Luigi Mangione pleads not guilty to federal charges in CEO killing
Luigi Mangione pleads not guilty to federal charges in CEO killing
Luigi Mangione is accused of stalking UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and shooting him to death on Dec. 4, 2024.
Luigi Mangione is accused of stalking United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and shooting him to death on Dec. 4, 2024.
You're viewing a single thread.
Solidarity aside, whenever you are arraigned, any lawyer worth their salt will advise you to plead not guilty, because entering a guilty plea means it's over, move on to sentencing, where you have no leverage at all.
You can always change a not guilty plea to a guilty plea later, if a plea deal offered by the prosecution is acceptable to you. This is especially relevant in a case where the death penalty is on the table, but also applies to the possibility of reduced charges or penalties in any case.
I'll also add that this case could well end up with an Alford plea. In short, where the defendant asserts innocence, does not admit to the criminal act, but accepts the sentence because they believe that a jury would find them guilty based on the evidence. Again, this is definitely related to a case where the death penalty is on the table.
I'd be very disappointed in any jury who found him guilty
The problem is he definitely killed the guy. In a sane world the defense would walk in, state directly to the jury "jury nullification is a thing", and that would be the end of it.
They have engineered a system where the only recourse the common man has is violence, and I have no qualms about saying this CEO, like many others, deserved to die.
Having been on a jury,
People are dumb and have no empathy
I was on a grand jury some years ago in NYC. It really did a number on my faith in people and the legal system.
Now, a grand jury is different than a regular (petit) jury in a few key ways. First, you only need simple majority to move forward with an indictment. You can't 12-angry-men hang a grand jury. Second, as I learned later, even if you do convince a majority to not indict, the prosecutor can just try again. So all those times the police didn't get indicted for murder and the prosecutor just gave up? They could have tried again. They didn't, because they didn't want to.
All of that said, the cases were largely about drugs. People selling weed and heroin and the like. No violence. I suggested to the jury that we maybe just say no, and don't ruin people's lives over marijuana. You don't have to show your work. You can just say whatever. The whole rest of the jury was like "are you insane?" Some of them were just anti-drug, full stop no context. Some of them were like "We have to do what they tell us" very obedient. Some of them just wanted to go home, and thought an indictment would be the fastest way.
They all voted to indict on every charge. The guy who was sleeping, and the lawyers and cops laughed at him snoring, also voted to indict.
I asked the little old white lady sitting behind me a hypothetical. I asked if she was on a jury in the 60s, and the charge was a black man eating at an all white's diner, if she would indict. She was like, "Hmmm maybe."
I tried. One of the cases the cops said they found a gun in the man's house, so they charged him with intent to use it in a violent crime, or something. I was like, they didn't even try to prove it was his or that he was going to use it. Everyone voted to indict. I'm just like, why do you have to make it easier for the police?
People might not have empathy, but even less people are going to want to side with an insurance company
also heard the smart ones get out of jury duty. i had a former colleague in an old job said she was chosen because she wouldnt speak for herself.
Realistically they'll try arrange one that will. They're going to try secure a guilty verdict by any means necessary to make an example out of him.
That would be the worst thing for them to do, but they're not the brightest.
Ideally, a jury's responsibility is to weigh the evidence and find whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
There has been no jury selection yet, let alone presentation of evidence. I would guess that any jury nullification would depend on a defense tactic of "Yes, my client committed this act, and his motive was to prevent UHC from directly causing the deaths of their customers by refusing to honor legitimate claims or by delaying payment of claims." There might be something there, especially since UHC changed its stance on something (I forget exactly what right now) in the wake of their CEO being killed.
But that would be a really difficult defense to mount. You'd basically be admitting to the act and hoping that at least one person on the jury would A) agree with your defense, and B) be willing to hold out over it, and C) not be replaced by an alternate for "failure to follow jury instructions" or some such thing.
Again, since a jury has not even been selected, I won't speculate on what evidence gets presented and what evidence (if any) ends up being excluded. By extension, I cannot agree with your above comment.
Please note that I am also not saying "He's guilty, he should hang", because that would also entail speculating on evidence.
They don't have to say outright that the guy was scum and got what he deserved, just question why the federal charges are being brought while there's a state case and ask questions about how many other people would have a good reason to want this health insurance executive dead. You can introduce the message without abandoning all other defense and saying it explicitly.
"The man who saves his country breaks no laws" isn't that right DoJ?
They'll find 12 angry rich white women and its over for him. You know it, I know it. Dude martyrd himself from the beginning and I bet he knew it
they will more than likely choose 12 retirees, and people that dont read the news that much plus any pushovers. thats how they choose these are the most easily manipulated juror types out there. ive been in different forums about juror duties, its almost always these people.
on reddit people speculated they will probably choose one where thier own insurance hasnt screwed them over, so it creates a bias for the prosecution.
Having one person isn't going to help much, even if they don't get replaced, it'll be a hung jury at best, unless they're the most persuasive, charismatic person on earth.
And you generally don't want a hung jury. It's just delaying, and now the other side knows your entire defence strategy and can prepare on better countering it. You having information on their strategy isn't as valuable.
Why? It's not even a question of if it was him. And it's not even a question of whether he killed the guy.
He is a murderer whether you agree with why he did it or not.
So you believe that someone who followed this CEOs schedule to find an opportune moment to shoot him, escape to a pre-stashed escape bike, then rode through the one place in New York without CCTV and DITCHED EVIDENCE then carried the MURDER WEAPON, which he didn't ditch, to a McDonald's isn't being set up? The inventory of what they "found" on him wasn't done until AFTER a New York cop drove up there. It makes more sense to me that the gun was ditched in Central Park and the NYPD just held onto it until they found a good patsy, then drove it to Pennsylvania so they could "find" it on him.
the point from him "allegedly" shooting the ceo, to them trying to find evidence was botched from the getgo.