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.
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?
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.
How are they going to find a jury who don’t know who Luigi is and what he’s accused of?
That was another thing his lawyers were arguing, actually - that since his arrest was over-publicized and spun in a particular light (for instance the widely circulated photo with him being escorted by an entire precinct worth of police) that they skewed public perception and created a presumption of guilt.
Really, though, this is important largely because of the jury is even the least bit sympathetic, points like this could go a long way towards getting them to acquit him, even if they believe he did it. "Well, I think he's guilty, but the judge said we had to ignore all of this evidence, sooo..."
not just the precint, but MAYOR adams was in on the walk too.
dude's about to get tried by the amish, i guess
Wait until you hear their opinions on health insurance companies gouging.
The jury doesn't have to be ignorant, they have to be able to take the information they are given during the trial and render a generally unbiased decision based on that information. And that decision is made by the Judge, Prosecution and Defense teams. That's the entire reason for the Voir Dire process, it's designed to weed out biases on both sides that can compromise the trial.
Of course the defense will bring up things like the state of US healthcare, specifically United Healthcare and their processes, etc. so jurors having a bias solely based on that won't matter, as much because that's going to almost surely be introduced during the trial anyway.
That being said... good luck finding 12 jurors who both sides trust can be unbiased enough, and can render a unanimous decision in the current societal climate. And if the first is a mistrial, finding a second set will be even harder.
The first will definitely be a mistrial. I don’t condone violence but even I wouldn’t find him guilty under the circumstances.
This reminds me of the sketch SNL did saying it's impossible to find jury members for the OJ trail. The only difference is it will be impossible to find anyone willing to say Luigi is guilty
He’s basically the people’s hero. Everyone loves this guy.
On their payroll, duh
and everyone was scrutinizing the evidence at the same time too.
This is the one day where the defendant can say "Yes, I did it, I feel no remorse, and I'll do it again!"
And I'm completely on his side
Though thankfully for his lawyer he hasn't done that and is doing what all people who get found Non-Guilty do, keep his mouth shut and take no plea deals.
I'm not a lawyer but if I was on the defense team I'd have Luigi bulking up the entire time up until the trial. Then when it is time to try on the jacket it won't fit and the jury will have an easy acquittal.
If the jacket doesn’t fit then you must acquit.
Oh look, is that Chewbacca over there?
He needs to cultivate mass
Showing the initial picture they released of the suspect should be cause enough for aquital
This guy lawyers!
Oh look the US breaks its own laws to arrest and to control their people. It feels like the US is not a democracy if they break their own law to suppress their people.
I'm always reminded of the episode of How I Met Your Mother when Barney claims that he can never take a bad photo....
Oopsie. 🤷