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"
270 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.
-
It also lets the defense examine "would a killer target the United healthcare CEO specifically because they were personally evil vs a statement against the system?" That's also helpful for a defense angling for a nullification mistrial.
-
Technical question: isn't nullification an innocent verdict, not a mistrial?
-
It is, but you need the whole jury to vote that way which i find particularly unlikely. One person voting for nullification, which is more likely, is a mistrial.
-
I am not a lawyer.
Nullification is when the jury hands in a verdict of "not guilty", even though there's a preponderance of evidence that the law was indeed broken by the defendant. They basically ignore the Judge's instructions to weigh the evidence and do something else instead. This would trigger an appeal by the prosecution on the basis of mistrial, since the optics on that situation look like something procedural is way off.
I'm not well-versed in these matters, but I am intrigued by what would happen if this went to appeal. If it went all the way to SCOTUS, or even some appeals court with a crooked judge, that might not go so well for the defendant.
-
You don't get to appeal a not guilty verdict right or wrong its done forever. A mistrial only happens before a verdict is reached so either side could be looking for justification for one if they believe that they stand to lose the case but the judge has to find there is cause.
-
Well that certainly gives nullification teeth. Interesting. Thank you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I haven't seen anything about this, your saying a terrorism charge doesn't have a jury at all?
-
270 comments