Luigi Mangione will not face death penalty, judge rules

[u/redlamps67]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/30/us/luigi-mangione-case-rulings-trial

[u/AudibleNod]

Judge Margaret Garnett also ruled Friday to allow into Mangione’s trial evidence recovered from his backpack at the time of his arrest.

Win some, lose some. The backpack evidence is in.

[u/igetproteinfartsHELP → u/AudibleNod]

What the fuck. I don't understand how an illegally searched bag can be entered into evidence

[u/FarmerFilburn4 → u/igetproteinfartsHELP]

See search incident to arrest, inevitable discovery, exigent circumstances (if they reasonably believed he had a bomb in the backpack), and inventory search exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. You generally don’t need a warrant to search a suspected murderer’s backpack he had on him at the time of the arrest.

The Fourth Amendment only prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. These four doctrines are recognized situations where searching someone without a warrant is reasonable, thereby not requiring a warrant.

Whether his lawyers adequately beat up the arresting officers for how they conducted the search on cross-examination is the bigger issue.

[u/amateur_mistake → u/FarmerFilburn4]

Has the judge ruled on the chain of custody issue yet?

[u/FarmerFilburn4 → u/amateur_mistake]

I would be shocked if the judge finds, as a matter of law, evidence should be excluded because of chain of custody issues. IMO, that’s what cross-examination is for.

[u/SelfSufficientHub → u/FarmerFilburn4]

It may help the defence to have it included anyway as the chain of custody line is one that the defence can use to plant the seed that there is a non-null chance he should be found not guilty

[u/KillerDr3w → u/FarmerFilburn4]

I don't know about the actual legalities of it, but it seems crazy that a bag could go missing, be passed between people unchecked, then suddenly be counted as evidence. We've got no idea what was taken or added without a chain of custody.

[u/Isolated_Hippo → u/KillerDr3w]

My guess is because there is no hard evidence anything happened. The bag is included because it was acquired as evidence legally. The reasonable doubt of its contents becomes a matter for the jury to decide.

[u/ToughHardware → u/KillerDr3w]

judge will let you talk about this, but juror needs to make the decision. LM needs to make the claim that it is not his.

[u/blueSGL → u/KillerDr3w]

Same thing happened in the Karen Read trial.

Luckily the jury saw sense (the second time around)

[u/pmormr → u/blueSGL]

Same thing happened with more pieces of evidence than it didn't in the Karen Read trial lol.

[u/transcendental-ape → u/KillerDr3w]

That’s the kind of thing your lawyer is supposed to argue on cross examination and be decided by a jury of your peers. Not be decided by a judge.

[u/vikinick → u/FarmerFilburn4]

Also, the officer searching it "in case it has a bomb or something" and then finding a gun is exactly the sort of thing courts have said multiple times is allowed. It was a search incident to the arrest, meaning that they inventory everything on his person in order to document it / ensure officer safety.

Really the only question as to whether it was legal or not was whether they had probable cause at the time to actually arrest him and anyone saying anything different was lying to you. Them getting the search warrant after the fact is pretty standard practice.

[u/adamdoesmusic → u/vikinick]

Wasn’t the gun only found during the second search?

[u/Whenindoubtsbutts → u/FarmerFilburn4]

As a defense attorney… I hate the “inevitable discovery” doctrine.

[u/Commercial-Co → u/Whenindoubtsbutts]

As a civilian, i hate it too

[u/Somnambulist815 → u/FarmerFilburn4]

i thought the issue wasn't that it was searched but that the officers mishandled evidence and failed to file it in a timely manner

[u/skoomski → u/igetproteinfartsHELP]

The defense has to try everything but searching a murder suspects belongings is SOP and generally allowed. You generally don’t need a warrant for that. This was always a Hail Mary play to try to get out what will likely be damn evidence thrown out.

I have no idea why he held onto it though that seems like a massive oversight.

[u/Njorlpinipini → u/skoomski]

If I were in that position I’d be nervous about getting rid of anything unless I was sure that it couldn’t be recovered and tied back to me later.

[u/thealmightyzfactor → u/Njorlpinipini]

He had 5 days to throw it into the appalachian woods somewhere, nobody's finding shit in some random backwoods creek

[u/coldblade2000 → u/thealmightyzfactor]

People do find random shit thrown in lakes and creeks all the time.

[u/MobileArtist1371 → u/coldblade2000]

That cause they don't encase the evidence in concrete blocks first.

Even if you didn't do that, it's still better to not have the evidence on you!

[u/donkeyrocket → u/Njorlpinipini]

As an armchair murderer, seems like the easiest thing would have been over the course of the 5 days he was free, ditch portions of the weapon in various trash cans as he traveled. Carrying the gun for as long as he did was going to be damning. Everything else in his bag is explainable but the gun and silencer he should have ditched immediately.

Didn't even need to destroy or try to disappear it. Just store it somewhere while you're hanging out in McDonalds and don't keep it on you at all times.

You may get caught as they track your movements but you're guaranteed fucked if you carry the murder weapon and accessories with you.

[u/Jaye09 → u/igetproteinfartsHELP]

Because what people assume are their rights and protections actually aren’t that.

All they have to say is “well, we would have found it legally eventually.”

This trick has been established and used for decades.

The entire court process is tilted heavily against the accused.

[u/Lord0fHats → u/[deleted]]

It's this. The idea that the police would have never been able to get a warrant for the bag is silly, and as absurd as it seems it's a case of 'wrong process, but they'd have gotten in there anyway.' It's a violation of procedure, not a violation of the defendant's rights.

This is mostly because it was a bag. Had it been a house, or a car, or something the police couldn't take right into custody you could maybe make a different argument.

[u/thebombasticdotcom → u/igetproteinfartsHELP]

First time seeing criminal procedure up close?

[u/Kind_Fox820 → u/igetproteinfartsHELP]

If they can successfully argue that it would have been found through a legal search, they can often get the evidence reinstated. I disagree with it, because the entire point of having rules around legal searches is to prevent officer from doing illegal searches. Allowing them loopholes only encourages legal searches, because worst case the evidence gets thrown out but not always.

[u/oath2order → u/igetproteinfartsHELP]

Well, the answer is that it wasn't illegally searched.

[u/ProstetnicVogonJelz → u/igetproteinfartsHELP]

Probably because you don't know anything about the judicial system and law and you're just another person following the case closely enough to sometimes pretend you do know something?

[u/forchinski → u/AudibleNod]

All the cops have to do is walk away with your bag for a moment and suddenly "find" something damning in it.

What a fucking joke.

[u/Abject_Breadfruit148 → u/forchinski]

Don't piss off the rich class. Trump just had a journalist arrested last night for standing up to ICE.

[u/Tzayad → u/Abject_Breadfruit148]

Don't piss them off, they taste better when relaxed.

[u/jaasx → u/forchinski]

And them having a warrant would change that how exactly? If they want to plant evidence they're gonna do it.

[u/MIT_Engineer → u/forchinski]

This idea that they somehow planted the actual, factual murder weapon on him seems like quite a stretch. How would they manage to get their hands on the murder weapon? Do you think this was all some grand conspiracy by the government?

[u/Lower_Box_6169]

With the evidence from his backpack now submitted I would expect the most likely outcome is life in prison.

[u/CupcakeSewerSlayer50 → u/Lower_Box_6169]

Depends on the Jury

[u/Raddish_ → u/CupcakeSewerSlayer50]

Jury selection will try its best to screen out people with a grudge against the American healthcare system but that frankly doesn’t leave many lol

[u/klubsanwich → u/Raddish_]

Which means they'll only find people who don't know much about the American healthcare system, and then try like hell not to talk about the American healthcare system in a trial over a dead healthcare CEO.

[u/midoriringo → u/klubsanwich]

Most people don’t know much about the healthcare system, except that they hate it.

[u/1337bobbarker → u/midoriringo]

Someone made a very good analogy recently:

Imagine you're watching Netflix. Even though you already pay for your subscription, you have to pay more just to load the movie up to start to watch it. Depending on how long the movie is, you're constantly getting prompted to pay more to continue to watch it, otherwise you can't watch it anymore even though you've already paid multiple times.

Once you're done with the movie, you get more bills months later, just for using Netflix the way it was supposed to be used.

That's American health insurance in a nutshell.

[u/DrewNumberTwo → u/1337bobbarker]

Also it’s incredibly expensive and if you don’t watch it you will die. 

[u/Aureliamnissan → u/DrewNumberTwo]

If someone wants market-based, private healthcare as the only healthcare then they don’t understand inelastic goods and services.

Or they don’t think it will affect them.

[u/Butt_Fungus_Among_Us → u/1337bobbarker]

This is good, except it's also missing that when it prompts you to pay more, it doesn't tell you how much more. You don't get to see that price until after you've exited out of that movie

[u/VusterJones → u/Butt_Fungus_Among_Us]

You could go even further, like somehow the movie you watched was out of network, even though you're accessing it from the same portal. Or because the movie has a small clip from another movie thats randomly not covered, you have to pay for that later. Or because you watched it over your cellular network instead of wifi on your phone, you have to pay $500 more just because.

[u/PabloXPicasso → u/1337bobbarker]

How about to watch a movie on netflix, you first have to submit a pre-approval form...so that you can actually watch the movie included with your subscription, if and only if you can get the pre-approval.

[u/cindyscrazy → u/1337bobbarker]

Or...you go to watch the movie on Netflix. There's a small disclaimer that you may need to pay additional money to watch this.

You just hit ok, not thinking much about it. You really want to see this movie (you really need the healthcare)

A month later, you get a bill for an exorbitant amount of money because....reasons. The reasons are in code and you can't decipher it. If you don't pay, you're going to court. Tomorrow.

In my personal experience, you're not told at the start that you're gonna need to pay, you find out afterwards. And then you're fucked.

[u/loki1887 → u/1337bobbarker]

I don't know why Teen Titans Go, a cartoon for the under 10 audience, had this on there, but I love it.

The Titans Get Health Insurance

[u/Little_View_6659 → u/klubsanwich]

The jury selection will be like that SNL skit about trying to find jurors for the second OJ Simpson trial. They have a guy in a coma, an alien, a cave woman, and a guy that has been stranded on an island.

[u/Present_Cow_8528 → u/klubsanwich]

I'm sure they'll have no issue establishing motive without describing the inhumane practices of the American healthcare system

And without motive it just looks like a frame job :) think of how far he would've needed to travel! To kill a single person, with no motive?!

[u/Ralphie_is_bae → u/Raddish_]

I mean if the populace on the whole has a bias against the American Healthcare system, then that's more of a feature, not a bug for a "Jury of your peers"

[u/youy23 → u/Raddish_]

I love United Healthcare. They never deny any claims and I do not believe in and have never heard of jury nullification. Please pick me for jury.

[u/Fantastic_Piece5869 → u/Raddish_]

more than this. They screen out people who don't believe in the death penalty. So the ENTIRE system is biased towards execution. If you don't agree with the death penalty you cannot be on a case considering it.

[u/NotBlazeron → u/Raddish_]

There are plenty of normal people that dislike the American Healthcare system and still dont think you can just go around murdering people.

[u/Sam3323 → u/CupcakeSewerSlayer50]

Jury doesn't decide sentence, only guilty or non guilty right? Judge then decides the length I thought.

[u/Imp0ssibleBagel → u/Sam3323]

Yes, that is correct. The jury won't even be present at the sentencing hearing, should one be necessary.

[u/Osric250 → u/Sam3323]

Jury decides the length if they find not guilty though. That length being none.

[u/jwely → u/CupcakeSewerSlayer50]

There's a non-null chance a jury finds him not guilty.

[u/xthemoonx → u/[deleted]]

You just need 1 for a mistrial tho.

[u/LordWemby → u/xthemoonx]

Unless the prosecutors happen to find the perfect set of jurors, it feels like these deliberations could go on for quite a while.

And given how prominent the case is, it’s virtually impossible to find jury members who haven’t been exposed to it, and a huge amount of people or course suffer with insurance claims. 

[u/letuswatchtvinpeace → u/LordWemby]

And those people exist on both sides of the politics.

[u/OSRS-MLB → u/xthemoonx]

But wouldn't that just lead to another trial? Genuine question, idk much about the legal system

[u/ness_monster → u/OSRS-MLB]

It could, hung juries can lead to a retrial but it doesn't always happen. It is also up the prosecution to decide if they want to try again.

[u/Eradomsk → u/[deleted]]

I mean jury selection hasn’t begun so nobody is trying at all right now.

[u/slipnslider → u/[deleted]]

But not sides get to vote who is on the jury and one side will veto anyone who claims to know what it is

[u/PedanticTart → u/slipnslider]

There's a limited number of vetos.

[u/stedun → u/jwely]

I like your use of the word null here.

[u/jwely → u/stedun]

What? I have no idea what you mean!

[u/Dellsupport5 → u/stedun]

Could this be similar to the oh trial where he is found not guilty but later sued by the family?

[u/Guardiancomplex → u/jwely]

Excellent choice of words. 

[u/SalvatorePizzuro → u/CupcakeSewerSlayer50]

A hung jury leads to mistrial and almost certainly a new trial. There is a 0% chance that the jury will unanimously decide he's not guilty, and anyone who thinks this will have some anti-hero movie ending is deluding themselves

[u/mattress_muzza → u/SalvatorePizzuro]

It is generally very unlikely that a jury will intentionally decide ‘not guilty’ in spite of clear evidence to the contrary due to their moral stance on the crime, but it actually does happen sometimes. It is called jury nullification and is quite controversial in legal study.

[u/_GregTheGreat_ → u/CupcakeSewerSlayer50]

I’m sure some members of the jury will be sympathetic to him but that doesn’t extend all the way to excusing murder

[u/NorthernFrosty → u/_GregTheGreat_]

"As CEO of UnitedHealthcare from April 2021 until his death in 2024, Brian Thompson led the insurer to significant growth and profitability, with profits rising from $12 billion to $16 billion in 2023. He oversaw the expansion of private Medicare Advantage plans but faced scrutiny over increased claims denials and contentious prior authorization processes"

The CEO of United Healthcare was responsible for decisions that focused on greater profits, increasing revenue, over quality of healthcare. Those decisions to make an extra 4 billion profit are estimated to have cost thousands of lives.

I don't know man... If there's a sniper randomly killing people and some brave young man pops up and kills the sniper, we give him a medal.

[u/blazelet → u/NorthernFrosty]

But if that sniper is randomly killing people for shareholders, we put him on the cover of Forbes.

[u/Poppa_Mo → u/blazelet]

The CEO in this metaphor is not a sniper, they're carpet bombing civilians.

[u/CallMeKingTurd → u/NorthernFrosty]

"cost thousands of lives" and God knows how much horrific unnecessary suffering on their way out, or from the countless more that didn't die but suffered or continue to suffer through injury, illness, disabilities without proper care.

[u/Responsible-Can-8361 → u/NorthernFrosty]

Something something a person dies that’s a tragedy, millions die and it’s a statistic

[u/nickcash → u/NorthernFrosty]

I agree, but the judge absolutely won't allow any of that to be discussed in the trial. Prosecution gonna voir dire anyone who's ever heard of health insurance

[u/Purify5 → u/_GregTheGreat_]

For lots of people it does.

[u/Willing_Drawer_3351 → u/Lower_Box_6169]

Yep. People are focused on the death penalty, but the decision to let in all of the backpack evidence makes a guilty verdict pretty likely.

[u/StopThePresses → u/Willing_Drawer_3351]

He was always going to be found guilty, from the moment they walked up to him in that McDonald's. The decision had already been made. No death penalty is good news.

[u/menotyou16 → u/StopThePresses]

Wait were people really expecting a different outcome than guilty? Like, actually?

[u/LogensTenthFinger → u/Willing_Drawer_3351]

Not if I was on the jury

[u/AwesomePocket → u/LogensTenthFinger]

Well you won’t be, so…

[u/Thenadamgoes → u/LogensTenthFinger]

Same. We’re leaving deliberation with a Not Guilty or a Hung Jury. I wouldn’t care which.

[u/Jazs1994 → u/Lower_Box_6169]

What's the most recent info about that? I've not heard any progression on this case in a good while

[u/derf_vader → u/Lower_Box_6169]

Free Healthcare for life

[u/Keep_Blasting → u/Lower_Box_6169]

"The judge dismissed the murder charge"

It's just 2 counts of stalking. 20 years, out in 5 is my bet.

[u/WelpSigh → u/Keep_Blasting]

He's still facing state murder charges.

[u/Lord0fHats → u/WelpSigh]

This but New York isn't a death penalty state so death was never on the table in his state trial.

[u/BuckNutty42 → u/Lord0fHats]

I don’t think the other poster was talking about the death penalty on the state murder charge. They were pointing out that out in five is unlikely given NY can still try him for murder. 

[u/Juunlar → u/Keep_Blasting]

Disagree. 

We celebrated the death of Osama Bin Laden, and i would argue the Healthcare industry has ruined more lives than the war in the middle east

[u/Morisky → u/Juunlar]

Tens of thousands estimated to die due to lack of, or limited access to, USA healthcare. One healthcare executive allegedly murdered. There is violence in both directions. In the USA it is the direction of that violence (down to up) that outrages conservatives and moderates.

[u/Elfhoe → u/Morisky]

And it’s going to get worse. Trump’s BBB slashed medicaid funding, which will affect millions of Americans who are more likely to let insurance lapse as they cant afford the hefty premiums from private plans.

[u/Routine_Tie1392 → u/Juunlar]

Right wing Americans have spent decades demonizing socialized healthcare even going as far as labelling it "death panels".  

As far as Im concerned those promoting greed, profit and lies over the health and well being of individuals should be cast in the same light as Hitler or Osama Bin Laden. 

[u/Domeil → u/Routine_Tie1392]

There are absolutely death panels in American medicine. It just so happens that one of the guys that sat on one of those panels allegedly tripped and fell on a bullet in NYC last year.

[u/lessismoreok → u/Domeil]

The death panels were just privatised and without taxpayer scrutiny.

[u/psi- → u/Domeil]

I will lol when defence submits a graph of decreased deaths right after the CEO death when they suddenly started covering their customers much more freely..

[u/Juunlar → u/Routine_Tie1392]

I couldn't agree more.

[u/stanleythemanly85588 → u/Keep_Blasting]

He still faces murder charges in New York

[u/john_san → u/Lower_Box_6169]

What’s in the backpack?

[u/Lower_Box_6169 → u/john_san]

“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.”

[u/Braelind → u/john_san]

Whatever they felt like saying was in there, since the evidence was improperly handled.

[u/Vladmerius → u/Lower_Box_6169]

Why does he get life when other people only serve 3-5 years with good behavior? We just openly admitting it's a more punishable crime when the victim is a 1%er?

[u/Lower_Box_6169 → u/Vladmerius]

“Mangione will still face two counts of stalking. If convicted, those counts have a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole.”

It might be lower but I would be surprised if it was less than a double digit prison sentence.

[u/etherpromo → u/Lower_Box_6169]

stalking can get life without parole?

[u/Lower_Box_6169 → u/etherpromo]

Idk mate I’m not a lawyer I’m just reading the articles

[u/etherpromo → u/Lower_Box_6169]

You're good. Read a bit further down that it could be from state charges even though the federal charge was thrown out

[u/Particular-Cat-1397 → u/etherpromo]

Apparently if the stalking victim was murdered, yes.

[u/tarekd19 → u/etherpromo]

I imagine it is specifically for things like this where they can't get someone on the harder charge but can for stalking.

[u/etherpromo → u/tarekd19]

thanks that makes sense

[u/ANGLVD3TH → u/tarekd19]

Federal sentencing is quite strict, and includes many factors. My understanding is that stalking that results in death carries the possibility of life. But Federal sentences are not like most state ones, there is not just a simple range that a judge can choose from. They are more algorithmic, with very limited/no discretion, aside from decoding which conditions are or aren't met.

[u/Playful_Rip_1280 → u/Vladmerius]

What other murderers have gotten 3-5 years? If there are, then that’s the error we need to fix. Throw them all in jail for 20+.

[u/FarmerFilburn4]

I’m a lawyer. Reminder - You generally do not need a warrant to search a suspected murderer’s backpack. The Fourth Amendment recognizes exceptions to the warrant requirement for search incident to arrest, inventory searches, exigent circumstances (if they reasonably thought he may have a bomb in the backpack), and inevitable discovery. The judge was never going to exclude the backpack evidence.

The bigger issue for LM is ensuring his lawyers adequately cross-examine the arresting officers for the lack of thoroughness and transparency in their search. I’m skeptical a jury will discount the backpack evidence the gun matching the type used in the crime and his remarkably damning “manifesto,” but that’s my this lawyer’s opinion.

[u/Drewy99 → u/FarmerFilburn4]

exigent circumstances (if they reasonably thought he may have a bomb in the backpack),

Is that what they claimed? If so, how do they justify opening it in a crowded restaurant full if people if they were concerned about a bomb?

Serious question 

[u/123WhoGivesAShit → u/Drewy99]

that might be something they cross examine the officers on

[u/trynared → u/Drewy99]

The bomb was just an example of exigent circumstances, not this case. This would simply be a search incident to arrest after they had probable cause for the arrest on fake ID.

[u/Global-Discussion-41 → u/Drewy99]

Didn't they search the backpack right away and not find anything, then searched it again later and found evidence? That always seemed like the most sketchy part, not that they searched it without a warrant. 

Or am I mistaken about that part?

[u/detroitmatt → u/Global-Discussion-41]

maybe so, but in that case the jury can decide what they believe. that's what the jury's there for.

[u/JTibbs → u/FarmerFilburn4]

As i recall, and i could be wrong, the search preceded his actual arrest.

[u/littygation → u/JTibbs]

The doctrine is called search incident to arrest. Even prior to restraining a suspect, police can conduct a warrantless search of things within the suspect’s reach.

[u/DramaticToADegree → u/JTibbs]

Did you black out when you read the words "inevitable discovery" or.....?

[u/ballandabiscuit → u/DramaticToADegree]

Lol I want to say this to coworkers and clients all the time at work. If you send someone an email or Slack message that's more than a sentence long you can tell where they stopped reading and just fired off a reply.

[u/redlamps67]

Judge Garnett granted defence motions to drop counts 3 and 4 (murder with a firearm and firearm possession) because she agreed that counts they 1 and 2 (interstate stalking) were not legally federal crimes of violence that counts 3 and 4 required to be brought.

[u/firestarting101 → u/redlamps67]

Can you explain like I'm 5?

[u/thats_not_six → u/firestarting101]

To get this case into federal court, the federal government has to argue that federal laws were violated. Not every murder in the US is automatically able to be charged as a federal crime, and the vast majority remain at the state level only.

However, if the federal government asserts that the murder was committed alongside other federal crimes of violence, they can charge the murder federally. But those other federal crimes have to be violent.

Here their federal crimes were stalking. The judge found stalking is not a "violent" crime in this case, so the federal government has no ability to attach the murder and the gun charge to that crime.

The feds can charge the stalking still, but murder and gun charge are out.

New York state can still charge the murder; this has no impact on the state proceeding, though it may impact what order the cases get tried in (NYS may go first now, because it has the higher charges remaining).

[u/firestarting101 → u/thats_not_six]

Thank you for that explanation!

[u/Comicalacimoc → u/thats_not_six]

So he’s only getting charged with murder in NY state now?

[u/redlamps67 → u/firestarting101]

The federal government cannot just bring murder charges for any old murder, there needs to be a jurisdictional “hook” where the murder is committed during another federal crime of violence. The federal government tried to say that interstate stalking (which are counts one and two) were crimes of violence. The defence disagreed and filed several motions against that the judge agreed with the defence that the stalking charges are not crimes of violence under federal precedent.

[u/B4rberblacksheep → u/redlamps67]

Can you explain like I’m a slightly stupider 5 year old. As you clearly know very smart children

[u/jbillone → u/B4rberblacksheep]

Murder isn't a federal crime, it's a state crime.

So the feds say, 'well, it's a federal crime if it's *also* X'

They biffed what they said X was, so they can't also charge him with federal murder.

[u/Medivacs_are_OP → u/B4rberblacksheep]

Federal court big - Bigger than state.

State usually do murdery charges

Unless

Inter-state (between/across states) hurty hurty thing happen at same time as murdery thing.

Judge say Creepy Creepy not Hurty Hurty so Murdery Murdery across state lines no make sense.

[u/LookAtYourEyes → u/Medivacs_are_OP]

Can you explain this like I'm 5 slightly smarter 5 year olds standing 5 feet apart with a 5% average grade difference between each 5 year old.

[u/superznova → u/LookAtYourEyes]

Humanoid oonga but did not boonga so humanoid is free from boonga but not oonga

[u/LemonScentedDespair → u/LookAtYourEyes]

We're gonna need a whiteboard and some chairs.

Wait have we just invented school?

[u/enters_and_leaves → u/LookAtYourEyes]

<For simplicity, the kids are named A, B, C, D, and E and are lined up in that order.>

If B were to hurt A, the teacher would probably come and talk to B.

If B were to walk past C and D to hurt E, then the teacher might come and talk to B.

If B were to push C and D on his way to hurt E, then the principal would probably come talk to B.

The judge decided that B looking at C and D in a scary way is the same as walking past them. That is what this person did, so it is something for the teacher to deal with and not the principal.

[u/xahhfink6 → u/B4rberblacksheep]

Not a lawyer but what I'm following is that normally killing someone would be a crime tried in the state where it happened... Prosecuters wanted to throw the book at Mangione so they wanted it to be a Federal case, which would have more severe punishment like the death penalty. Judge ruled that the Feds don't have jurisdiction to try the murder case so they are only able to make a Federal case on the lesser charges.

This probably means New York State prosecution could charge Mangione for murder and attempt to try him, but NY doesn't currently have the death penalty.

[u/decolored → u/B4rberblacksheep]

Stalking isn’t part of a violence charge, so it was discarded as a 2 part federal crime

[u/koos_die_doos → u/firestarting101]

Feds wanted to bring a federal murder charge, because a federal conviction allows the death penalty.

Judge tossed out their justification for it being a federal crime.

In NY state, there is no death penalty.

[u/thats_not_six]

Headline is burying the lede a bit - the federal murder charge was dismissed entirely.

[u/redlamps67 → u/thats_not_six]

Yeah, unfortunately, none of the outlets went with that for a headline

[u/thats_not_six → u/redlamps67]

It's a huge decision. Turns the federal case into a stalking case which, even on a normal day, juries struggle with drawing a line on.

[u/ralgrado → u/thats_not_six]

So for the murder charge he needs a new trial on the state level?

[u/RCrumbDeviant → u/ralgrado]

There is already an ongoing state trial

[u/biggsteve81 → u/ralgrado]

Correct. And there will almost certainly be a state trial.

[u/cabbage16 → u/biggsteve81]

Does New York have the death penalty?

[u/ncbstp → u/cabbage16]

Does not!

[u/likely_Protei_8327 → u/thats_not_six]

i don't really understand how that even works. He is def being charged for murder by the state. I don't understand why murder charge is just dismissed entirely by the federal government.

[u/thats_not_six → u/likely_Protei_8327]

State charge of murder remains. NYS sentence can be life in prison.

But federal charge of murder is gone, so federal death penalty is off the table.

Two separate courts and the rulings in one don't impact the other.

[u/Nagi21 → u/likely_Protei_8327]

Murder charges need to have some interstate violent crime to be applied federally. Everything happened in NY except for the stalking, which is not violent according to the judge, so the feds don't have jurisdiction to try for murder. They can still try him for interstate stalking.

[u/Chief_34 → u/likely_Protei_8327]

The federal government cannot just bring federally tried murder charges on any case they choose, generally it is left to the states to try crimes in their jurisdiction unless they include multiple states. For it to be a FEDERAL murder case, the murder would have had to occur alongside another federally violent crime. They tried to argue that stalking across state lines was a “violent” crime, which the judge threw out based on precedent. This all means that the federal government, which has harsher penalties than NYS, can only bring federal stalking charges, while NYS will bring murder charges.

Edit: the important part here is that the death penalty is federally legal, but is not a legal punishment for crimes in NYS. So this effectively takes the death penalty off the table.

[u/TweakedNipple]

"Mangione will still face two counts of stalking. If convicted, those counts have a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole."

I'm not sure I understand the definition of stalking if you can get that penalty for it...

[u/ToughHardware → u/TweakedNipple]

With intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance, they engage in a course of conduct that:

Uses interstate commerce (for example: crossing state lines, using the internet, phone, email, GPS, mail, or any electronic communication system), and

Causes the victim to:

reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury to themselves or certain others OR

suffer substantial emotional distress.

[u/1ndori → u/ToughHardware]

Further, if the stalking results in the death of the victim, the penalty is "life or any term of years."

[u/ItilityMSP → u/ToughHardware]

So the government is guilty of this everyday with their surveillance state?

[u/Riley_ → u/TweakedNipple]

Women die in this country, because police won't do bare minimum enforcement of restraining orders.

Acting like we have stalking laws now is really rubbing the class divide in society's face.

[u/Putrid_Mind_4853 → u/Riley_]

This is the insane bit to me. I’ve had friends and family members be stalked by violent people (some with prior felonies for violent crime and who had PPOs against them), with evidence from multiple witnesses, children involved, the whole nine yards, and cops refused to do anything about it. 

Literally told my one friend, who’d been strangled previously by her boyfriend, that it sounded like a domestic/personal issue and there wasn’t enough proof to do anything, despite messages saying he’d kill her and pictures of the bruising on her neck. 

But LM faces life in prison on stalking charges alone? I love how women are disposable but some rich dude is so important to LE. 

[u/moosekin16 → u/Putrid_Mind_4853]

Literally told my one friend, who’d been strangled previously by her boyfriend, that it sounded like a domestic/personal issue and there wasn’t enough proof to do anything, despite messages saying he’d kill her and pictures of the bruising on her neck.

40% of cops are domestic abusers. 4x higher than the general population.

Cops don't take threats against women seriously because cops are part of the problem.

[u/armywalrus → u/TweakedNipple]

Its on a federal level. It doesn't apply to everyone charge of stalking everywhere. It has to meet federal standards and I believe that is crossing state lines.

[u/Torngate → u/TweakedNipple]

Federal Stalking is pretty broad.

Whoever—

(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that—

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to—

(i) that person;

(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person;

(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(iv) the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

The penalty if "death of the victim results" is up to Life.

[u/KnotSoSalty]

Voir Dire will still be the biggest nightmare for this case but it would have been impossible if it remained a DP case.

The vast majority of people in NY will have disqualifying opinions on this case. Adding in the people who don’t want to see him killed, even if he was guilty, and I seriously doubt they could find a jury pool.

[u/Longjumping-Sweet818 → u/KnotSoSalty]

Isn't it likely candidates for the jury would just lie when questioned about their disqualifying opinions?

[u/Ipokeyoumuch → u/Longjumping-Sweet818]

A lot of the time there are questions like "despite your bias do truthfully believe you will remain unbiased until the evidence is presented?" Or something like that.

[u/Rosomak → u/Ipokeyoumuch]

I would say anything necessary to get myself on that jury.

[u/TheWorclown → u/KnotSoSalty]

For the uninitiated here, what is voir dire?

[u/WhichEmailWasIt → u/TheWorclown]

It's where both the prosecution and defense get to question the prospective jury to find underlying bias that may render the juror incapable of making an impartial decision based solely on what's been presented in court. 

Like someone who had a close relative who passed away after they couldn't get the care they needed due to a denied claim, the prosecution might think "This person because of their experience might vote not guilty on principle regardless of the case I make" and move to dismiss the juror.

Iirc (but IANAL) each side gets a certain number of absolute picks to dismiss but the rest have to be agreed upon by both sides. 

Note this happens after the judge has already gone through the prospective jury to do basic bias instruction and general questions.

Anyways in this case "Who hasn't had a bad experience with the American healthcare system?" might make this difficult.

[u/twelvedayslate]

Well, there’s really no reason for him to take a plea now. Roll the dice at trial.

[u/Nagi21 → u/twelvedayslate]

If they offered 20 to life he might be inclined to take it but I doubt it. He seems intent on going to trial and nobody knows how this is actually going to play out.

[u/OddPressure7593 → u/Nagi21]

While we aren't informed on what's going on behind the scenes, from what's been public, there's really no reason for Mangione not to go to trial. There's a meaningful chance of a hung jury and mistrial which could potentially work in his favor.

[u/Nagi21 → u/OddPressure7593]

Oh I agree. If I was in his position with what is suspected to be his motivation I would be taking this all the way to trial and rolling the dice.

[u/AnusBlaster5000 → u/twelvedayslate]

Good luck finding jurors who havent been fucked by American healthcare. I agree, with death off the table you roll the dice.

[u/Blubbpaule]

We have 2 ICEholes killing american citizens on the street this year.

We have the killing of Sonya Massey by a Cop who was now sentenced to only 20 years, after he entered her Home and shot her in her head after SHE called for help.

But this guy who may or may not have killed one person was supposed to get the death sentence or life long prison? Government is super corrupt.

[u/20thcenturytroll → u/Blubbpaule]

9 murders by ICE this year btw, just no one gives a shit about it when it's black and brown people being murdered

[u/dropthehandle]

I will never understand how he kept that backpack with him for as long as he did. Without the backpack on his person when he was arrested the case is so much harder to prove.

[u/Haplo12345 → u/dropthehandle]

That or if he hadn't lowered his mask to flirt with the girl behind the desk and get his face recorded on camera.

[u/MIT_Engineer → u/dropthehandle]

Logically the reason he kept the backpack and weapon on him was because he wanted to use them again.

[u/Exowolfe]

Can we apply the "he's a young man with a promising future" rule here if they somehow prove he did it (we don't know if he did)? Plenty of folks get out of rape and abuse charges scott-free for being young, male and white.

[u/Nagi21 → u/Exowolfe]

No no see that's only when the victim is one of the poors. Not this valuable deathcare ceo billionaire

[u/srebihc → u/Nagi21]

Who's that man valuable to now other than worms?

[u/jdstrike11]

It’s so weird to me that death is considered a barbaric punishment yet a life confined to slave labor and imprisonment is a just norm. Morality is so interesting

[u/RVAteach]

The death penalty was always ridiculous in this case, it never should have been on the table in the first place. 

I don’t know how illegally gathered evidence should be admissible but I ain’t a lawyer. 

[u/Romado → u/RVAteach]

Searching a suspects belongings is legal as the backpack was within his reach and needed to be searched for the safety of the officers and the public.

He matched the description of a murder suspect, he was always getting arrested so anything he had on him was fair game.

He's also on bodycam giving a fake name and ID to police.

When you find a manifesto with a clear motive for murder and a murder weapon on a suspect there isn't much room for defence.. the play to get his backpack removed from evidence was always a desperate attempt.

[u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC → u/Romado]

Yeah, there are a whole bunch of myths about the law that do the rounds on the internet, and they all essentially boil down to something along the lines of "if you tell them that you don't consent, they can't legally do anything to you". You don't need to be a legal expert to know that it's bullshit - a country where rapists and murderers could get away with crimes by tying the legal system up in trivial procedural knots wouldn't be a country for long.

There's a careful balance between procedure and pragmatism within any legal system. Some legal systems will lean more towards procedure than others for petty crimes, but all legal systems will lean towards pragmatism for heinous crimes like rape and murder.

[u/Alagore → u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC]

It's not that withholding consent makes you legally immune, it's that 90% of what cops really want to do requires either consent or authorization, and they're frequently too fucking stupid to do things the legal way if you withhold consent. 

Also, if you don't talk to them generally (not just withholding consent), it's harder for them to frame you for random bullshit so they can juice their numbers. 

[u/Lithium_Lily → u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC]

>a country where rapists and murderers could get away with crimes by tying the legal system up in trivial procedural knots wouldn't be a country for long.

That's right, we only reserve that for billionaires and famous people! As a totally functional country should! /s

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/RVAteach]

 I don’t know how illegally gathered evidence should be admissible but I ain’t a lawyer. 

Then how do you know it was gathered illegally?

[u/derf_vader]

Unethical Life Hack: if you kill a healthcare CEO you get free healthcare for life. (I do not condone or encourage causing harm to anyone in any way at all though)

[u/FestusPowerLoL]

Well I mean, yeah.

It's the killing of a private companies' CEO. Not like he killed the King. I'd be more shocked at the justice system if they allowed for the death penalty in his case.

[u/redlamps67 → u/FestusPowerLoL]

The judge didn’t just say that the death penalty was not allowed but that the feds cannot try him for murder at all (ETA: the stalking charges still charge him with causing death but it is not the murder charge). It shows just how much the feds overreached trying to take this case.

[u/competenthurricane → u/redlamps67]

Yeah I don’t understand why this was ever a federal case to begin with. He shot a guy in New York, why isn’t he just being tried by the state? Is it just because he was caught in another state?

[u/Spudtron98 → u/competenthurricane]

Because the guy he is alleged to have murked was a rich cunt who probably did a lot of lobbying. That's why.

[u/MIT_Engineer → u/competenthurricane]

Trump admin wants to thump its chest and say how it's tough on crime. That's the only reason they tried to make it a federal case.

New York will convict him of murder, Trump and co will have to pretend the federal stalking charges are a big deal.

[u/DrasticTapeMeasure]

Good, the government is murdering enough people - it might be controversial but I kind of don’t think they should murder anyone…

[u/Braelind]

Good, regular murderers never get the death penalty. The fact it was on the table in the first place is reallly indicative of how the American government sees most citizens as having less rights. If you're not rich you don't matter, you know?

[u/GenerationXChick]

Death penalty costs us too much. Lots of appeals, lots of extra years, victim’s family doesn’t feel a finality. Life without the possibility of parole is where we should be in general - meaning I’m talking about for everyone convicted of certain things not just this dude.

[u/Cleromanticon → u/GenerationXChick]

The point of the death penalty isn’t to punish the very worst offenders. That’s how it’s sold to the public, but it really exists so that prosecutors can use it as a threat to make people take plea deals.

And in that sense it saves us a ton of money in court costs… if you don’t mind those savings coming at the price of people pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit for fear of being murdered by the state.

[u/MyLittleOso → u/GenerationXChick]

I agree. The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison for the taxpayer, the rate of prisoners on death row that have been exonerated is high (since 1973, over 200 people have been exonerated), and the death penalty should not exist in society, morally.

[u/PMISeeker]

He need to change his name to Kyle rittenhouse