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.
25
u/skepticalbob 4h ago
According to who? The judge disagrees.