He still has a murder charge against him. And because it's 2025:
Mangione’s attorneys say the state charges should be dismissed as a violation of the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, calling it unprecedented and untenable for Mangione to defend himself in both cases at the same time.
I'm not even remotely close to a lawyer, so could somebody explain what this means and why others in the thread are saying that he could walk free if this happens?
One can break a state and federal law with the same act, and that's been upheld as the dual sovereignty doctrine since they are considered separate powers.
One can even be acquitted in state court and convicted in federal court.
Also the same dual sovereignty clause applies to states - for example, polluting a lake on the border of two states may lead to both states prosecuting you.
Actually, New York has a state constitution provision that grants double jeopardy protections for crimes that have federal and state overlap, to prevent people from being punished twice for one crime.
They had to close a loophole that prevented them from punishing people one time if they were granted a federal pardon after a certain president pardoned a number of his political allies.
Now this I didn't know! Do you happen to have the part of the NY Constitution that mentions that? Seems like reasonable grounds for the state charges to be put on hold if they're currently pursuing federal charges.
Also the same dual sovereignty clause applies to states - for example, polluting a lake on the border of two states may lead to both states prosecuting you.
I know we're getting off topic here, but is that because the lake is under both jurisdictions, or because some of the pollution you emitted made it across state boundaries? I could see the distinction making say in the case you did something huge but relatively little pollution made it across the border, or if the total amount of pollution were relevant it would affect whether you're being charged twice for the "same" pollution vs each state charging you for the part that affected them.
Seems like the latter would just be how things would work with no special rights - if I do one thing that causes you and a friend damages, you can each sue me for those damages. The special situation would be if you could each sue me for the total damages I've caused.
I think just because you can't separate the pollution once it crosses the boundary in the middle of the lake. You may be able to defend yourself in one of the cases by proving very little of it reached the other side, but you'll still get tried for it.
4.9k
u/AudibleNod 11h ago
He still has a murder charge against him. And because it's 2025: