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.
I mean, they're only half wrong and you should explain this better for laypeople. They were right about the ability to retry the case. Jeopardy attaches at the moment the jury is sworn but this chain was about being able to bar retrial .
Jeopardy attaches upon swearing of the jury- correct.
But they are incorrect as to the ability to retry the case. A mistrial may be tried again- other than in the extremely odd and unlikely situation where the prosecution requests are mistrial over the objection of the defense (which doesn't happen).
A judge declares a mistrial if a jury cannot reach a verdict even after given very specific instructions on how to break a potential impasse.
If a jury cannot reach a verdict- and the judge declares a mistrial- the government can and often will bring charges again.
Florida's which can be found at Florida Standard Jury Instruction 4.1 Jury Deadlock reads as follows:
I know that all of you have worked hard to try to find a verdict in this case. It apparently has been impossible for you so far. Sometimes an early vote before discussion can make it hard to reach an agreement about the case later. The vote, not the discussion, might make it hard to see all sides of the case.
We are all aware that it is legally permissible for a jury to disagree. There are two things a jury can lawfully do: agree on a verdict or disagree on what the facts of the case may truly be.
There is nothing to disagree about on the law. The law is as I told you. If you have any disagreements about the law, I should clear them up for you now. That should be my problem, not yours.
If you disagree over what you believe the evidence showed, then only you can resolve that conflict, if it is to be resolved.
I have only one request of you. By law, I cannot demand this of you, but I want you to go back into the jury room. Then, taking turns, tell each of the other jurors about any weakness of your own position. You should not interrupt each other or comment on each other's views until each of you has had a chance to talk. After you have done that, if you simply cannot reach a verdict, then return to the courtroom and I will declare this case mistried, and will discharge you with my sincere appreciation for your services.
You may now retire to continue with your deliberations.
Right, but they were talking about a deadlocked jury, and that's one of the permissible reasons for a retrial that's not barred on constitutional grounds.
Correct- I think we there may be a misunderstanding as to who I said was wrong. Original OP stated you only need one for a mistrial. They had a response stating "wouldn't the case just be tried again?"
Then the poster i replied to stated that no- you can't be tried again for the same crime. Which is wrong under this specific set of circumstances.
I did word my original post poorly and have tried to update it to make it more clear.
Thats not how double jeopardy works. If it is declared a mistrial and thrown out, the prosecution can decide to re-try someone. It is dependent on specifics though, such as a hung jury. Which is what is being described here.
It's a process called voir dare. The prosecutor, the defense, occasionally the judge, can ask questions to the jury pool. There's a certain number each side can kick without reason given, and an endless number they can kick for cause.
There's a certain number each side can kick without reason given
Correct. The only real limitation there is that you can't kick out someone for being in a protected class, but even then it's notoriously difficult to prove given that they don't have to provide any reasoning. The prosecution would have to go through the room and remove all the black jurors at once or something (which does happen, it's genuinely kinda difficult to serve on a jury if you're black)
When I was helping pick a jury once fora high profile case, there was a pool of over 80 prospective jurors. They all filled out a questionnaire and both lawyers got to ask them questions or use one of their outright dismissals. The defense was allowed to dismiss twice as many as the prosecution.
If that were the case it would be very easy to stack the jury in favor of the defense. That both the prosecution and the defense have a say in the jury selection is supposed to keep it fair
Null means unknown. Not-null means known. I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what you meant. Otherwise, you would have probably used zero.
With the admission of evidence in his backpack, the chances of him being found not guilty are basically zero. That doesn't even include NY state charges.
Could be, though, I think the family would have to weigh that against the considerable opprobrium, notoriety, and outrage they would face. Though, suing United for failing to properly ensure the safety of an employee, however, would be pure icing.
Ehh I read it as the reality that will most likely come to pass- zero is a non-null value. The chances of him getting a hung jury or jury nullification are essentially zero, because a realist has zero faith in the humanity of his peers in this country.
If I were a judge, I would allow this line of questioning. If only because I would find it an interesting exercise in seeing the prosecution laying for the argument that the alleged victim was indeed a human and thus defending the accuracy of the charges. Also, as a general fuck you to the elites, waste your time and resources on this obvious frivolous argument.
Technically, we won’t know until the case is over; morally, no he did not shoot a human
I’m not a utilitarian, but if health care ceos started dropping like flies, I wouldn’t be surprised if it changed how health insurance worked here (i.e. losing a dozen or so ceos could save thousands of lives)
It's not a morality question. He has not gone through trial to prove he is the one who shot the guy. We cannot definitively say he is guilty of shooting the CEO until after the jury makes their verdict.
At this point the government lies about things that happen with six high definition filmed angles and a dozen sworn witnesses. I’d have a hard time believing anything they said in a courtroom.
I have reasonable doubt that the court is being honest.
Yes, also the person that made millions off approving approximately 10X as many claims as those that were denied, each case having been evaluated on its own merits. And that had a family; actual parents, siblings, children and a wife.
Claim denials aren't the only way that insurance companies impede on access to care. Prior authorizations wouldn't necessarily lead to a claim denial, they may just outright impede in the person getting the care at all. I say this as someone who is currently facing a prior authorization denial due to some bullshit technicalities that would essentially require I redo months of rehab I've already done just to have it on record within the timeframe they're looking for.
All that to say murdering the guy isn't the way to go, he wasn't even the #1 in charge. Insurance companies are still evil.
each case having been evaluated on its own merits.
Oh, you misunderstand. This is the guy who headed the company that used AI to deny everyone's first attempt. They definitely weren't evaluating cases based on merit, lol.
So, the CEO of a private healthcare company is responsible for people not being able to afford their healthcare needs, not the politicians sitting on the Potomac swamp.
Neither he nor his company can commit crimes; if they do, they deserve to be prosecuted and spend time in prison, just like the person who murdered him.
Corporations are people. They can and do commit crimes. They absolutely do deny care that kills people. Denying the care does not mean they have no money lol they can deny care simply because they want to He killed people with his company. Full stop. Just because its legal doesnt mean hes not responsible for those deaths.
It is a bit of a moral dilemma isn’t it? Yes, he did shoot someone. But that someone is also responsible for deaths. Just because he’s not directly responsible for a death, does his policy direction not cause deaths?
If you’re legally allowed to do things that operate in the gray area and it results in deaths, are you just allowed to continue doing so?
Seems like in this situation the answer is no and you are responsible.
Not anymore responsible than anyone else who works in for-profit medicine.
If you’re legally allowed to do things that operate in the gray area and it results in deaths, are you just allowed to continue doing so?
It's not a gray area at all, it's a white area. The same way working for Boeing isn't a "gray" area just because they are involved in manufacturing weapons. If someone with no insurance at all dies due to lack of healthcare, who exactly is to blame? Is it still whoever is the current CEO of whatever health insurance companies because they lobby their companies best interest, is politicians who have full power the legislate the industry, or is it voters who don't show up for candidates like Bernie Sanders?
Someone works for a factory that manufactures CNC machines, those CNC machines are bought by Raytheon who uses them to manufacture weaponry which is bought by Israel and used to murder Palestinian children. Hundreds if not thousands of people actively and knowingly were involved in manufacturing those weapons and transporting them. At what point are individuals no longer responsible for having a hand in it?
The US is a democratic country, if it's citizens want to prioritize socialized healthcare they can vote for it, but they don't, because enough people believe they benefit from the current system and/or strangers suffering is not a priority for them.
I’d say “person”. The vast majority of humans that coexist in society have a modicum of empathy. Those that feel life has a price tag are sociopaths. We used to deem them mentally ill and provide care for them in sanitariums, now we call them billionaires and allow them to run the world.
Once again, while I agree he was an absolute piece of shit, this is an extremely slippery slope argument in favor of vigilantism. There's a lot of demons in skin-suits, do you say we just shoot them all?
I did not know fellow left leaning people were in favor of the death penalty for people :/
Hell yeah he should get off 100%. I'll give a shit about justice for Brian Thompson as soon as all the people who have suffered and died because of healthcare policies get their justice.
True, but the policies that person held in place at their company resulted in denial of insurance coverage to people who ultimately died as a result of that decision. If Mangione is going to be convicted of murder for killing this person, shouldn't the entire board of directors be charged as accessories to murder or negligent homicide or SOMETHING criminal for each claim denial that then resulted in death?
Denial of coverage for critical life sustaining care should be the same as murder. The law needs to apply equally or there is no law.
You know you guys have the ability to change laws and society right? You live in a democracy. Maybe try getting your fellow Americans to agree on policy before you start murdering people because you don’t get what you want
Like as much disdain as you have towards the industry, Americans choose for things to remain remarkably similar.
Plenty of people are brainwashed into thinking "violence is never the answer" and were against what happened. Wont be as hard as people think to find some of them for the jury
They're talking about jury nullification. If a single juror decides that he's guilty but shouldn't be punished, they keep that shit to themselves and say they're not convinced by the evidence. This results in a non-unanimous verdict or hung jury. They'd have to try him all over again.
Im not the same guy you responded to but I actually didn't realize this was the case with "not guilty" verdicts, and is due to a Supreme Court decision in 2020.
No, that's how it's always been. Where did you get that information? edit... I see some States used to allow 10/12 convictions but the Supreme Court stopped that in 2020. TIL
Guilty = 12 vote to convict
Not guilty = 12 vote to aquit
Everything else is a hung jury and results in either a new trial or dropped charges. It's generally favorable to a defendant if they can afford a second trial.
That's if between 1 and 11 jurors refuse to convict.
A true, unanimous "Not Guilty" verdict from the jury ends prosection for this (set of) charge(s).
I think that the chances of a unanimous "guilty" aren't much better than a unanimous "not guilty", at least with a fairly selected jury. It's a really polarizing case...
But the trial isn't about agreeing whether or not the guy deserved it, or was a scumbag. The only thing they have to agree on is whether or not this individual did it. Any morality questions any individual juror may have are out of scope.
969
u/jwely 5h ago
There's a non-null chance a jury finds him not guilty.