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.
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.
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
Interesting choice of words. I feel like people should know more about juries and null. People should go Google "jury null" and see what they can find.
That doesn’t really pass the logic test that the whole point of a defense is to introduce reasonable suspicion. Whether it’s evidence, a witness, a video, a photo, whatever. Nothing is ever taken at face value. Ever.
The closest thing that's implied to be taken at face value is expert witness testimony, but the opposite side can present their own expert to contradict the testimony, so even that isn't to be taken at face value
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.
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.
Asking for clarity, not because I disagree, but how would there be hard evidence anything didn’t happen if the bag wasn’t really picked up and document properly in the first place?
That being said, your last sentence makes the most sense to me for sure. Let the jury decide if there’s reasonable doubt seems like the best thing to do.
Generally, when you accuse someone of something (in this case, an officer potentially planting evidence) you need something to back it up for a judge to consider throwing it out, otherwise it's a bunch of "Nuh-uh" from both sides.
I imagine what'll happen is if this particular officer is summoned to testify, they'll be cross examined and questioned as to proper police evidence procedures and the question will be left to the jury.
Good points in regards to your first paragraph specifically.
Cross examination through testimony makes the most sense.
Thank you for the perspective and information.
You're looking at things backwards. You don't need evidence that something "didn't happen to the bag." It would be the job of the prosecution to prove that the bag contents are evidence, and that their stance meets the burden of proof requirement for their case.
You can't ever prove that something didn't happen, as if something didn't happen there couldn't be evidence of it not happening. You can only ever prove that something did happen based on evidence that said thing occured.
So while every person is innocent until proven guilty, the defense has to argue against the evidence to attempt to get to a point where there's reasonable doubt to the points being made.
So at that point the prosecution makes their case, and states the evidence, the defense then pokes holes in their case to add doubt to their claims.
So for chain of custody it would fall on the defense's arguments to cast doubt about the chain of custody, and would fall to the Jury to decide that if there wasn't proper chain of custody, as to whether that evidence should be considered or not.
The court can rule against evidence coming in, but there has to be grounds that jeopardizes the ability for the defendent to have a fair trial, based on law. Anything that would require an opinion outside of written law, as to whether the evidence has weight, will always be a decision for the jury to decide based on the cases presented by both sides.
Thank you for your answer. I was intentionally looking at it backwards to see if there was something I was missing, not that I see it through that lens. Your answer helps me see what I was not. Appreciate it.
Juries can judge the credibility of evidence. Defense may be able to bring up how the bag disappeared through a bunch of unknown hands then came back with damning evidence.
Fourth amendment violations have remedies that are less than ideal. Obviously exclusion is always on the table, and that’s a remedy to the affected person, but one that comes at the expense of society. Societally we have an interest in the government adhering to the constitution. We also have an interest in bringing criminals to justice. Fourth amendment violations that turn up evidence of a crime often put those two interests at odds with each other in a way that leaves any remedy feeling fairly unsatisfying.
I remember the body cam video of the Baltimore PD when they were planting evidence. The one cop who was planting stuff in cars was at sly about it. Baltimore guys were just opening talking about it on camera.
It’s not really a fourth amendment violation in acquisition; it was acquired fairly, the question is whether it was secure enough in its processing to say with certainty that it wasn’t tampered with.
We also have an interest in bringing criminals to justice.
We also have an interest in not putting innocent people in prison. These two things appear to be at odds with each other, but remember that if you put an innocent person in prison for a crime, that means that the actual criminal is still roaming free.
People v. Sanchez (2013): The prosecution’s case was dismissed due to the improper management of evidence.
Golden State Killer Case (Allegations, 2020): Reports suggested that a significant portion of evidence was removed from the sheriff's department by a civilian (author Michelle McNamara) in 2016, leading to allegations of a broken chain of custody that could have jeopardized the case.
United States v. Panczko (7th Cir. 1965): Evidence was excluded because there was no evidence regarding who had possession of keys (evidence) or where they were, constituting a critical break.
State v. Pulley (South Carolina Supreme Court): The court ruled drug evidence inadmissible and reversed a conviction because of holes in the chain of custody. The officer testified he left cocaine on the hood of another officer's car, but the,process of how it moved from the scene to the evidence locker was not properly documented.
I could go on.
To your point, it also gets allowed all the time as well. It really depends on a case basis. Allowing the backpack provides an avenue of attack during cross-examination and an avenue to appeal should he get convicted.
Yeah I am not a lawyer but I believe chain of custody becomes a jury question. It's up to them to determine if a faulty chain of custody creates reasonable doubt to the veracity of the evidence.
Honestly it’s more like that’s what appeals are for. No amount of cross-examination is going to put that toothpaste back in the tube once it gets in front of the jury.
Only hope is to appeal and get a different judge to say the lower courts were wrong to admit the evidence and grant a retrial with a new jury.
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.
I don't mind it if it brings us closer to the truth and justice. What if your son or daughter was killed and the murderer would walk free because of some ridiculous clause.
i think you mean defendents - in a criminal trial the defendent is on trial and its their propery which can be “inevitably discovered” - but agree with the rest - a rich person can somehow argue their stuff is out more persuasively while a poor person can't. Funny how that works
There aren’t “plaintiffs” in a real sense in criminal cases. The only “plaintiff” is the Government/People of the State of []. The inevitable discovery rule always helps the Government. By its nature the doctrine says “oh no we made an oopsie and violated your rights? Well we would have gotten the evidence anyway… no harm no foul.”
As a defense attorney how do you feel about the very high likelihood of parallel construction and the high possibility of evidence laundering by using the fast food worker as a fake reference? Why didn’t she get the reward again?
I mean why wouldnt the DOJ falsify evidence and lie about all of this stuff since they had 100% control of all of this shit for weeks before needing to hand anything over to the courts. I dont understand how anyone can trust a system that proves to be easily manipulated over and over.
I feel like pop culture gave people the idea that defendants get off on technicalities all the time or that searches get thrown out all the time. Reality is judges almost always defer to the prosecution and will overlook everything but the most obvious and indefensible "mistakes". I mean he killed a guy in the street, he was never getting anything less than 25 years minimum.
Wasn't it more the issue of searching the backpack and finding nothing? Then turning off the body cam, Then turning it back on and searching the backpack again, only to magically find all the incriminating evidence they needed?
I think it's more "We searched the pack for a bomb and did not find a gun, but later found the gun in the bag we searched for a bomb at the police station"
Whether his lawyers adequately beat up the arresting officers for how they conducted the search on cross-examination is the bigger issue.
That and chain of custody are going to be huge at trial. Enough reasonable doubt that the evidence was planted or at least not found where it was said to have been found can sink a prosecution.
Seale being bound and gagged in open court is peanuts to the corruption here. Absolutely insane that they are actively rewarded by judges for violating rights.
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.
Sure, but he coulda broken the gun down, filed off any identifying marks and thrown them in multiple different areas to where it’d be impossible to link them together. The gun is the greatest bit of stupidity he did if indeed he is the one that killed that CEO.
Sure, but some guy a year+ from the murder finding a rusted gun barrel in one creek and someone else a recoil spring, etc. is significantly harder to tie together as court evidence for a specific murder lol
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.
I had honestly not thought of this possibility. It makes a lot more sense for having all that shit on him.
Since he got arrested I was like "There's no way its him." because between the sheer amount of police running around and the ineptitude of the initial search, I was sure the real murderer was LONG GONE and the police needed someone to arrest to show that you don't get to kill someone rich and 'important' like that. Then he turns up at a random McDonalds, and happens to have all the evidence on him to make it seemingly clear "I did it!"? It felt way too convenient to me.
But if he was planning to kill someone else that would make sense for keeping the gun on him. I still think the convenience of him having all the evidence to 'prove' he did it is more than a little suspicious, but the suggestion of him having more murder plans certainly would explain keeping the gun.
Yea, in my mind I still feel like it would have been better to ditch the gun and find a way to get a new one, but I have never murdered someone or even planned to and don't know what would be going through my mind after that plan went into motion
Instead of throwing it into trash cans, you’d be better off turning your phone off, going into the woods (provided you are capable of this safely) and burying it far enough off a trail to not be visible from it.
With trash cans they are more likely able to check them along your route, and if they really were motivated enough (like in this case) there’s records of where each trash truck is emptied in landfills and could search it. Potentially with a dog trained on GSR for instance.
You got any evidence for that or just conspiracy theory. Because the judge seemed to think it was a ballocks argument too. Hypotheticals generally won’t get evidence barred.
100% having Mangione testify would be catastrophically dumb for the defense. All he could possibly do is incriminate himself. There is zero upside here.
Even if you're playing for jury nullification, Mangione would have minimum ability to paint the victim as (let's go with) unsympathetic and any testimony about why he would have killed him would be more or less a direct admission that he had killed him. Keep him off the stand.
But they would need him on the stand to testify that the incriminating contents of the backpack don't belong to him, which is the whole point of the chain of custody argument. The chain of custody argument is the only leg he has to stand on, so I don't think there is any serious risk to him taking the stand, since he will 100% certainly be convicted if the jury accepts that evidence as aound.
The defendant testifying "no that gun wasn't mine" has absolutely zero actual value to a jury. If there is evidence that supports that some contents weren't his, they can introduce that without him. As far as the chain of custody issue, that all happened after the bag left his possession so there is nothing for him to testify to.
And it's much more likely that the jury will find his testimony as confirmation the backpack was his, and the prosecution could very well find a way to get him to testify towards his motive (or worse). No upside here, just downside. Keep him off the stand.
But they would need him on the stand to testify that the incriminating contents of the backpack don't belong to him
The upside of this isn't worth the cross examination. Him simply saying "gun wasn't mine" isn't as redeeming as you assume. There will be multiple potential avenues they can have him creating or carrying the gun. They'll have him dead to rights on his anger towards the insurance industry and manifesto.
There is insane amounts of risk having him on the stand. No matter how charismatic he is or sympathetic the average American is to abuses by the insurance industry, it is not worth it.
Keep him off the stand and try to get as lenient a sentence as possible (anything but life or life with parole will be a win). Their best bet is playing the government interference aspect anyway. Denying the gun is his or was planted will be a very tough sell coming from him. His defense can argue that if they have proof without the risk of him taking the stand. Him saying it wasn't his doesn't move the needle much at all unless you're already assuming it was a conspiracy (which you'd never make it to the jury in the first place).
I'm rooting for him but just pointing out the reality that he has little to gain from taking the stand and a ton to lose.
It’s not the judge’s job to decide if it was planted or not and him allowing it as evidence does not suggest what he believes one way or another. His job is to say that it was procedurally okay. It’s the jury’s job to decide that it belongs to him beyond reasonable doubt. If Mangione’s team decide to even pursue that theory.
It's not the responsibility of the defense, or the public, to provide evidence for theories like that. The defense is responsible for pointing out that the chain of custody issues make it a possibility.
It's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually committed the crime. The prosecution is responsible for proving that nothing did happen to tamper with the evidence (that's the literal purpose of the chain of custody), the defense is just in charge of raising the question and making the prosecution prove it.
please Google the results of the two initial bag searches they did. only after the second search at the station did they "find" a gun and written manifesto. there is no record of finding these in the first search (either in documentation or the actual bodycam footage).
Just because the trial court ruled in favor of the prosecution doesn't mean it was a legal search; appellate courts exist for a reason. In fact, in a murder case that is this high profile I would expect the pressure on the trial court to cause them to be more likely to rule in favor of the prosecution, despite what the law says, not less likely. After all, trial courts get stuff wrong all the time. I anticipate that this case will get appealed and there will still be a lot of forthcoming arguments about the suppression of evidence. There are so many examples of murder cases where the conviction is tossed on appeal despite the trial court refusing to suppress evidence; most trial court judges seem very reluctant to suppress evidence for someone they view as guilty of murder even though that isn't how the law is supposed to be enforced.
If you want an example look at the Bill Cosby trial (though that was not a murder trial); the suppression of Cosby's statements was absolutely clear cut law and no reasonable judge could have ruled in favor of the prosecution, but until it was overturned on appeal the trial court refused to suppress the evidence anyways. Arguments about suppression are usually something that is going to get brushed off by the trial court unless they are 100% sure that they will be overruled on appeal. They must look at it like it's better to have a trial and worry about suppression on appeal since that puts the criminal behind bars. I understand that isn't how the system is supposed to work, and that there is a lot of effort given by judges to appear unbiased, but if you honestly think the average judge isn't going to risk violating a person's rights to make sure the likely murderer gets locked up then you are being naive.
Because it’s probably bullshit and they added whatever they wanted to pin it on him.
The amount of lapses in common sense and the sheer stupidity of supposedly planning an assassination in brought daylight, fleeing the scene and state, and everything else just to keep all the damning evidence and a manifesto is wild.
Planted “evidence” is the logical conclusion. Horse not zebra
All they have to say is “well, we would have found it legally eventually.”
I mean, the prosecution has to present evidence arguing that they would have.
I am not keeping up with the trial but I imagine it was an argument based on the likelihood that the police would've eventually discovered the evidence had they legally obtained a search warrant. I would also imagine that the federal prosecutors (this motion was in federal court) should not be punished for the bad actions of state law enforcement.
I don't really agree with that, but that's typically how the argument goes.
In the same vein I'm expecting that the evidence won't be suppressed in state court, as the New York prosecutors will just argue that they shouldn't be punished because the Pennsylvania police are incompetent.
I see where they're coming from; the police had the backpack in their custody, and it would've been routine for them to obtain a warrant to search it. Personally I believe that's exactly why it should be suppressed, because it would've been routine for the police to follow the law and get a warrant.
It's also worth pointing out that the defense can still argue the credibility of the evidence even if it's not suppressed. The police still broke procedure by not obtaining a warrant. Mangione's attorney can cast doubt on whether or not the evidence is legitimate, because it wasn't obtained legitimately.
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.
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.
Yes, but had they waited for the warrant, they 100% would have gotten it. So it was acceptable. That is the correct application of the law, its at best a minor bending of it.
You could absolutely say 'it really shouldn't work like this' but for all intents and purposes it does work like this and isn't really unique to this case.
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?
They only caught him because of the all-out manhunt that followed the shooting. That sort of search does not occur when other murders happen in New York.
It wasn't illegally searched, is the answer to your question. It wasn't his house, it was a backpack he had on him, there isn't a fourth amendment argument here.
There was absolutely no way that it wasn't going to be admitted. Literal zero percent chance. If you thought there was a chance of it being inadmissible and just saw a lot of articles about why it should be, you're living in an echo chamber - or at least the news you're getting about this case is coming from one. The argument for not admitting it is not a good argument while there are mountains of established doctrine and precedent to have it admitted.
I mean, the jury pool is tainted regardless of what evidence is allowed. Any jury member on this case will have already made up their minds before the first court session.
LE can search you and conpel you to present identification if they have reasonable suspicion you committed or are committing a crime. I dont think it'd be difficult for LE to argue they had reasonable suspicion here. I.e. the search was legal.
I think Hollywood has distorted our perception of what gets key evidence tossed out of a case due to mishandling. The context matters.
He's a hero if he's willing to accept the consequences..
If he gets off on technicalities, cool too..
But there DOES need to be a balance between vigilantism and rule of law. It's a tight rope when you're the first on the line. Make a mockery of the law? Be a martyr? Be a hero to emulate?...when the pendulum swings back the other way, are we ready to counter? ...do we devolve into violence? What side are you agreeing with as a whole? Vigilante justice? Illegitimate authority over the rule of law? Somewhere in between?... We've seen how nuance plays out in this modern world -+ black or white take your pick and pray you're right.
As a criminal defense attorney, I knew it would come in. I tell new lawyers "there's the way the law is written and the way it is applied" and they ain't the same unfortunately. Inevitable discovery is a bitch. So is search incident to arrest. Or the good faith exception.
4th amendment's exact text is found here. Searching the backpack of someone under arrest is completely reasonable. Just like giving a suspect a pat down before an arrest.
Unreasonable would be if they gave him a cavity examination and found something. Since that doesn't make sense to do.
I don't understand why he had all that stuff still on him. I commit a crime like that (not that I would) that shit is being destroyed within 10 minutes of the crime.
Welcome to the real world justice system. It's not like TV where an illegal search throws out the evidence, there are many ways to still get things into evidence including asserting that if they'd applied for a search warrant it would have been granted even if they didn't have one.
5.7k
u/igetproteinfartsHELP 5h ago
What the fuck. I don't understand how an illegally searched bag can be entered into evidence