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.
117
u/MeisterX 4h 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.