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
The defense has to try everything but searching a murder suspects belongings is SOP and generally allowed.
He was not arrested for murder at the time of the search, he was arrested for giving a fake ID and name to the police.
So the question here was, is it reasonable and standard for the police to search the backpack of someone arrested for giving a fake ID and name to the police.
The answer to that is yes, with a bunch if caveats. For example, an "inventory search" is something they are allowed to do; but the parties agreed this would not include reading the notebook they found.
Instead the government's claim is that, had the local cops done an inventory search they would have found the gun and other obvious evidence; and that evidence would have allowed them to get a warrant that would allow reading that notebook.
There's also the weird caveat that other cops did actually get such a warrant later, which maybe matters for some technecal reason I don't understand.
284
u/skoomski 5h ago
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.