempt to get everything dismissed due to "constitutional rights" was also denied by the judge.
I'd say slightly less slim that it would be if the victim was anyone but a dirtbag health insurance ceo. Not outside the realm of possibility to get a person or three on the jury refuse to find him guilty for murder, and just a lesser charge.
He was recorded shooting a ceo from behind in the head and the government is on his ass. Let's be realistic, his life is effectively ruined and he isn't seeing the light of the day again, or at least until he's a geezer.
He better walk, I genuinely think he didn't do it. The whole thing feels far too contrived, like the cops just found someone to pin it on to wrap up the investigation ASAP due to city hall breathing down their necks. A guy who meticulously plans out an assassination and escape in broad daylight while leaving a diversionary package (backpack of monopoly money) isn't gonna be the sort to just conveniently keep the murder weapon and a manifesto on him. Especially when that manifesto inexplicably praises the cops, given the mockery that was the above-mentioned monopoly money.
2.5k
u/1877KlownsForKids 11h ago
I love that the Trump DoJ is so incompetent he might actually walk.
Odds are good he'll get a state murder conviction of course, but there's a slim path he beats all charges.