Luigi Mangione's Pennsylvania attorney argues search, arrest were illegal
Luigi Mangione's Pennsylvania attorney argues search, arrest were illegal
A defense attorney for Luigi Mangione, the man charged with killing the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, insists a police search and arrest late last year were illegal.
Summary
The Pennsylvania attorney representing Luigi Mangione, charged with murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City, contends Mangione’s arrest in Altoona was unconstitutional.
Officers supposedly approached him without cause and failed to read his Miranda rights at a McDonald’s after a five-day manhunt.
Mangione has pleaded not guilty to murder and related state and federal charges, including potential death penalty eligibility.
Mangione's New York lawyer likewise cites constitutional violations during arrest, raising the possibility that key evidence could be suppressed.
You're viewing a single thread.
If his arrest and search were unlawful, then all evidence obtained from it is inadmissible in court. If they did not read him his Miranda rights, that could be enough by itself to basically throw everything out.
I think that's what happened, and that's why the NYPD and other officials have been doing the rounds on the media talking about shit before even providing evidence to the defense team as required. They know the evidence won't be usable in court and they're trying to taint the jury pool with that info ahead of time before they have to admit that they fucked up so badly they couldn't even do the most basic part of their job required for EVERY arrest, by anyone, anywhere in the country.
If they did not read him his Miranda rights, that could be enough by itself to basically throw everything out.
Sorry, but this is not correct.
First, Luigi has consistently maintained his innocence. Which obviously means he's not admitted to any wrongdoing. If he was interrogated without being properly mirandized during a formal custodial interrogation, any statements he made during that interrogation could potentially be excluded from evidence because his constitutional rights would have been violated--but it's not like he admitted to committing a murder during that interrogation. The evidence against him was not derived from his testimony or statements during interrogation; it was gathered independently, outside of that process.
The exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. If no evidence was gathered during the non-mirandized interrogation, there is nothing to exclude. While his rights may have been violated, the exclusionary rule cannot be invoked to exclude evidence that does not exist. The only scenario in which this issue would significantly impact the case is if his statements during interrogation were central to the prosecution's case—which is not the situation here.
Furthermore, since there are no statements or testimony to exclude, even if a miranda violation occurred, it is highly likely that the court would deem the error "harmless." This means the violation would not result in the dismissal of the case, as it does not materially affect the prosecution's ability to present evidence or prove guilt.
Despite popular believe, not being mirandized does not immediately mean that your case gets dismissed. You have to prove that statements or evidence gathered during the offending time frame were used to convict you.
All very good points. But it also talks about the search being possibly unconstitutional. The would include the manifesto and the gun. That would be significant. All they have is video essentially from what I have heard. That won't be enough. However I assume they have prints or something from where he stayed that I just haven't heard about. That would probably be enough to establish he is the one on the videos. But if he was arrested illegally, would the prints they took from him at booking be admissible?
The would include the manifesto and the gun. That would be significant.
It would, but I'm not sure its enough. Ultimately it's up to the courts.
All they have is video essentially from what I have heard. That won’t be enough.
Depends on the jury. They could still convict him based just on the video evidence, but the likelihood of appeal would be very high.
For video evidence the defense only needs to run a Luigi look a like contest and see if the jury can pick the real Luigi in a lineup.
If they did not read him his Miranda rights, that could be enough by itself to basically throw everything out.
Matey, stop commenting on things you've only seen on tv. Reading someone their rights is only done under specific circumstances, and only applies to certain evidence associated with those circumstances.
Anyone who cares to learn can read about it here in the excellent illustrated guide to the law.
My guy, never ever represent yourself in court or give legal advice. Most of what you've said is completely incorrect.
also mistreating him while he was in a county jail to humiliate him will probably be brought up too.
Slight correction. If that arrest and search were the only means to get that evidence, then it is thrown out. If there were other legal means they could have gotten that evidence, it becomes admissible again. Cops can illegally arrest and search you. Then if they are able to show at a later point a legal route that would have caused a legal arrest and search. It's fine.
If that arrest and search were the only means to get that evidence, then it is thrown out.
But we know that's not the case. Nancy Parker, the woman who called the police to notify them of Luigi's whereabouts, specifically said that he looked suspicious and may be the person the police were looking for. That's a completely legitimate arrest regardless of any other factors. Because she positively identified him as a person of interest in an ongoing homicide investigation, the police had the right to detain him, and search him for as long as it takes to positively identify him--which is what led to his eventual arrest. His manifesto and gun could all be legally confiscated (because the search was legitimate) and at this point his rights have not been violated, so the evidence collected cannot be thrown out on the premise of the exclusionary rule even if his rights were indeed violated at a later time/date.