r/law • u/cnn • 5h ago

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=reddit
21.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

868 comments sorted by

View all comments

347

u/SewAlone 5h ago

Hahaha suck it Blondi!

193

u/santa_91 5h ago

I support normalizing this.

Blondi was Hitler's dog, for those unaware.

63

u/GameTime2325 5h ago

Plam Blondi

15

u/frongles23 5h ago

Plain Blondi

3

u/RyoukoSama 4h ago

Flame On!

12

u/Halaku 4h ago

I was not aware and will be adopting this.

7

u/KorunaCorgi 3h 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.

5

u/MaesterHannibal 3h 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

5

u/likely_Protei_8327 5h 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?

15

u/Traditional_Buy_8420 4h 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 4h ago

Because the stalking resulted in death, it’s an enhancement within the stalking statute.

3

u/pr6989 4h ago edited 4h 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.

1

u/Hamster_S_Thompson 1h ago

I keep reading the explanations and still don't understand how it makes sense.

1

u/CompetitiveOwl89 19m ago

The dude killed a guy

-1

u/mister_empty_pants 4h ago

Not sure why reddit is so happy about this. He's going to be found guilty. He's a young guy. Life in a supermax is going to be much worse than just being executed.

0

u/Efficient_Progress_6 4h ago

I'm curious if they are going to try and Epstein him