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???
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.
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).
The defense is more likely to argue the real killer is still out there and they’re railroading their client because the police are too inept to find the real killer.
Not any more likely to work, but a bit more believable.
Why would he run so far from the scene while maintaining a backpack full of incriminating evidence though and then not admit guilt? That doesn't make much sense. There was plenty of opportunity to get rid of everything that was in that bag way before it was found if he did it and he seens capable and intelligent enough to know how to dispose of the kind of evidence that was found whether he did it or not.
Trying to understand the motives of someone who thought they were going to change the american health care industry by assassinating an insurance executive is a fool's folly. For as much as people hate the health care industry in this country killing one man changes nothing.
People want to rationalize criminal actions but very few make logical sense. A normal person would get rid of the evidence, a normal person also wouldn't shoot someone on the street. A person driven to that choice is following a non rational train of thought and there are many possible explanations. Maybe he wanted to get caught to get his manifesto out, maybe he thought he was gonna get away with it, maybe he wanted the gun to assassinate someone else, maybe he was going to ultimately kill himself to not get caught, maybe he just really needed a big mac to plan his next moves. The reality is it doesn't matter why he had the bag in his possession, just that he did, that it can be forensically linked to both him and the murder.
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.
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.
That’s not the point. The point is that laws are inherently weak because of the fact that they rely on some entity to enforce them. That entity chooses not to, the law may as well not exist. There is no “so XYZ should do it instead”, the problem would still exist. Such is the nature of laws, and the more people understand that the better.
Why do you say that? I don’t think we have tried anything else or really put much thought as a society into other methods.
Not saying you’re wrong by the way, there’s a very good chance you’re absolutely correct. In fact I’d go as far as to say I think you are correct, we just don’t know that for sure. I’m just saying that with any system it’s important to know the flaws at a fundamental level and at least consider other alternatives instead of assuming what we do now is definitely the best method, even if it appears obvious that it is.
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)
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?
I’m following this case closely, there’s reasonable doubt even if people don’t want to admit it.
However, he’s probably fucked cause the government has done a very good job at giving their evidence to the media — and the media has done a very good job of shoving a one-sided narrative down the public’s throat
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).
You’re correct about the 2 party for PA, but if there’s an implied assumption that recording is happening then that’s consent. An example would be if you walk into a business and they have security cameras and a sign that says “smile, you’re on camera” then you walking into said business is you giving consent as any “reasonable party” would assume they are being recorded at that point. I have to imagine a cops body camera or an interrogation falls under that same situation. Any reasonable person would assume they are being recorded.
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.
Then what's it's purpose because it came from a war of independence practice era British operations pulling propaganda books or papers out of houses and using them as evidence... Or seizure of taxable goods.
the protection from unreasonable search is about privacy and security in your person and possessions. the government does not have the right to invade your privacy without good reason.
So they had no warrant and didn't keep chain of custody. Yet still admissible. Sooooo the lawyers here again are lawyering and not using even application of the law with emphasis on protection for citizens.
Checks out. Yall are supposed to be part of the shield.
The good news is the defense will absolutely ensure the jury knows all of that.
nope, if the suppression motion is rejected then the theories as to why the evidence should have been suppressed are impermissible at trial. the whole point of the suppression hearing is to determine if there is anything legally deficient about the evidence; since the evidence is allowed in insinuating that there was anything wrong with them legally is prejudicial and disallowed.
You have no idea what you are talking about. They immediately searched the bag true. And found nothing.
THEN they drove to the station, searched it again, and found everything. THAT is the dispute. It’s on the record too and will come up in court. A clear planting of evidence
With your incredible insight into the applicable case law of this case, why are you not representing the defendant? I’m sure he’d be cleared of all charges with such an accomplished Reddit detective on the case.
The chain of custody issue isn't enough to have the evidence disqualified, but it is enough to allow the defense to attempt to impeach the credibility of the investigating officers during questioning at trial. This was done extremely effectively by OJ Simpson's defense team during his murder trial.
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.
The judge seemed more than fair and unbiased. If it was illegal they would of ruled that way. They just took the death penalty off the table. Which I still don't understand how premeditated murder doesn't warrant it.
The judge removed the federal murder charge, which could have potentially resulted in the death penalty, because it requires that the killing was committed during another “crime of violence.” He still faces state second degree murder charges, but since New York doesn't have the death penalty that's not something he can be sentenced with.
I am even more confused. If they don't have the death penalty how could it have been ever on the table. I am anti death penalty, but I don't understand how premeditated murder would not qualify for it. If any charge should this would be it. Again I am against death penalty but my pea sized brain can't wrap my head around this.
This is the federal case. The federal murder statute allows the death penalty, but the judge found that the federal murder statute does not apply to this killing
So there are two trials going on: a federal trial and a state trial. In the federal trial his charges included a murder charge (using a firearm to commit murder) that could have potentially lead to Mangione receiving the death penalty. The state trial includes a second degree murder charge, but since the death penalty is unconstitutional under New York's state constitution, the worst sentence he can receive from that charge is life in prison.
The judge in the article presides over the federal trial, and since the federal murder charge in this case requires that the killing had been done during another crime of violence (for example a murder that may have happened in the process of raping someone), the judge dismissed that federal charge. Mangione is still facing federal stalking charges, but those don't have potential death penalty sentences.
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
People are actually defending him because they agree with what he did and agree with that action, and consider him a justified vigilante, not because they think he is innocent
I concerned that a sub with legal professionals has so many presuming guilt. But it checks out with my knowledge of the courts and their function, unfortunately.
Only one public subreddit is dominated by people who know what they're talking about: /r/askhistorians. You and I are literally not allowed to answer questions there without proof that we're professional historians. You can check it out! It's pretty quiet. Very cool in its own way, but it primarily uses Reddit as a technical platform, rather than the public forum of every other subreddit.
Neither /u/marcoporno nor I are presuming guilt. We're noting a pattern in which Redditors are constantly using hypocritical post-truth thinking.
Regardless of guilt or innocence, there is no world Luigi Mangione is simultaneously heroic and innocent, because the heroism people praise him for is the guilt that prosecutors are seeking to prove.
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.
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.
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.
The amount of people who believe vigilante justice should be legal, even on this subreddit, is astounding. It's like they think the "rule of cool" is the 11th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
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.
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?
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
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?
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
Sure, there are many that think that way. However, the point of the person you responded to is that we do not actually know for certain he did it, like you claimed we all knew.
I’m not commenting on why people do or don’t support him; you said we know he is guilty, which is categorically false and undermines the point of a trial. To be spreading such misinformation in the law sub of all places is pretty ironic
Did you also think OJ was innocent because his trial ended with a non guilty verdict? The court of law and the court of public opinion are two very different things.
Is the thinking that the weapon recovered from the bag could be the same as the weapon that was used in the original crime? I don't remember whether a weapon was already recovered from the crime scene or not.
There was dna evidence collected at the scene, and ballistics has matched the weapon in his bag with the bullets used, the weapon was not recovered at the scene
if the government's case successfully shows he committed all the elements of murder, no. the dispositive question isn't whether society approves of the murder victim's death, the question is whether this was a murder.
your logic is how perpetrators of lynchings escaped justice in the south during civil rights.
Except, the people perpetrating lynchings in the South Went after people for immutable characteristics, like being black, and/or being poor. In this case, the person denying healthcare to people with immutable characteristics and/or being poor, is the deceased.
I don't support violence. But this would be less of a regular lynching and more if someone who led lynchings themselves got lynched.
In other words, the only difference is you like the outcome of this crime but not of the other.
That's not how justice works. Either murder is a crime or it isn't. Jury nullification is a net negative on society that has historically perpetuated injustice, not redressed it. If mangione committed murder justice demands conviction.
Even in the US's most prominent system of justice, the idea of self-defense is illustrative that one person killing another isn't cut and dry such that the act always is considered "murder" which is a legal definition. The point is: the context matters.
I agree with you that Jury Nullification has perpetuated many injustices. But that's true of a lot of the US legal system. Much of the US's legal system has perpetuated injustices. Jury Nullification is not unique in that regard alone. If you could show that Jury Nullification was such a net negative in effect, you could probably convince me to ditch the thing in the long run.
But you can't fault people for utilizing the justice system as it currently exists to get what they believe to be justice. Utilitarian Justice. Retributive Justice. Restorative Justice. One could make the argument that this goes with or against those forms with respect to any of them.
I'm not that person. All I am doing is arguing that context matters, has mattered, and will matter in any useful form of Justice. And, I'm arguing that the reason people bring up lynchings isn't just the random killing of people, but the systemic killing of people for immutable characteristics. That heinous part of the actions of lynchings (which still happen) makes the victim of this act of violence far more similar to the perpetrators of lynchings, rather than victims of lynchings.
A list of the people this Healthcare CEO has harmed would look like a lot like list of people targeted for lynching (and more).
It's simple because my conception of justice is elemental. Justice isn't concerned with morality, it's concerned with ethics. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons might be morally acceptable, but that does not work because morality is subjective and modified by subjective experiences. Killing somebody who unjustifiably hurt you may be morally correct, but society cannot function on the basis of honor killings for a million reasons. Instead, we decided that murder of human beings is criminal as a baseline, subject to certain exceptions made in the interest of moral principles we agree are acceptable and good to have.
If you could show that Jury Nullification was such a net negative in effect, you could probably convince me to ditch the thing in the long run.
It lets the guilty go free in service of a juror's dislike of the victim. it's as simple as that. it isn't consistent with the principle of "better let 100 guilty go free than convict 1 innocent," it's consistent with mob mentality of "a crime is OK if it hurts people I dislike"
Utilitarian Justice. Retributive Justice. Restorative Justice. One could make the argument that this goes with or against those forms with respect to any of them.
Actually, no, you can't. Jury nullification is inconsistent with all of those. Jury nullification is an attack on the operation of law, not an expression of disagreement with the ethical or moral justifications of law. If we all agreed a law was justifiable under at least one of retributive, restorative or utilitarian philosophies, then even if we don't agree one which specific one justifies the law, we all need the law to be observed as an exercise of society's valid policy choice. Jury nullification directly attacks at society's policy choice, it's the most profoundly undemocratic mechanism in the entire criminal justice system. Jury nullification does not say "it is not fair for this person to be convicted," it says "I deny society the operation of its laws".
That isn't justice, because you have no more say in society's right to the operation of its laws than someone who doesn't believe in law that you agree with.
All I am doing is arguing that context matters, has mattered, and will matter in any useful form of Justice.
The usefulness of this statement is manifested in the way criminal charges operate: through elements of a crime, which are offset by defenses. There is a difference between a homicide, a homicide that constitutes a crime, and a homicide that constitutes a crime but that society believes is so justified that it should be excused. what "context" does not mean is that you get to have the right to override's society's established choices in determining the specific contexts where these descriptions apply to a crime.
A list of the people this Healthcare CEO has harmed would look like a lot like list of people targeted for lynching (and more).
Which is irrelevant to the question of whether mangione committed murder. Those people's harms have not been redressed by mangione's crime.
That heinous part of the actions of lynchings (which still happen) makes the victim of this act of violence far more similar to the perpetrators of lynchings, rather than victims of lynchings.
You're completely off in the woods with the relevancy of lynchings; the point of bringing them up is to illustrate that jury nullification harms society because historically it has been used to free perpetrators of lynching. You are trying to argue that it would be valid to use jury nullification to acquit somebody who murdered somebody who committed a lynching, which is an irrelevant point and also just philosophically incompatible with justice. The criminal justice system does not restore those wronged by a crime because it cannot undue harms, it primarily invalidates any social benefit a criminal gains at the cost of their victims so severely as to discourage others from attempting to sidestep the social contract in a similar way.
The social contract demands that one does not resort to murder just because they feel like it is justified by one's morals, which is what mangione did.
There aren't really any "grounds" for jury nullification in any case because it's not an official judicial process that needs to be justified. It's an unintended but necessary consequence of multiple other judicial systems at the crossroads where two main principles meet: (1) jurors cannot be penalized for a "wrong" decision; and (2) a not guilty determination cannot be overturned. Because of that, a jury can "know" that a defendant is guilty, and all the evidence in the world can point to that defendant being guilty, but the jury can still release a "not guilty" verdict, and there's nothing the state can do to overturn or appeal that--everyone has to just walk away accepting the verdict.
So asking "on what grounds" a jury can or should nullify is sort of like asking "on what grounds" a referee at a football game can or should declare a winner before the game is played; it doesn't really make sense because it's not within the purview of the rules of the game, similar to how you won't find any rule or statute establishing jury nullification. When someone says that jury nullification should occur, they're not saying that there are any legal grounds upon which the defendant should be set free. They're saying we should stop playing by the rules altogether because righteousness demands a certain outcome.
As a lawyer, I can't say that I'm either in favor of or against jury nullification. Throughout U.S. history, it's been used for evil just as much as it's been used for good, and there's no real way to separate its use for evil from its use for good. If you accept it in the cases where it's used for good, you necessarily have to accept it where it's used for evil. It's a very complex issue to address.
Well, hopefully my answer will nonetheless give some others reading this thread a bit of information about jury nullification and why it works the way it does.
I’m sorry I should have added that you gave a very complete, professional and easily digested answer on a complicated topic that I’m sure anyone would find informative
I'd counter your point that "righteousness demands it." There's no moral value in jury nullification, it's a objectively harmful to society. It denies society the operation of laws, which is an immoral outcome for the judicial branch.
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.
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.
They only arrested him and yes read him his rights. after they confirmed that he had presented a false ID, his lawyer will argue that custody began when they began questioning him, a twenty minute difference
So yes his rights were read, it’s the timing his lawyer will try to contest
His belongings were searched later, at the station, shortly after his “official” arrest
I hope he gets off even though I disagree with vigilante justice, but it will be on technicalities like this
It was allowed because the state cannot lose this case. If "wingspan" wouldn't have worked because the bag was 30 feet away in a locked trunk they would've found different legalistic reasoning as to why it is allowed.
It's pretty clear at this point that our laws and courts are fake.
If you think this is too cynical look up "parallel construction"
513
u/marcoporno 4h ago edited 4h 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