Luigi Mangione prosecutors have a jury problem: "So much sympathy"
Luigi Mangione prosecutors have a jury problem: "So much sympathy"
www.newsweek.com
Luigi Mangione prosecutors have a jury problem: "So much sympathy"
179 comments
-
-
I thought they put the terrorist charge on him precisely to avoid requiring a jury as part of all the
rightsprivileges we surrendered post 9/11 in the name of... Pffff... National security.National security being hilarious considering the CEOs are still walking the streets free, murdering citizens for profit having never not being actively sucked off by legislators that passed the patriot act and similar legislation.
The murderous Shareholders are already inside the house. They own the house. You can barely afford to rent it from them.
-
I don't think that's why they charged him with terrorism. The reason that some terrorism trials are (were?) done in secret in the past I believe is because most of the evidence that would have been presented would have been classified. I don't think there is any classified evidence related to Luigi's trial.
I think it's more likely that they added the terrorism charge just as an enhancement to potentially add time to his sentence or more opportunities for him to be convicted of something. However, someone posted an insightful comment here a couple of days ago, pointing out that in order to prove terrorism they will have to discuss his motivations at length, which will only make him more sympathetic to most jurors.
-
I haven't seen anything about this, your saying a terrorism charge doesn't have a jury at all?
-
-
-
Sympathy and empathy are definitely a problem in an openly corrupt, heartless justice system that only serves the elite.
-
Jury nullification
-
"Jury nullification is a fundamental aspect of the American jury system, allowing jurors to acquit defendants despite overwhelming evidence of guilt if they deem the law unjust or immoral. This concept has its roots in colonial America and has been exercised throughout U.S. history, often in response to unjust laws or societal norms."
For those not on the know.
-
-
Oh, so like when it goes the other way and the public decides someone is guilty long before they go to trial and prosecutors go after him anyway.
Big deal. The jury will decide one way or another and I will be very surprised that the highest charges will stick if they get normal people on the bench.
The fact that this guy had a manhunt out for him when people are murdered every day and nearly no resources are used at all to go after them is astounding. Just shows the law is there for the rich, not the rest of us.
-
There was another school shooting this week, i think that's the 80th this year and people don't seem to care. Why would anyone care about some parasite millionaire when innocent kids are gunned down everyday and that's just the way it is.
-
327th this year, according to https://k12ssdb.org/all-shootings
-
Wow haven't even heard of this shooting. Where did it happen? It's not in the news here at all.
-
-
-
That's the jury working exactly they way it should
-
Right, not sure what they're complaining about.
They're just going to keep going through jury pools until they can find enough bootlickers, which seems to be the antithesis of the "jury of your peers" system.
His peers find his actions justifiable. The rich can get over it.
-
-
There's a McDonald's worker able to be jury. Oh wait, he didn't get the reward money as his claim got denied for bullshit reasons, just like insurance... Never mind.
-
Is there a source for this? Last time I heard about it, it turned out to be just a ”possibly, maybe, it could be denied”, but nothing was decided yet.
-
So, the reports say "might not get it" Like this report but in almost all cases reward money isn't paid. In this case I'd think he has somewhat of a chance to get it due to public pressure, now that it's in the media. But in most cases it is denied because of bullshit reasons. "Thanks to your tip we were able to catch the guy, but through other sources we would have found him as well, so, no" or "multiple agencies offered reward money, so they both say the other one should pay up, so none pay up" or "you didn't follow the right procedures to get the money" or any other bullshit reason to deny payout. Often you'd have to prove you were the sole reason the person got caught, while you don't have access to restricted case files so good luck with that.
It basically works like the health insurance system in the US. They will do anything they can to reject your claim while you will have to fight to get what you should.
Fun fact: radio stations do the same. They offer amazing prices, get loads of people to listen 'to find the hidden clue', have them call an expensive phone number. They pick a winner, have them on the air over the phone, everyone hears how happy they are by winning, so people will try to compete next time again. But they never get a price. Because, no one will hear they didn't get any. Or at least, this used to be so, now with social media it's harder to hide these shady tactics.
Not just radio stations by the way, This was recently.
-
he called the wrong number to report it. u have to call a special crimenow number
-
-
I understand that she can only get the money if he gets convicted. They'll probably still find some other excuse not to pay her, but still - I argue that's a pretty big bias that should disqualify her from jurying.
-
-
Juror 1: It wasn't him. I know it in my heart...because I've had congenital heart disease my whole life, so I'm acutely aware of how my heart is feeling at all times. Like when my insurance company raised my premiums, I felt that in my heart. I feel this verdict in my heart, too.
Juror 2: At first, I thought it was him, but then I didn't. Something about it made me change my mind. He just looks like a highly principled person. The media owes this man an apology.
Juror 3: This reminds me of the time I went to the ER with a severe migraine, and the insurance company denied payment for the visit because there was no proof that I had a migraine and said it could have been anxiety, which wasn't covered in my plan. Maybe this wasn't murder. Maybe this was assault. I guess we'll never know now.
Juror 4: The prosecution made a good case, but the defense made one very good point: the victim has a long history of gaslighting vulnerable people. It made it hard to trust them.
Juror 5: I think it was a cover up. Maybe the "victim" killed himself and wanted to make it look like a murder so his family would get the insurance money. They seemed to know a lot about insurance loopholes and tactics.
Juror 6: I feel for the victim, but I think that considering the charges, they need a second opinion...Oh, the law states that someone can't be tried for the same crime twice? If they think that is unjust, they could work with government to come up with a better system then. Though it is going to be a tough battle to repeal the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution since they will need approval from 38 states, but maybe they have the public's sympathy.
Juror 7: I'm glad this trial is over. I need to get to the home to take care of my wife with cancer. The insurance company keeps giving me trouble, and she's too weak to fight it.
Juror 8: Did you know that the defendant hadn't even met the victim once. Who targets a random stranger for no reason at all? The prosecution wasn't able to make a case defining the motive of the defendant.
Juror 9: In my experience, you have to be careful with insurance companies. You can never trust them. The prosecution was working for an insurance company, so it was hard to believe anything they presented.
Juror 10: As a family practice doctor, I have to deal with insurance companies that lie about denials all the time, so I can tell when they are lying, and I think they were lying in the trial.
Juror 11: NOT GUILTY. The defendant seemed to be defending others from death or serious bodily injury, which is legal according to New York Penal Law 35.15.
Juror 12: The defense made a good point. The victim had told his doctor that he smoked a cigarette once in college, and I heard that smoking cigarettes can lead to poor health. Maybe the victim would have survived if he hadn't smoked before. We have to consider that.
-
-
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment but legally speaking that's a completely different situation. The main difference is the immediacy and nature of anticipated harm.
Again, not challenging your take on it, just highlighting that the law doesn't see it that way.
-
Maybe this is somewhat similar to a woman killing her rapist, after police refuse to investigate? There are probably examples of leniency in such cases.
-
The media likes to downplay that the CEO had straight up killed people. Eye for an eye applies. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice to find Luigi guilty.
-
Of course. He's clearly not guilty. Thompson willingly surrendered his humanity a long time ago, and you can only commit murder against a human. What Luigi did was more like deconstructing a cardboard box or other inanimate object.
He did however leave those shell casings on the sidewalk, and that's just not cool. They should give him a ticket for littering and send him on his way.
-
To be fair, he may also have run a couple of reds when he cycled away.
-
Something something pile of garbage in a suit.
-
-
Everyone simply knows he is not guilty.
-
liable* guilty is reserved for criminal cases and killing parasites isn't a crime.
-
Eveyone is the parasite of someone else. Think of it before spitting nazi shit next time.
-
-
He's 100% guilty. He crossed state lines to stalk and shoot his victim dead. He even wrote a mini manifesto where he admitted the crime.
The issue is that his victim was a piece of shit and so there is a great deal of sympathy with the killer who appears to have suffered his own health issues. It must be hard to find jurors who haven't been personally negatively impacted by United Health or else know someone who has.
That means in a jury of 12 it might be impossible to ensure the verdict is unanimous. I am sure the defence will also try to make the trial about private health insurance and will be leaning hard into things like the victim and his company's culpability in so much pain, suffering & death.
-
It's never "so much sympathy" for a killer cop, or genocide, but one CEO is just a step too far.
-
It'd be pretty rough if they couldn't possibly find a jury that would convict, think of how the CEOs of the nation would feel if they realized fully just how many people are entirely okay with eating them.
-
I think Josh Johnson has a killer bit on this, but in it, he was talking about how the news corporations and CEOs and people were horrified to learn that the people are seeing them for how they see us.
We don't see them as human, just like how they don't see us as human.
-
-
It doesn't have to even be full jury nullification, a single juror can cause a mistrial by refusing to join in an otherwise unanimous verdict. Imagine this going through 2-3 juries that cannot come to a consensus?
-
-
Both teams will be given an opportunity to eliminate potential jurors they believe are too sympathetic to the one side or the other.
Good luck with that, you can only weed out a limited number, and there's a fucking lot of us.
-
Working as intended, jury of his peers not some mindless robots.
-
-
These clowns have no idea they're so out of touch with everyday Americans
-
-
It's going to be really difficult to convict him, I'm happy to say. Dude's a hero.
-
Part of what made Joan of Arc a name that has lasted 1000 years is not that she was a hero, it's that she was killed for being a hero.
Heroes get remembered, but legends never die.
-
He's already thrown away his life.
Honestly it would be demoralizing for him to get sentenced to death (or life) in this information environment. People would just move on, back to the status quo. But if he gets off, its a vindication of what he did.
-
-
-
Now is a good time for all Americans to learn about Juror Nullification
-
Knowing about Horror Nullification makes you ineligible to be on Jury Duty
-
-
But the problem is, the mainstream and government are calling him a "terrorist" and "terrorists" don't have rights; under the USAPATRIOT Act, they are "enemy combatants" and the only thing they get is extrajudicial imprisonment and daily
torture"simulated drowning". -
This is actually quite an interesting case study for jury selection / vetting. The motive clearly relates to political views about the healthcare industry that affect every single American other than extreme outliers. It's therefore pretty impossible to select a jury that can be entirely neutral. Because no matter how politically unengaged they are, it still affects them.
Arguably, the most neutral person would be someone who hasn't interacted much with healthcare as a citizen. But healthcare issues in America start straight away from birth, because the process of birth itself is a healthcare matter for both mother and child, and there's no opting out from being born. That's only not the case if you're foreign born or from a very wealthy background, but you can't have a jury comprised of just them because that's not representative of the American public.
I wouldn't be surprised if this drags on for a long time before any trial even starts. In fact, I'd be suspicious if it doesn't.
-
-
I'd argue that's not really equivalent, because being a driver or not doesn't really have any implications towards motive in that case, or sympathy towards it from a jury. It's also not political - or at least, most people don't see it that way.
My point is, this is a race that almost every American has a horse in. So how do you draw a satisfactorily unbiased jury? I don't have the answer, but I can see why it's evidently become a sticking point.
-
-
Many young, healthy people haven't had to deal with it much, but this is also the demographic highly engaged on social media and probably very sympathetic to him.
-
-
murdersocietal self-defense -
Good.
-
Based on the recent Emerson poll (https://emersoncollegepolling.com/december-2024-national-poll-young-voters-diverge-from-majority-on-crypto-tiktok-and-ceo-assassination/), they'll find a jury just fine. They will have to weed out strong sympathizers, but it's not going to halt the process or anything. While it's uncommon for murderer cases to get this level of sympathy, prosecutors of high profile cases with a sympathetic defendent have delt with this before.
-
There's limits on selecting people. You can only say not that one so many times.
-
This is correct. I've been in two juries that went to trial, and each side got a handful of denials that they could use, each. Like 5 for my cases, or something in that ballpark. I think that the number is at the discretion of the judge, so because there is so much sympathy for the defendant, the judge may allow a much larger number of denials.
Disclaimer: I have no legal training and my trials were not in New York, so my comments could be inaccurate.
Edit: according to this article, this is the number of peremptory challenges (i.e., objecting to a juror during selection for no reason) each side gets - https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-270-25/
- Each party must be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges:
(a) Twenty for the regular jurors if the highest crime charged is a class A felony, and two for each alternate juror to be selected.
This is in addition to presumably an infinite number of juror dismissals for cause, like, for example, if the juror tells that the judge that they would not be able to follow the law.
-
-
Statistically speaking: if 17% of people say that the murder of the healthcare CEO is even somewhat acceptable, if you were to pick 12 people randomly from that group (so not accounting for any other potential filters from a jury questionnaire), you'd only have a 10% chance that all 12 answering it is unacceptable.
-
I'm not sure how much I trust that poll.
Data was collected by contacting cell phones via MMS-to-web text, landlines via interactive voice response and email (phone list provided by Aristotle, email lists provided by Commonwealth Opinions), and an online panel of voters pre-matched to the L2 voter file provided by Rep Data. The survey was offered in English.
If someone just called or texted me out of the blue for a survey like that, I would be tempted to lie about my opinion of Luigi out of fear. Honestly I find it shocking so many people 'confessed' to that... it has to be an underestimate.
-
-
i love every bit of this
-
Bye bye right to a jury trial
-
Manhattan has the world's largest concentration of FIRE (Financial, Insurance, Real Estate) employees
-
I've never seen that acronym used for that. It's usually Financially Independent, Retired Early
-
It can be used for either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE
-
-
Just because people work for these places doesnt mean they dont also feel the system effects of them. Most people just need a paycheck to support thenselves
-
Ever been to Manhattan?
-
-
-
The sympathy is so thick I can feel it in the air
-
I wonder why
-
It’s like asking us to feel bad that Osama Bin Laden was killed. Or that Charles Manson died. Why are they trying to generate sympathy for a serial killer? Deciding on who does and doesn’t get health care makes you just as much a murderer as Mangione. So why should I care?
-
Nothing money can't buy
-
prosecutors and cops have nobody to blame but themselves. they should have handled it waaay better.
179 comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
careful, lw mods don't like that
It was clarified that talking about Jury Nullification in the context of future crime is a no-no because it's a no-no in the country lw is based. But in the context of already committed crime it's fine.
So "Go ahead and commit the crime and we'll do jury nullification!" Is bad, but "Crime was committed, but we sympathize with the motive/person/whatever so let's do jury nullification !" Is OK
Weird, jury nullification is super legal and super cool
Lw mods aren't nearly as awful as Reddit ones - most removed comments are either personal attacks or open calls for violence. Even calls for civil disobedience are usually allowed unless they're clearly direct threats.