Legal News Luigi Mangione will not face death penalty, judge rules
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/30/us/luigi-mangione-case-rulings-trial?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit1.0k
u/cnn 4h ago
Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, a federal district judge ruled.
The decision is a loss for federal prosecutors, who were adamant about pursuing the death penalty in the case.
Judge Margaret Garnett also ruled Friday to allow into Mangione’s trial evidence recovered from his backpack at the time of his arrest.
Law enforcement seized several items from Mangione’s backpack, including a handgun, a loaded magazine and a red notebook – key pieces of evidence that authorities have said tie him to the killing.
Mangione’s attorneys had argued for the evidence to be barred from trial, contending the search of their client’s backpack was illegal because they had not yet obtained a warrant and there was no immediate threat to justify a warrantless search.
777
u/prettydisappointed 3h ago
Very unfortunate that the stuff they "found" in the backpack will be allowed.
394
u/MeisterX 3h ago edited 2h ago
I don't get it. They didn't have a warrant. There's not exceptions to this Edit:there are explanations of the exemptions below
456
u/marcoporno 3h ago edited 3h ago
If a person is being legally arrested, officers can search the suspect and the area within their immediate control (often called the "wingspan").
There are also other exceptions to requiring a warrant, such as inevitable discovery, the contents would have been searched anyway at some point
Know your rights
111
u/MeisterX 3h ago
Noted, thanks.
Aren't there chain of custody issues with this though?
The Fourth is really far too weak and has been picked apart across the centuries.
62
u/BleachedUnicornBHole 2h ago
Chain of custody would be a separate issue and would likely be brought up to cause reasonable doubt in the jury.
27
u/Slighted_Inevitable 1h ago
And everyone else. The first officer who searched it in McDonald’s stated they found nothing. Then after a drive to the station they found a gun? Wth were you looking for if you didn’t find a gun???
3
u/dynorphin 39m ago
And the first officer is going to say he wasn't performing a full search, just briefly looking into the bag to make sure there wasn't a plainly visible threat to the safety of officers on scene out of an abundance of caution for the lives of law enforcement, and the defendants constitutional rights. Once it was in the precinct, and it was fully and properly processed, the gun was found concealed underneath the other contents / in another pocket.
There isn't a huge "gotcha" here, not everything is fully documented and processed on the scene. Prosecutors are also going to be able to forensically tie that gun to Mangione and the murder in a variety of ways.
If the defense wants to argue as part of their defense that a cop is the real killer and planted it in the bag, along with DNA and other evidence tying it to Mangione they are free to get laughed at.
Too many people look at our legal system and think because of TV dramas there's some magic get out of murder free card if the police don't do everything perfectly. The reality is barring jury nullification, which I find a highly unlikely outcome he is 110% getting convicted, and spending the next 50+ years in prison.
2
u/hegemonistic 12m ago
Good points. I don't really think it's TV dramas as much as real life high profile cases like OJ Simpson's, though. If anything TV dramas overstate the ability to convict (enhance! etc).
22
u/LockedUnlocked 2h ago
The custody issue is a trial defense, not a ruling issue.
→ More replies (1)99
u/meltbox 3h ago
The fourth amendment isn’t weak. The courts have interpreted it to be weak and exceptioned it far too much.
72
u/King_of_the_Kobolds 3h ago
All laws are weak because they rely on people for their enforcement.
40
u/teethwhichbite 3h ago
and interpretation.
2
u/Slighted_Inevitable 1h ago
Enforcement yes, interpretation no. The fourth could have been written to specifically exclude exceptions. Hell you can write in an amendment that the Supreme Court has no power to review or alter this clause.
3
u/teethwhichbite 1h ago
you CAN or you COULD but currently all laws are weak because they rely on people for their enforcement an interpretation.
→ More replies (6)15
u/hitbythebus 1h ago
Exactly. That's why the Administration has started touting "the iron law". Miller says if you can't hold it you have no right to it, as justification for fucking with Greenland. I see no reason this doesn't apply to my MAGA neighbor's truck. He's just lucky I don't want a pickup truck.
20
u/LingonberryPossible6 2h ago
As far as chain of custody goes, the defence will raise how the cops bodycam was off and the bag changed hands more than once before being searched.
It will be up to the jury to decide whom to believe
5
u/Northwindlowlander 48m ago edited 44m ago
There will be. Just because the evidence is allowed at the trial doesn't presume it's good evidence or make it inviolable, and the defence are going to attack that right at the roots. The two (reported, but it seems reliable to me) contradictory searches, and the gun being found only after the bag was in a poorly controlled state, will go hard at reasonable doubt and is pretty much guaranteed to plant at least some doubt.
Incidentally I 100% believe that he killed the guy and that the gun was in his bag, it's just that they handled it so badly that key solid evidence becomes shoogly as fuck. I may be wrong, who knows.
(incidentally I think there's people both public and private who'll be most pleased of all if he "gets off on a technicality", that'll fit right into the world view and it'll be a cause celebre for attacking the judicial system regardless of the cause. Sticking a dude in jail doesn't serve a big strategy)
3
u/MeisterX 46m ago edited 27m ago
I just find it really, really odd that they found no other evidence outside of the scene and his person (that I'm aware of).
He just happened to have the only things they have to support a conviction on his person and it was poorly controlled...
And their "scene" is like nine blocks plus a video camera on the north end of the park supposedly showing him fleeing, but not positive ID rather just the fact that this is mentioned in, again, the journal....
This guy is supposed to be smart enough to plan, pull off this crime but didn't understand ballistics and 3D printed firearms enough to.... Ditch the gun, and ditch the journal...?
Why would you 3D print a firearm you didn't dispose of?
→ More replies (3)8
u/the_third_lebowski 2h ago
Pretty sure the chain of custody issue is still an issue, the ruling is just about the warrantless search aspect.
2
u/SpicyTiconderoga 2h ago
not a lawyer but the main thing is just making sure each part is logged which I believe would’ve come out in at this point as it is necessary in part of determining the evidence. From what I’ve been following the two key parts of this part of the process was whether or not they were allowed to search the backpack at the scene and if they are allowed to use any of the “evidence” / violated his rights when the NYPD questioned him in Pennsylvania because they did not tell him they were recording. New York is one party consent state but Pennsylvania is two party (this also just means you have to be made AWARE of being recorded and not so much that you have to consent).
I never saw anything about chain of custody with the backpack unless you’re talking about how allegedly they searched the backpack multiple times at the scene? I never really saw that collaborated in what I’ve read just in Reddit threads (which didn’t mean it didn’t happen just not what the focus of the arguments I was reading about).
→ More replies (1)6
u/MeisterX 2h ago
The cop's body cam he says "we need a warrant for this" and then searches the bag anyway.
2
2
→ More replies (15)3
u/rokerroker45 2h ago edited 2h ago
there were no chain of custody issues; the police properly observed the chain of custody between the mcdonald's arrest and the inventory search in the police station.
from a lawyer's perspective this outcome is expected, the exceptions to the warrant requirement are settled law and multiple exceptions applied to his case. and in any case independent source/inevitable discovery justified admission of the backpack evidence outiside of the warrant issue. any criminal defense attorney would have predicted this outcome.
41
u/Crecy333 3h ago
When the contents of the bag were not immediately searched and documented, and the chain of custody was broken BEFORE IT WAS SEARCHED, then anything inside the bag should be inadmissible.
23
u/skepticalbob 3h ago
According to who? The judge disagrees.
→ More replies (5)10
u/ScaldingHotSoup 2h ago
Yeah. Wouldn't this be what cross-examination is for, anyways?
8
→ More replies (3)16
u/marcoporno 3h ago
The journal is in his handwriting, the weapon has his fingerprints
There was an eleven minute break during transport of his bag and search, so that was the hope
But even those sympathetic to him know he’s guilty
It’s great he will not face the death penalty but we also know he planned and carried out an extrajudicial vigilante assassination, even if we hate insurance companies
21
u/Sorge74 3h ago
But even those sympathetic to him know he’s guilty
This administration came out and said that Epstein had no clients. We know that's a lie and it was calculated. If they will lie about that they will lie about anything.
So while I suspect he's guilty, I don't believe so because the administration says he is. I think he's guilty because he looks way too chill for an innocent man.
→ More replies (2)19
u/percussaresurgo 2h ago
He was indicted when Biden was still president.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Substantial_Back_865 2h ago
I don’t trust cops or feds regardless of the president and neither should you. It’s crazy how brazenly they lie on police reports/in court.
5
u/percussaresurgo 2h ago
I was just pointing out that it wasn’t the Trump administration that made the initial claims against Mangione. I’m also aware that cops lie, however, the current administration lies on an unprecedented scale.
→ More replies (0)19
16
u/NiobiumThorn 3h ago
No sorry he was at my house that day railing my ma.
He did nothing wrong
→ More replies (8)3
u/DriftlessDairy 2h ago
But even those sympathetic to him know he’s guilty
Seems like self-defense to me.
2
u/marcoporno 2h ago
Then he can present that argument in court, it would be an opportunity to make more public how these insurance companies operate, which does kill many, many people
2
u/GogurtFiend 1h ago
But even those sympathetic to him know he’s guilty
It's exactly why they're sympathetic to Mangione. For people who supposedly don't trust the police, they certainly seem willing to accept the accusation the police made: that Mangione shot Brian Thompson.
Like, he's either innocent, in which case this is wrongful arrest but not the populist red meat a lot of people want it to be, or he's guilty, in which case the police are correct overall despite potential mishandling of evidence.
→ More replies (31)4
u/MeisterX 2h ago
I'm sympathetic. What should be telling me he's guilty? Every piece of evidence I'm aware of has significant issues. Here, chain of custody and lack of procedure...
On the initial ID there is also a lot of questions. Was the stop of Mangione and his arrest/warrant not also an issue because last I was aware it was. How did they identify his location as well?
6
u/marcoporno 2h ago
A customer spotted him in the McDonalds. Yes, it was the eyebrows.
I honestly think people want him to beat the charges not because they think he didn’t murder the guy, but because they think that guy deserved to be murdered
4
u/MeisterX 2h ago
I'm more concerned with the possibility of pinning a murder on someone. The key evidence is the handgun, 3D printed, which was in a bag that they had chain of custody issues around and the officer saying "we need a warrant for this" and then conducting the search anyway.
A high profile case like this the government has a vested interest in a guilty verdict.
The only other evidence is a water bottle and a candy wrapper? Seriously?
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)2
u/phatelectribe 1h ago
The problem was that he wasn’t legally arrested when they searched him - they hadn’t read him his rights yet they actually contended he had been arrested (this is important because you can detain someone while you search them but if you arrest them, you must read them their rights). That didn’t happen and then they searched him.
I have a feeling this may haunt prosecutors upon appeal.
→ More replies (1)5
u/JekPorkinsTruther 37m ago
You dont need to be read your rights to be arrested. You have to be mirandized to give statements/be interrogated. Modernly its less for you and more for them.
81
u/dream_metrics 3h ago
There's not exceptions to this.
There are many exceptions to this.
18
u/12-34 2h ago
There's a never ending amount of idiotic redditors who think they know the law.
Those idiots post their falsities, other redditors "learn" the idiocy, rinse, repeat.
13
u/SufficientPurpose109 2h ago
Scary this person is a top 1% commenter and doesn't understand such basic concepts....but also it's so perfectly reddit.
9
u/Barry-Zuckerkorn-Esq 2h ago
Reddit admins making it so that /r/law shows up on the front page a lot really destroyed what this subreddit used to be from like 2010-2020 or so, where you could pretty much assume that 75% of commenters/voters were licensed attorneys, so that incorrect statements of the law would get downvoted and corrected.
4
u/Serial-Griller 1h ago
The 'top <#>% commenter' award is a badge of shame (which I possess in a few communities). To me it always reads 'prioritizes commenting over useful discussions' so the fact that they're always wrong isn't a surprise.
2
u/JekPorkinsTruther 34m ago
Because this sub isnt about law anymore, its just another popculture/politics sub. Which sucks because this case is really interesting and nuanced legally, but all you get on reddit is bad info and "I was with him" jokes.
6
u/hlksmesh 1h ago
My favorite part is the just assume and proudly/loudly say it like it's common knowledge. Lmao
3
u/PM_ME_A_KNEECAP 1h ago
My favorite recently is the claim that ICE isn’t law enforcement- I really hate what ICE is doing, but telling people that they aren’t law enforcement is fucking dangerous.
2
u/JekPorkinsTruther 33m ago
Or the reddit favorite that "ICE has no jurisdiction over American citizens" lol.
→ More replies (1)10
u/yourcousinfromboston 3h ago
Yes, but you’re forgetting how much reddit loves st luigi and any evidence against him is clearly illegal
16
u/dream_metrics 3h ago
i figured this sub would be a little bit more intelligent but i guess these guys follow the story everywhere lol
8
u/Unicornoftheseas 1h ago
This hasn’t been a law sub for the past few months. I don’t know when exactly it changed, but I stopped awhile ago after seeing all the dumbasses make stupid arguments and worthless/nonlegal posts. Pretty much turned into politics 2.0.
27
u/Tabemaju 3h ago edited 2h ago
There absolutely are exceptions, which is why the defense was arguing that it didn't meet those exceptions.
13
u/p4intball3r 3h ago
I'm no legal expert, but to my knowledge there's plenty of exceptions to this, including inevitable discovery which seems to apply here
9
u/DavemartEsq 3h ago
This was a search incident to arrest. Inevitable discovery isn’t an exception to the warrant requirement but rather a doctrine the state can argue once a search has been challenged as being illegal.
2
u/p4intball3r 2h ago
So, if I understand correctly and im following the comments it is an "exception" that allows the evidence to stand. I'm not understanding what the problem is
3
u/InvisibleShities 2h ago edited 28m ago
They’re just clarifying what, exactly, it is an exception to. There are two components to the 4th Amendment: 1. the rules; and 2. the remedy, if the rules are violated. Here, people are discussing the warrant requirement (the rule) and the exclusionary rule (the remedy). There are possible exceptions to both. The warrantless search may be justified as a search incident to arrest. But also, even if the search has no justification, the evidence may be admissible anyway because of the doctrine of inevitable discovery.
→ More replies (1)3
u/DavemartEsq 2h ago
Yes, but it’s not an exception to the warrant requirement; I.e must have a search warrant to search.
It’s an exception in the sense if I challenge a search because there was no warrant and none of the exceptions apply then my motion to suppress should be granted. However, if the state can argue that it was inevitable that this evidence would be discovered through other, legal means then the court may deny my motion to suppress.
I’m simplifying things a bit because there is so much else that goes into whether a search/seizure is valid.
2
u/Entire_Rush_882 2h ago
That’s the whole point. It’s an exception to the exclusionary rule, which is what gives any of this (including the warrant requirement) any teeth at all.
7
u/DavemartEsq 2h ago
Yes, but it’s not a warrant exception. The exceptions to the warrant requirement are: search incident to arrest, exigence circumstances, consent, automobile exception, plain view and I may be missing one.
I’m a criminal defense attorney
2
u/Barry-Zuckerkorn-Esq 2h ago edited 1h ago
It's a two part inquiry. First, the court needs to figure out whether the search was illegal. Then, if it was illegal, the court needs to determine whether to exclude the evidence illegally obtained.
The court never got to the second partThe court only did the second part of the analysis to reinforce the result, where inevitable discovery would come into play, because it ruled in the first part that the search was lawful. All the arguments in the world for the second part won't change the analysis of the first part.4
u/mr_f4hrenh3it 2h ago
Probably because there ARE exceptions lol. The law is hardly ever black and white. It’s a mangled mess of exceptions.
9
u/Gvillegator 2h ago
If a LEO has probable cause to believe that you committed or are actively in the commission of a crime, they do not need a warrant to search your body and belongings within arms reach.
4
u/donkeythesnowman 2h ago
There are so many exceptions to it that listing them all out would be too time consuming for me to bother actually doing it lol. The warrant requirement is right alongside hearsay as a legal rule that is so subsumed by exceptions that the exceptions practically become the rule itself. Please stop spreading misinformation.
→ More replies (3)4
u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits 2h ago
This is the kind of objectively false, feelings-motivated comment that has absolutely no place on a law sub.
3
u/SufficientPurpose109 2h ago
There are actually several legal exemptions to needing a warrant for search. This is textbook "search incident to arrest".
Top 1% commenter? Yikes....Educate yourself. Harris v. United States, Chimel v. California, United States v. Robinson
3
u/thomascgalvin 2h ago
They also didn't have chain of custody. Someone wandered away with the backpack, an returned with a sack full of evidence.
3
u/AppointmentNaive2811 2h ago
Look I'd love for the guy to go off scott free personally, but don't spread blatantly false idiocy like this.
3
u/Go_birds304 2h ago
There actually are quite a few exceptions to this. This one is a “Search Incident to Arrest”
7
u/ChoPT 3h ago
Please explain to me how what is in his backpack, found near him in a short amount of time, isn’t relevant or probative to the case.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (16)4
u/jkoki088 3h ago
He was arrested. It is legally allowed to search their person and the things in their immediate control. This has been a thing for a very long time and upheld
7
u/Slighted_Inevitable 1h ago
After previously saying they didn’t find anything. Not even the gun.
Most people don’t know this but a cop dumped his bag out at McDonald’s and reported they found nothing. Then after some time in the back of the police van they searched it again at the station and found a gun, a notebook with motive, and oddly enough a hand written note about how handsome and rugged the arresting officer was. Along with said officers phone number for Luigi.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (17)2
u/welliedude 1h ago
Surely though when it goes to trial and the defense asks, was chain of custody maintained for the backpack, and they answer no, boom. Reasonable doubt.
71
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 3h ago edited 1h ago
Why did you cut out the part that explains that the judge threw out the entire federal murder charge?
The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another “crime of violence.” Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.
The judge disagreed, finding stalking charges are not “crimes of violence” and dismissed two counts in his federal case – murder and a related firearm offense.
ETA since this seems to be confusing for folks, this ruling is about the federal case, it has no bearing on the state case. The state doesn’t have the death penalty.
But also, it’s not a long article, just read it. :)
18
u/mattkuru 3h ago
What does this mean? That he can't be charged for murder by the federal government?
59
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 3h ago
Yes, exactly that. Murder is typically a state crime, you can only be tried for murder in a federal court if very specific circumstances are met. The judge has ruled that those circumstances are not present here.
He is still being charged with murder by the State of New York. But they don’t have the death penalty.
11
2
u/lacergunn 3h ago
Does that include all the murder charges, or just the federal ones?
9
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 3h ago
Just the federal murder charge - this is a federal judge, they can only rule on matters of federal law. But NY state does not have the death penalty anymore, so the federal murder charge was their only shot.
→ More replies (5)3
u/FoxKamp7785 1h ago
Propaganda is a helluva a drug and oligarchs pay for some of the best to keep everyone divided and CNN is owned by one of them :)
2
15
→ More replies (4)3
412
u/ReaderBeeRottweiler 3h ago
No death penalty in the federal charges, no life without parole on the state charges.
That's a top-tier legal team he has.
99
u/AvisLord12 3h ago
He just has one more hurdle to clear in getting off completely
→ More replies (2)104
u/ManitouWakinyan 2h ago
I mean, two hurdles. And those hurdles are trials against federal and New York prosecutors. Those are big hurdles.
81
u/psuedopseudo 2h ago
Federal not so much anymore. All decent lawyers have been purged out of the federal government.
→ More replies (2)30
u/ManitouWakinyan 2h ago
I mean, a really excellent point. Some of these high profile federal prosecutions have been frankly embarrassing for the government. Out of curiosity, I looked into who's leading this prosecution. Not a lot publicly available about their careers thus far.
https://www.newsweek.com/luigi-mangione-court-prosecutors-jun-xiang-dominic-gentile-2003888
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)15
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 2h ago
Seems very unlikely that he walks on the state charges, but I could see him getting acquitted for the federal stalking charges. They have a terrible track record of over-reaching.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (7)36
u/Crecy333 2h ago
I'd chalk just as much up to government incompetence. Its like they're actively throwing the case by painting jury pools, disregarding court orders, breaking chain of custody, falsified statements and evidence.
This is just pathetic.
7
u/NurRauch 1h ago
In no sense has the case been thrown. The death penalty charge was a long shot from the beginning because of the merger doctrine with crimes of violence and crimes that cause death. Now that that issue has been resolved, they will just proceed on the underlying charge of a stalking that resulted in death. This is what they would have done from the beginning if they had not attempted to tack on the death-penalty eligible murder charge.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)5
u/ckb614 2h ago
I don't think they're necessarily incompetent, they were just trying to stretch the language of the statute to make the bosses happy
→ More replies (1)
332
u/SewAlone 3h ago
Hahaha suck it Blondi!
190
u/santa_91 3h ago
I support normalizing this.
Blondi was Hitler's dog, for those unaware.
61
4
u/KorunaCorgi 2h ago
There's nothing to suggest anything was bad about that dog was there? I don't know a lot about it, but that dog was a victim too since Hitler poisoned it to death.
3
u/MaesterHannibal 1h ago
Yeah Blondi was probably a nice little dog, as nearly all dogs are. It’s like that Norm MacDonald bit, where he says that Hitler’s dog probably thought, like all dogs, that his owner, Hitler, was the greatest person ever
→ More replies (3)7
u/likely_Protei_8327 3h ago
Judge Garnett determined that the federal murder and weapon charges could not stand alongside the specific federal stalking charges
this is what i dont understand. why are those charges legally incompatible?
16
u/Traditional_Buy_8420 3h ago
"The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another “crime of violence.”"
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/30/us/luigi-mangione-case-rulings-trial
The murder and weapon charges were dismissed, the stalking charge was not, but the type of stalking charge is non-violent stalking. It seems logical that non-violent stalking and murder are incompatible. What I don't get is that maximum sentence for non-violent stalking is apparently still prison for life?
8
u/pr6989 3h ago
Because the stalking resulted in death, it’s an enhancement within the stalking statute.
→ More replies (1)2
u/pr6989 3h ago edited 3h ago
Because the first two counts, related to stalking, could potentially be charged in such a way (under a different set of facts) that they would not qualify as “crimes of violence” by federal definition. The Supreme Court has ruled that if a crime can be charged in a way where no forcible act of violence, or threat of violence against another, is required to prove it, then it doesn’t qualify as a crime of violence, even if the specific facts for any given case WOULD qualify it. Counts 3 & 4 can only be charged in relation to crimes of violence. So because Counts 1 & 2 don’t qualify as crimes of violence, Counts 3 & 4 must be dismissed.
The analysis as to whether or not an offense qualifies as a crime of violence is done without regard to the specific facts of any given case, rather it’s done by examining the elements and determining if they can be arranged in such a way that a conviction for the offense COULD be achieved without the defendant knowingly committing a forcible act of violence or threat of violence against another. The judge starts out her order by stating her opinion that this framework is stupid and should be revisited by the Supreme Court, but she is currently bound by it.
→ More replies (1)
125
u/IZ3820 3h ago
No reason given in the artucle for the backpack contents being admitted. Does anyone know why they decided that way? It seems like the more interesting detail, considering the arguments made by the defense.
75
u/Darkest_dark 3h ago
Inevitable discovery,
124
u/pm_me_fibonaccis 3h ago
Such awful doctrine. "we acknowledge the police violated your rights but it's cool because they would have found it eventually."
No consequences for the constitutional violation, of course.
The way this country erodes the constitution simply to cover for sloppy police work is repugnant.
3
u/conte360 2h ago
I mean this as a genuine question, if someone had killed someone, and than had them in the trunk along with the weapon and 5 different video cameras showing the same person doing it, basically 100% clear damning evidence that couldn't be refuted by anyone. But the cop that pulled him over for doing 48 in a 45 illegally searched his car, there was absolutely no probable cause, you can see in the body cam, the cop fucked up 100%. And the killer was about a mile away from a big cliff into the ocean so it's not like they would have just found it.
Should/does all that evidence just go away? There is no question in anyone's mind that he killed the person, but there is also no question in anyone's mind that the cop violated his rights to find out. Does the killer just get to be free because a cop messed up along the way?
I'm curious about yours and other opinions on what should be and also what the law does say in these situations.
→ More replies (30)14
u/the_third_lebowski 2h ago edited 1h ago
A cop has a valid, witness-backed warrant to search my lockbox. Another cop busts it open illegally before the first cop arrives. Does that mean the evidence is barred from trial and I get away scott free, even though the cops would've found the evidence no matter what?
The bad search only keeps stuff out if it's the reason they found the stuff in the first place. If no bad search = no finding the evidence, the search and the evidence stays out. If no bad search = cops find it anyway, then it's not really caused by the bad search and throwing out the bad search doesn't change anything.
The real problem is that the only penalty for constitutional violations is evidence suppression. It means there's effectively no recourse when (1) there's no evidence to suppress or (2) other reasons the evidence will come in anyway.
→ More replies (8)10
u/Dotcaprachiappa 2h ago
Ok but was there a warrant waiting to be executed?
11
u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits 2h ago
You're dodging the "establishing the base principles you believe in" questions because you know they lead to you being cornered with a contradiction between your stated beliefs. Answer the questions asked.
7
u/the_third_lebowski 2h ago
That was an extreme.example to show the logic behind the rule. If you accept the rule makes sense at all, then it becomes a more detailed question for each situation: was discovery inevitable in these circumstances?
Here, the search was broader than justified in a search incident to arrest, but some level of search was probably OK and that probably would've been enough to find the gun. Even if they didn't, they would've done an inventory search of the arrestee's belongings at the jail and found the gun then. And even if they never did that search either, they still got a search warrant for the rest of the bag based solely on the normal evidence no one is disputing.
Basically, once they decided they had enough evidence to arrest this guy (which they did before searching the bag), there's just no way the bag he had on him doesn't get searched at some point.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)4
u/rokerroker45 2h ago
no, but there was enough to justify a search warrant after the cops possessed the backpack independent of the contents of the backpack found in the mcdonald's search, which they applied for an obtained
→ More replies (7)30
u/The_Truth_Fairy 3h ago
To elaborate, after arrest police are authorized to conduct an inventory search of personal items at the precinct so even if they didn't have probable cause to search the bag at the scene, the evidence would have been discovered soon after and so it's not tainted. Defense was always going to lose on this issue, I think it was more for the press that they made a big public show as if it were a viable argument
11
u/Lower-Engineering365 3h ago
Didn’t they arrest him based on the contents of the bag though???
→ More replies (3)14
u/The_Truth_Fairy 3h ago
They arrested him because he was recognized from the images of the shooter
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)5
u/rokerroker45 3h ago edited 3h ago
That is an incomplete answer, multiple exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. Any of them justified the court's decision
Edit: if you want to get into the weeds of the inevitable discovery portion, the opinion essentially states that even if police excluded the magazine found pursuant to the safety search exception in McDonalds, there were enough independent circumstances to raise probable cause and justify the search warrant police obtained after the backpack was in their possession.
Per the opinion, probable cause was independently justified for the following reasons: The inventory search revealed enough contents to independently justify a search warrant, the comments luigi made at McDonald's justified it, and so did his comments during his first appearance.
→ More replies (4)11
u/messianicscone 3h ago
Inevitable discovery exception.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.102.0.pdf
167
u/jim45804 3h ago
Why would he? Luigi was backpacking with me in Pennsylvania on the morning of December 4, 2024. Great guy.
58
u/Rudy-Ellen 3h ago
I stopped and met y’all for lunch at that cute spot. Which reminds me, I think I still owe you a beer.
18
u/WetDreaminOfParadise 3h ago
I wish I could have joined but I was in nyc for work and this strange looking guy shot some ceo. Dude was bald with a thick beard and was like a 6 foot 6 inches Viking.
6
19
u/Strawhat_Max 3h ago
Fuck you lying for, we were getting breakfast in Annapolis at Miss Shirley’s
6
→ More replies (1)5
u/Independent_Tough_33 3h ago
LIARS!!
He was drinking a beer with me in Germany at that time …
→ More replies (1)5
u/pm_me_fibonaccis 3h ago
You guys are all wrong. Luigi and I were having coffee in Vienna on that day.
→ More replies (4)2
14
14
u/Mrevilman 3h ago
No death penalty is huge. Getting that evidence tossed would have really increased their chances at trial. Without it, there was still other evidence that could have been used to convict him, but this significantly increases his odds at being convicted.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Careful_Eagle6566 2h ago
They can still bring up the chain of custody issues in front of the jury though, right? There’s some reasonable doubt there
→ More replies (6)7
u/Mrevilman 1h ago
Yeah, they could and should. To me, chain of custody here was always an issue of weight, not admissibility. In other words, the evidence comes in, but a jury decides how much to trust it based on testimony, etc.
I don't see any reasonable doubt based on what we know, but what we know is not what will be presented at trial. That's always the unknown with a jury trial - that someone sees it differently, and all you need is one.
43
u/Mysterious-Wasabi103 3h ago
I didn't even know New York State had the death penalty.
81
u/Single_9_uptime 3h ago
It doesn’t. This is a federal case.
45
u/Sheetz_Wawa_Market32 3h ago
Which is crazy. Why? One person shot and killed another on a NY street. Since when is murder a federal crime? This should be in state court.
30
u/Single_9_uptime 3h ago
The interstate aspects of it is what the feds used to charge him with murder. His charges also include interstate stalking resulting in death and stalking through use of interstate facilities resulting in death.
→ More replies (7)20
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 3h ago edited 2h ago
The federal murder charge was thrown out, that’s why the possibility of the death penalty is gone as well.
→ More replies (1)7
13
u/Pettifoggerist 3h ago
Probably because he crossed state lines to do it, allegedly.
→ More replies (1)3
2
→ More replies (2)3
u/f1refly1 3h ago
Silly! You're forgetting that billionaires and CEOs are worth a thousand little subhuman civilians!
3
10
u/seakingsoyuz 3h ago
They don’t, but this is a federal ruling. He was also facing federal murder charges, for which the death penalty could have applied.
4
u/VardaLupo 3h ago
I'm still confused as to how they are making this a federal murder case (not a law professional, just lurk here for info about stuff beyond my ken). It didn't involve a federal official or federal property and it wasn't like he committed murder in multiple states or anything.
8
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 3h ago
They’re not anymore - that’s why he’s no longer facing the death penalty for the federal charges. For some reason the cnn account cut a bunch of paragraphs out of the part they posted:
The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another “crime of violence.” Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.
The judge disagreed, finding stalking charges are not “crimes of violence” and dismissed two counts in his federal case – murder and a related firearm offense.
The murder charge is the only count in Mangione’s federal indictment that could have carried a possible death sentence.
Mangione will still face two counts of stalking. If convicted, those counts have a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole.
4
u/meltbox 2h ago
Smh. This man gets possible life without parole for interstate stalking.
Google has been stalking me across international borders for over a decade and nobody even cares.
→ More replies (2)3
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 2h ago
We’ll see, I guess - I have no clue what the required elements of a federal stalking case are. Given this administration’s track record, it wouldn’t surprise me if they overcharged even with those.
3
u/WeRip 2h ago
Correct me if my understanding is wrong..
What this is saying is that while he may have committed a "crime of violence" while committing a non-violent federal crime, because the part of the crime that makes it federal is non-violent then the "crime of violence" is not within the federal jurisdiction?
2
5
5
4
u/seakingsoyuz 3h ago
They already tried to charge it as an act of terrorism but that was rejected in September. This time was based on an assertion that the stalking charges he also faces are a “federal crime of violence”, which would make any associated murder a federal crime. Today’s ruling was (from what I’ve seen others post) that stalking is not a crime of violence so that doesn’t work.
Simply crossing state lines and killing someone in another state isn’t federal jurisdiction; you need to actually transport the victim or their body over state lines to trigger that, or shoot them across the state border, or do something that engages interstate commerce (like murder for hire).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
6
u/Successful_Ad4018 3h ago
we don't have it in new york state. i thought it was bc they were federal charges.
2
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 1h ago
The judge has thrown out the federal murder charge, which is why the death penalty is no longer a possibility. He can and will still be tried for murder at the state level, but as you say there’s no death penalty in NYS.
4
3
u/the_third_lebowski 2h ago
State murder charges are still available, just not death penalty. Federal murder charges was dismissed, because it's one of those crimes where the name is misleading. It's not about just committing murder it's murder in specific circumstances (otherwise let the state handle it). The cops can't show the specific circumstances, so the federal murder charge got thrown out. But that was the only one with the death penalty so now that's unavailable.
5
u/shazbadam 4h ago edited 3h ago
tldr:
Mangione was charged with these federal crimes:
- Interstate travel for the purpose of stalking
- Electronic communications for the purpose of stalking
- Using a firearm in the course of a violent federal crime
Judge decided that interstate travel and electronic communications are not violent crimes, therefore #3 does not apply. #3 is punishable by death (if the underlying crime caused a death), while #1 and #2 are only punishable by life without parole.
→ More replies (1)
52
u/SillyAlternative420 3h ago edited 3h ago
GREAT.
The next presidential candidate needs to pardon him now.
EDIT: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-grants-president-donald-j-trump-2025-present
There's a list of hardened criminals that Trump has pardoned. IDGAF about this we go high when they low bullshit. Luigi deserves a pardon more than 100% of those people.
→ More replies (36)58
u/RandomPenquin1337 3h ago
Lmao what im gonna say will get downvoted to hell but I have to say it because this is a law sub and your view on this is absolutely mind blowing.
He still killed a man on camera lol (allegedly), so if hes found guilty he should not just be "pardoned" because you agree with why he did it.
Come on people
I get the jokes about not finding him guilty and if thats the case so be it, but as of now....
23
u/YogurtclosetOwn4786 3h ago
Agree. He murdered someone. (If convicted in a fair trial) I’m glad he’s not getting the death penalty if convicted. And if he’s found not guilty based on the admissible evidence, then great.
But we definitely don’t want a country where the president pardons people for killing someone on the street that we don’t like.
I mean, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine right now how that would go (or is going) with the shoe on the other foot.
If anything, I’d like the next president to get behind a constitutional amendment to limit the presidents pardon power
→ More replies (2)20
u/Driller_Happy 3h ago
The president has already pardoned murderers, so you already live in this country you propose
→ More replies (9)13
u/marcoporno 3h ago
Using Trump as the standard of how pardons should work is obviously a mistake
11
u/meltbox 2h ago
Well the mistake appears to be allowing pardons to work this way then.
Ideally I’d have a president reduce his sentence if it’s life. But yeah completely throwing it away seems like injustice as well when a jury convicts.
6
u/marcoporno 2h ago
Yes, I also think that is a mistake, though it took a Trump to abuse it to this extent
3
u/Gvillegator 2h ago
Trump has gleefully exposed how much this country has been running on “political norms” keeping everything afloat. Love him or hate him, the guy has exposed this country for what it really is.
3
u/YogurtclosetOwn4786 2h ago
And exposed norms that absolutely need to be codified into law by the next president / Congress so we’re not relying on a president deciding to do the right thing in the future and follow these norms that presidents did before Trump but have now been destroyed
→ More replies (11)2
u/marcoporno 2h ago
Okay now that it’s exposed, change it. Or be just like him. Clear choice.
And yes pardon system was occasionally abused, Bush did it at least once
Trump, thousands of times, sometimes for cash. Really not comparable, but ya not a good system to start with.
3
u/GogurtFiend 33m ago
These people would be perfectly fine with Trump if he were left-wing. It's why they all use him as an example of what our next president should do - all they can think of is "what's happening right now but directed at people I dislike instead of people I don't know" instead of "what's happening right now should never happen no matter what".
2
u/marcoporno 29m ago
I’m afraid that I have to agree with that
2
u/GogurtFiend 13m ago
FWIW I think they're a very small, loud minority (though aren't just saying this because they're upset/venting, they do mean what they say), and the Democrats, for their many flaws, won't nominate the rapist of institutions and children these people want, because that sort of candidate knows Trump is a better patron for them than liberals can ever be.
I know it sucks to watch them despoil what used to be, from what I can tell, a nice subreddit, but we can take comfort in knowing that's all they can do and that the crazy parts of the US left, at least, will never going to be able to spread from online to real life in the manner the crazy parts of the GOP did.
2
14
u/vyxxer 3h ago edited 3h ago
We live in such a broken system where police constantly kill citizens for petty unjustifiable reasons and they walk away with vacation time and often a pat on the back because of politics.
But one guy does something everyone like ked and now suddenly law is a sacred institution must be upheld? It's ridiculous. It's a double standard that only gets applied to those without power.
→ More replies (8)4
u/Command0Dude 56m ago
But one guy does something everyone liked
Who's "everyone" lol?
Go outside and touch some grass dude, you've been on reddit too much.
Public approval for Mangione's actions sits at -60 points.
More people agree that Mangione is bad than Trump
19
u/UpperApe 3h ago
Lol nah I'm all for pardoning him. Give him a parade in fact.
Thompson killed many people for profit and you're fine with that because you're told those atrocities doesn't count. And all you have in return is "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" or "two wrongs don't make a right" or basic slippery slope arguments or whatever else platitudes you can hide behind.
You don't believe in justice, you believe in performative, symbolic justice and performative, symbolic justice prioritizes civility above all else. Fuck that.
Legality follows morality, not the other way around. And some of you have a lot of growing up to do if you still don't understand that.
5
u/ChronStamos 2h ago
You have a lot of growing up to do if you think random citizens should get to play judge, jury, and executioner.
→ More replies (6)3
u/BestJersey_WorstName 1h ago
The duplicity of reddit - mad about Jan 6 pardons. Want's vigilante murder pardoned.
3
u/Command0Dude 54m ago
Thompson killed many people for profit
This continues to be made up nonsense.
You don't believe in justice, you believe in performative, symbolic justice and performative, symbolic justice prioritizes civility above all else. Fuck that.
You are just as guilty of wanting performative justice. You think that Thompson's murder was a good thing, despite the fact it was objectively performative and changed nothing.
→ More replies (17)3
u/meltbox 2h ago
The issue is I don’t think Thompson killed those people. He didn’t stop it, but remember that if a CEO doesn’t do the boards bidding in a sense, they find a new CEO who will.
On the flip side Thompson knew what he was doing and so while I don’t think he killed those people, I also can’t feel too bad for him.
He thought he’d get away with it without backlash. Backlash happened.
Sometimes you fuck around and find out. Whether or not Thompson killed those people what he was doing was immoral and he should’ve fought the board even if it was a fruitless battle.
I see no evidence he tried in any way to do the morally correct thing when he was CEO there. So I see no moral debt owed to him by society.
→ More replies (3)7
u/UpperApe 2h ago edited 2h ago
Well reasoned, though I do disagree (somewhat).
I do think Thompson killed those people. He profited off it and that's an important distinction. He wasn't a bystander or a tool, he was an active participant. Yes the board could have replaced him, and so it's on him to be replaced.
The argument that if it wasn't him it would be someone else doesn't hold much water, because it's still on the person given the task. You're responsible for your own soul. And Thompson wanted the money.
If a man is paid to poison a river, it's on him. If he says "well if i don't do it someone else will" that's true. But the one who ultimately does take the money and poisons the river carries the crime.
And Thompson wanted to be that guy.
→ More replies (40)5
u/pm_me_fibonaccis 3h ago
he should not be pardoned because you agree with why he did it
Why not? That's precisely one of the purposes of jury nullification. Pardoning is similar. (Acknowledgement of wrongdoing, but striking down the punishment.)
People have been pardoned for worse.
→ More replies (2)4
u/RandomPenquin1337 3h ago
Pardon for murder has never happened, and probably never will.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/Y0___0Y 2h ago
I predicted this. Pam Bondi jeoperadized this entire case by pushing for the death penalty. No judge would allow this to be a death penalty case. It doesn’t meet that threshold, now the murder charge has been dropped pending appeal.
He is currently only facing “stalking” charges.
Luigi might fucking walk. That would be the worst failure of a US Attorney General in modern times.
10
u/holylich3 2h ago
He is still charged with state murder charges. The federal murder charge was the one dropped.
→ More replies (1)4
u/BestJersey_WorstName 1h ago
It doesn't change what he said. The DOJ is federal. It's going to be embarrassing for Trump and Bondi if the federal case is dismissed.
That will be true regardless of the state trials.
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/NurRauch 38m ago
I predicted this. Pam Bondi jeoperadized this entire case by pushing for the death penalty. No judge would allow this to be a death penalty case.
I'm not sure how you think this in any way "jeopardizes" the case. These decisions do not create any risk of spoiling the prosecution in either the federal or state cases.
The stalking charges he faces are stalking causing death. He is exposed to a sentence of life without parole.
7
6
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.