Luigi Mangione lawyer says arrest flaws invalidate evidence – but will it work?
Luigi Mangione lawyer says arrest flaws invalidate evidence – but will it work?
Pennsylvania attorney for suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson shooting claims police violated his client’s constitutional rights in arrest
“Even if this motion is successful, it doesn’t mean that Luigi Mangione walks out of prison,” said Ron Kuby, a criminal defense attorney whose practice focuses on civil rights. “All it means is that the items that were seized from him, or seized that belong to him, can’t be used as evidence against him.”
Kuby thinks that Mangione’s team has made enough claims in their papers to merit a hearing on the issues, in which the police officer involved would have to testify, confirming or denying the facts. “It does appear that they stopped and frisked Mangione without a legal basis to do it. If that’s true, everything that follows from there is likely to be found to be unconstitutional,” he said.
You're viewing a single thread.
Without the obviously planted evidence, all they have is a video that doesn't show his face. If i was on the jury, that's enough reasonable doubt for me.
And the eyebrows arent even close to similar
If the Brow doesn't fit, we shall acquit.
If the arrest was filthy, he’s not guilty.
Precisely.
I expect they have more than that and will present it at trial.
What else could they have? They have a video of the crime, and the evidence they claim they found in his backpack when he was arrested, and a couple pieces of evidence they claim they found at the scene that contain his DNA.
Much of the backpack evidence is likely to be thrown out, and the video evidence is highly debateable, and easily refutable. That leaves the DNA items they claim were found at the scene, which could easily have been picked up at his hostel, and planted.
Any other evidence would be far before the crime, or far removed from it, and would be weak at best.
To speculate, they might have additional video evidence linking him to the killing. For example, if they have video of the killer getting on the bus, and Luigi getting off that bus, it's a pretty small pool of suspects.
They tracked him for 10 days, and he only revealed his face a single time - when he quickly flashed a smile with a girl flirting with him, and that was days before the hit.
Their evidence is extremely thin, and they know it.
That's what we know of. They always have more that they don't disclose to the public.
In doubt it, if they had hard evidence that would make all of his supporters shut up, they'd show it, but we'll find out in the trial.
Frankly, I don't care about evidence at all. That CEO was nothing more than a Corporate Serial Killer, who was living fat and happy and entitled on an income of blood money, and whoever did it, did America a favor. If I was on the jury, I would NEVER find him guilty, no matter what the evidence showed.
That's fair. But that also means you'd be first to go during jury selection.
Nah, I'd just tell them that I could absolutely render a judgement based on the evidence, which is true. I wouldn't share that I think Luigi saved thousands of potential victims from an unrepentant Corporate Serial Killer, which is Defense of Others, not murder.
Lol they are going to have an EXTREMELY tough time finding an actually unbiased jury.
Not before they share it with the defense ... which is something the prosecution has not fully completed yet.
Even if so, I believe that still doesn't inherently mean it would be accessible by the public.
Personally I don't care if the public sees it or not, because the public is neither judge or jury.
It matters big time that the defense has full fucking access to the prosecution's evidence, in a timely manner, so they can develop their strategy.
I'm not disagreeing with that, I think you're missing the point being made. The point is that we may not know that there might be more to it. That is all.
I mean, he'd need a functional alibi. So far, nobody seems to want to explain where he was when Thompson got got.
No he doesn't, that burden is on the state.
He was vacationing alone in NYC, so nobody knew or noticed him. No different than being home asleep.
Literally was with me that night. I can describe his very private birthmark if needed.