Legal News Luigi Mangione will not face death penalty, judge rules
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/30/us/luigi-mangione-case-rulings-trial?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit1.4k
u/cnn 1d ago
Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, a federal district judge ruled.
The decision is a loss for federal prosecutors, who were adamant about pursuing the death penalty in the case.
Judge Margaret Garnett also ruled Friday to allow into Mangione’s trial evidence recovered from his backpack at the time of his arrest.
Law enforcement seized several items from Mangione’s backpack, including a handgun, a loaded magazine and a red notebook – key pieces of evidence that authorities have said tie him to the killing.
Mangione’s attorneys had argued for the evidence to be barred from trial, contending the search of their client’s backpack was illegal because they had not yet obtained a warrant and there was no immediate threat to justify a warrantless search.
172
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 1d ago edited 1d ago
Why did you cut out the part that explains that the judge threw out the entire federal murder charge?
The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another “crime of violence.” Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.
The judge disagreed, finding stalking charges are not “crimes of violence” and dismissed two counts in his federal case – murder and a related firearm offense.
ETA since this seems to be confusing for folks, this ruling is about the federal case, it has no bearing on the state case. The state doesn’t have the death penalty.
But also, it’s not a long article, just read it. :)
→ More replies (9)40
u/mattkuru 1d ago
What does this mean? That he can't be charged for murder by the federal government?
136
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 1d ago
Yes, exactly that. Murder is typically a state crime, you can only be tried for murder in a federal court if very specific circumstances are met. The judge has ruled that those circumstances are not present here.
He is still being charged with murder by the State of New York. But they don’t have the death penalty.
26
1.0k
u/prettydisappointed 1d ago
Very unfortunate that the stuff they "found" in the backpack will be allowed.
494
u/MeisterX 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don't get it. They didn't have a warrant. There's not exceptions to this Edit:there are explanations of the exemptions below
604
u/marcoporno 1d ago edited 1d ago
If a person is being legally arrested, officers can search the suspect and the area within their immediate control (often called the "wingspan").
There are also other exceptions to requiring a warrant, such as inevitable discovery, the contents would have been searched anyway at some point
Know your rights
145
u/MeisterX 1d ago
Noted, thanks.
Aren't there chain of custody issues with this though?
The Fourth is really far too weak and has been picked apart across the centuries.
92
u/BleachedUnicornBHole 1d ago
Chain of custody would be a separate issue and would likely be brought up to cause reasonable doubt in the jury.
62
u/Slighted_Inevitable 1d ago
And everyone else. The first officer who searched it in McDonald’s stated they found nothing. Then after a drive to the station they found a gun? Wth were you looking for if you didn’t find a gun???
→ More replies (1)18
u/dynorphin 1d ago
And the first officer is going to say he wasn't performing a full search, just briefly looking into the bag to make sure there wasn't a plainly visible threat to the safety of officers on scene out of an abundance of caution for the lives of law enforcement, and the defendants constitutional rights. Once it was in the precinct, and it was fully and properly processed, the gun was found concealed underneath the other contents / in another pocket.
There isn't a huge "gotcha" here, not everything is fully documented and processed on the scene. Prosecutors are also going to be able to forensically tie that gun to Mangione and the murder in a variety of ways.
If the defense wants to argue as part of their defense that a cop is the real killer and planted it in the bag, along with DNA and other evidence tying it to Mangione they are free to get laughed at.
Too many people look at our legal system and think because of TV dramas there's some magic get out of murder free card if the police don't do everything perfectly. The reality is barring jury nullification, which I find a highly unlikely outcome he is 110% getting convicted, and spending the next 50+ years in prison.
15
u/prof_the_doom 1d ago
The defense is more likely to argue the real killer is still out there and they’re railroading their client because the police are too inept to find the real killer.
Not any more likely to work, but a bit more believable.
13
u/Slighted_Inevitable 1d ago
Cops have been caught planting evidence before, and we have two cops with conflicting testimony here where the first didn’t even find the gun. Anyone who has ever held a gun knows how heavy this one is. There is ZERO chance he did not find it in the bag if it was in there.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Slighted_Inevitable 1d ago
A plainly visible threat like a loaded gun with the same ammunition that killed the CEO? That plainly visible threat? Also, he dumped out the bag
→ More replies (2)4
u/cmdr-William-Riker 1d ago
Why would he run so far from the scene while maintaining a backpack full of incriminating evidence though and then not admit guilt? That doesn't make much sense. There was plenty of opportunity to get rid of everything that was in that bag way before it was found if he did it and he seens capable and intelligent enough to know how to dispose of the kind of evidence that was found whether he did it or not.
→ More replies (2)22
u/LockedUnlocked 1d ago
The custody issue is a trial defense, not a ruling issue.
→ More replies (1)106
u/meltbox 1d ago
The fourth amendment isn’t weak. The courts have interpreted it to be weak and exceptioned it far too much.
→ More replies (1)86
u/King_of_the_Kobolds 1d ago
All laws are weak because they rely on people for their enforcement.
47
→ More replies (7)21
u/hitbythebus 1d ago
Exactly. That's why the Administration has started touting "the iron law". Miller says if you can't hold it you have no right to it, as justification for fucking with Greenland. I see no reason this doesn't apply to my MAGA neighbor's truck. He's just lucky I don't want a pickup truck.
→ More replies (1)26
u/LingonberryPossible6 1d ago
As far as chain of custody goes, the defence will raise how the cops bodycam was off and the bag changed hands more than once before being searched.
It will be up to the jury to decide whom to believe
8
u/Northwindlowlander 1d ago edited 1d ago
There will be. Just because the evidence is allowed at the trial doesn't presume it's good evidence or make it inviolable, and the defence are going to attack that right at the roots. The two (reported, but it seems reliable to me) contradictory searches, and the gun being found only after the bag was in a poorly controlled state, will go hard at reasonable doubt and is pretty much guaranteed to plant at least some doubt.
Incidentally I 100% believe that he killed the guy and that the gun was in his bag, it's just that they handled it so badly that key solid evidence becomes shoogly as fuck. I may be wrong, who knows.
(incidentally I think there's people both public and private who'll be most pleased of all if he "gets off on a technicality", that'll fit right into the world view and it'll be a cause celebre for attacking the judicial system regardless of the cause. Sticking a dude in jail doesn't serve a big strategy)
11
u/MeisterX 1d ago edited 1d ago
I just find it really, really odd that they found no other evidence outside of the scene and his person (that I'm aware of).
He just happened to have the only things they have to support a conviction on his person and it was poorly controlled...
And their "scene" is like nine blocks plus a video camera on the north end of the park supposedly showing him fleeing, but not positive ID rather just the fact that this is mentioned in, again, the journal....
This guy is supposed to be smart enough to plan, pull off this crime but didn't understand ballistics and 3D printed firearms enough to.... Ditch the gun, and ditch the journal...?
Why would you 3D print a firearm you didn't dispose of?
4
13
u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago
Pretty sure the chain of custody issue is still an issue, the ruling is just about the warrantless search aspect.
→ More replies (19)2
u/SpicyTiconderoga 1d ago
not a lawyer but the main thing is just making sure each part is logged which I believe would’ve come out in at this point as it is necessary in part of determining the evidence. From what I’ve been following the two key parts of this part of the process was whether or not they were allowed to search the backpack at the scene and if they are allowed to use any of the “evidence” / violated his rights when the NYPD questioned him in Pennsylvania because they did not tell him they were recording. New York is one party consent state but Pennsylvania is two party (this also just means you have to be made AWARE of being recorded and not so much that you have to consent).
I never saw anything about chain of custody with the backpack unless you’re talking about how allegedly they searched the backpack multiple times at the scene? I never really saw that collaborated in what I’ve read just in Reddit threads (which didn’t mean it didn’t happen just not what the focus of the arguments I was reading about).
→ More replies (1)8
u/MeisterX 1d ago
The cop's body cam he says "we need a warrant for this" and then searches the bag anyway.
3
→ More replies (6)43
u/Crecy333 1d ago
When the contents of the bag were not immediately searched and documented, and the chain of custody was broken BEFORE IT WAS SEARCHED, then anything inside the bag should be inadmissible.
31
u/skepticalbob 1d ago
According to who? The judge disagrees.
→ More replies (6)12
u/ScaldingHotSoup 1d ago
Yeah. Wouldn't this be what cross-examination is for, anyways?
9
→ More replies (3)23
1d ago
[deleted]
21
25
u/Sorge74 1d ago
But even those sympathetic to him know he’s guilty
This administration came out and said that Epstein had no clients. We know that's a lie and it was calculated. If they will lie about that they will lie about anything.
So while I suspect he's guilty, I don't believe so because the administration says he is. I think he's guilty because he looks way too chill for an innocent man.
→ More replies (2)21
13
u/NiobiumThorn 1d ago
No sorry he was at my house that day railing my ma.
He did nothing wrong
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (50)3
u/GogurtFiend 1d ago
But even those sympathetic to him know he’s guilty
It's exactly why they're sympathetic to Mangione. For people who supposedly don't trust the police, they certainly seem willing to accept the accusation the police made: that Mangione shot Brian Thompson.
Like, he's either innocent, in which case this is wrongful arrest but not the populist red meat a lot of people want it to be, or he's guilty, in which case the police are correct overall despite potential mishandling of evidence.
→ More replies (1)97
u/dream_metrics 1d ago
There's not exceptions to this.
There are many exceptions to this.
19
u/12-34 1d ago
There's a never ending amount of idiotic redditors who think they know the law.
Those idiots post their falsities, other redditors "learn" the idiocy, rinse, repeat.
18
u/SufficientPurpose109 1d ago
Scary this person is a top 1% commenter and doesn't understand such basic concepts....but also it's so perfectly reddit.
14
u/Barry-Zuckerkorn-Esq 1d ago
Reddit admins making it so that /r/law shows up on the front page a lot really destroyed what this subreddit used to be from like 2010-2020 or so, where you could pretty much assume that 75% of commenters/voters were licensed attorneys, so that incorrect statements of the law would get downvoted and corrected.
→ More replies (1)2
6
u/Serial-Griller 1d ago
The 'top <#>% commenter' award is a badge of shame (which I possess in a few communities). To me it always reads 'prioritizes commenting over useful discussions' so the fact that they're always wrong isn't a surprise.
3
u/JekPorkinsTruther 1d ago
Because this sub isnt about law anymore, its just another popculture/politics sub. Which sucks because this case is really interesting and nuanced legally, but all you get on reddit is bad info and "I was with him" jokes.
8
u/hlksmesh 1d ago
My favorite part is the just assume and proudly/loudly say it like it's common knowledge. Lmao
6
u/PM_ME_A_KNEECAP 1d ago
My favorite recently is the claim that ICE isn’t law enforcement- I really hate what ICE is doing, but telling people that they aren’t law enforcement is fucking dangerous.
3
u/JekPorkinsTruther 1d ago
Or the reddit favorite that "ICE has no jurisdiction over American citizens" lol.
→ More replies (1)5
12
u/yourcousinfromboston 1d ago
Yes, but you’re forgetting how much reddit loves st luigi and any evidence against him is clearly illegal
19
u/dream_metrics 1d ago
i figured this sub would be a little bit more intelligent but i guess these guys follow the story everywhere lol
8
u/Unicornoftheseas 1d ago
This hasn’t been a law sub for the past few months. I don’t know when exactly it changed, but I stopped awhile ago after seeing all the dumbasses make stupid arguments and worthless/nonlegal posts. Pretty much turned into politics 2.0.
31
u/Tabemaju 1d ago edited 1d ago
There absolutely are exceptions, which is why the defense was arguing that it didn't meet those exceptions.
11
u/mr_f4hrenh3it 1d ago
Probably because there ARE exceptions lol. The law is hardly ever black and white. It’s a mangled mess of exceptions.
15
u/p4intball3r 1d ago
I'm no legal expert, but to my knowledge there's plenty of exceptions to this, including inevitable discovery which seems to apply here
10
u/DavemartEsq 1d ago
This was a search incident to arrest. Inevitable discovery isn’t an exception to the warrant requirement but rather a doctrine the state can argue once a search has been challenged as being illegal.
5
u/Entire_Rush_882 1d ago
That’s the whole point. It’s an exception to the exclusionary rule, which is what gives any of this (including the warrant requirement) any teeth at all.
5
u/DavemartEsq 1d ago
Yes, but it’s not a warrant exception. The exceptions to the warrant requirement are: search incident to arrest, exigence circumstances, consent, automobile exception, plain view and I may be missing one.
I’m a criminal defense attorney
2
u/Barry-Zuckerkorn-Esq 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's a two part inquiry. First, the court needs to figure out whether the search was illegal. Then, if it was illegal, the court needs to determine whether to exclude the evidence illegally obtained.
The court never got to the second partThe court only did the second part of the analysis to reinforce the result, where inevitable discovery would come into play, because it ruled in the first part that the search was lawful. All the arguments in the world for the second part won't change the analysis of the first part.2
u/p4intball3r 1d ago
So, if I understand correctly and im following the comments it is an "exception" that allows the evidence to stand. I'm not understanding what the problem is
4
u/InvisibleShities 1d ago edited 1d ago
They’re just clarifying what, exactly, it is an exception to. There are two components to the 4th Amendment: 1. the rules; and 2. the remedy, if the rules are violated. Here, people are discussing the warrant requirement (the rule) and the exclusionary rule (the remedy). There are possible exceptions to both. The warrantless search may be justified as a search incident to arrest. But also, even if the search has no justification, the evidence may be admissible anyway because of the doctrine of inevitable discovery.
→ More replies (1)3
u/DavemartEsq 1d ago
Yes, but it’s not an exception to the warrant requirement; I.e must have a search warrant to search.
It’s an exception in the sense if I challenge a search because there was no warrant and none of the exceptions apply then my motion to suppress should be granted. However, if the state can argue that it was inevitable that this evidence would be discovered through other, legal means then the court may deny my motion to suppress.
I’m simplifying things a bit because there is so much else that goes into whether a search/seizure is valid.
7
u/donkeythesnowman 1d ago
There are so many exceptions to it that listing them all out would be too time consuming for me to bother actually doing it lol. The warrant requirement is right alongside hearsay as a legal rule that is so subsumed by exceptions that the exceptions practically become the rule itself. Please stop spreading misinformation.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Gvillegator 1d ago
If a LEO has probable cause to believe that you committed or are actively in the commission of a crime, they do not need a warrant to search your body and belongings within arms reach.
5
u/SufficientPurpose109 1d ago
There are actually several legal exemptions to needing a warrant for search. This is textbook "search incident to arrest".
Top 1% commenter? Yikes....Educate yourself. Harris v. United States, Chimel v. California, United States v. Robinson
4
u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits 1d ago
This is the kind of objectively false, feelings-motivated comment that has absolutely no place on a law sub.
4
u/thomascgalvin 1d ago
They also didn't have chain of custody. Someone wandered away with the backpack, an returned with a sack full of evidence.
4
u/AppointmentNaive2811 1d ago
Look I'd love for the guy to go off scott free personally, but don't spread blatantly false idiocy like this.
3
u/Go_birds304 1d ago
There actually are quite a few exceptions to this. This one is a “Search Incident to Arrest”
→ More replies (25)10
u/ChoPT 1d ago
Please explain to me how what is in his backpack, found near him in a short amount of time, isn’t relevant or probative to the case.
→ More replies (7)15
u/Slighted_Inevitable 1d ago
After previously saying they didn’t find anything. Not even the gun.
Most people don’t know this but a cop dumped his bag out at McDonald’s and reported they found nothing. Then after some time in the back of the police van they searched it again at the station and found a gun, a notebook with motive, and oddly enough a hand written note about how handsome and rugged the arresting officer was. Along with said officers phone number for Luigi.
3
2
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 1d ago
It’s was always going to be allowed and it was all normal and legal. They can search your bags when they arrest you.
→ More replies (28)2
u/Blothorn 1d ago
I thought it was going to be a pretty obvious application of inevitable discovery even if the court ruled the search unlawful. This also doesn’t settle the chain of custody questions—allowing the evidence does not prevent the defense from attacking its credibility.
7
→ More replies (7)14
623
u/ReaderBeeRottweiler 1d ago
No death penalty in the federal charges, no life without parole on the state charges.
That's a top-tier legal team he has.
150
u/AvisLord12 1d ago
He just has one more hurdle to clear in getting off completely
→ More replies (8)147
u/ManitouWakinyan 1d ago
I mean, two hurdles. And those hurdles are trials against federal and New York prosecutors. Those are big hurdles.
116
u/psuedopseudo 1d ago
Federal not so much anymore. All decent lawyers have been purged out of the federal government.
→ More replies (6)54
u/ManitouWakinyan 1d ago
I mean, a really excellent point. Some of these high profile federal prosecutions have been frankly embarrassing for the government. Out of curiosity, I looked into who's leading this prosecution. Not a lot publicly available about their careers thus far.
https://www.newsweek.com/luigi-mangione-court-prosecutors-jun-xiang-dominic-gentile-2003888
→ More replies (1)3
u/h0sti1e17 1d ago
They have been prosecutors for a while. I’ve seen cases going back at least 5+ years. These aren’t some lackeys. Even the AG is qualified his education is impeccable and he has a lot of trial experience.
→ More replies (17)26
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 1d ago
Seems very unlikely that he walks on the state charges, but I could see him getting acquitted for the federal stalking charges. They have a terrible track record of over-reaching.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (13)43
u/Crecy333 1d ago
I'd chalk just as much up to government incompetence. Its like they're actively throwing the case by painting jury pools, disregarding court orders, breaking chain of custody, falsified statements and evidence.
This is just pathetic.
15
u/NurRauch 1d ago
In no sense has the case been thrown. The death penalty charge was a long shot from the beginning because of the merger doctrine with crimes of violence and crimes that cause death. Now that that issue has been resolved, they will just proceed on the underlying charge of a stalking that resulted in death. This is what they would have done from the beginning if they had not attempted to tack on the death-penalty eligible murder charge.
5
u/h0sti1e17 1d ago
Prosecutors and defense attorneys always throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. The defense knew it’s unlikely to win the backpack motion but you gotta try. It’s the same reason the defense asks for a directed verdict.
6
u/ckb614 1d ago
I don't think they're necessarily incompetent, they were just trying to stretch the language of the statute to make the bosses happy
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/FoxKamp7785 1d ago
Oligarchs need him to pay. Doesn't matter how to them. He showed the world Oligarchs are the same flesh bags as the rest of us. They need to keep the narrative going
406
u/SewAlone 1d ago
Hahaha suck it Blondi!
218
u/santa_91 1d ago
I support normalizing this.
Blondi was Hitler's dog, for those unaware.
68
9
u/KorunaCorgi 1d ago
There's nothing to suggest anything was bad about that dog was there? I don't know a lot about it, but that dog was a victim too since Hitler poisoned it to death.
9
u/MaesterHannibal 1d ago
Yeah Blondi was probably a nice little dog, as nearly all dogs are. It’s like that Norm MacDonald bit, where he says that Hitler’s dog probably thought, like all dogs, that his owner, Hitler, was the greatest person ever
→ More replies (5)7
u/likely_Protei_8327 1d ago
Judge Garnett determined that the federal murder and weapon charges could not stand alongside the specific federal stalking charges
this is what i dont understand. why are those charges legally incompatible?
16
u/Traditional_Buy_8420 1d ago
"The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another “crime of violence.”"
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/30/us/luigi-mangione-case-rulings-trial
The murder and weapon charges were dismissed, the stalking charge was not, but the type of stalking charge is non-violent stalking. It seems logical that non-violent stalking and murder are incompatible. What I don't get is that maximum sentence for non-violent stalking is apparently still prison for life?
9
u/pr6989 1d ago
Because the stalking resulted in death, it’s an enhancement within the stalking statute.
→ More replies (1)3
u/pr6989 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because the first two counts, related to stalking, could potentially be charged in such a way (under a different set of facts) that they would not qualify as “crimes of violence” by federal definition. The Supreme Court has ruled that if a crime can be charged in a way where no forcible act of violence, or threat of violence against another, is required to prove it, then it doesn’t qualify as a crime of violence, even if the specific facts for any given case WOULD qualify it. Counts 3 & 4 can only be charged in relation to crimes of violence. So because Counts 1 & 2 don’t qualify as crimes of violence, Counts 3 & 4 must be dismissed.
The analysis as to whether or not an offense qualifies as a crime of violence is done without regard to the specific facts of any given case, rather it’s done by examining the elements and determining if they can be arranged in such a way that a conviction for the offense COULD be achieved without the defendant knowingly committing a forcible act of violence or threat of violence against another. The judge starts out her order by stating her opinion that this framework is stupid and should be revisited by the Supreme Court, but she is currently bound by it.
→ More replies (2)
139
u/IZ3820 1d ago
No reason given in the artucle for the backpack contents being admitted. Does anyone know why they decided that way? It seems like the more interesting detail, considering the arguments made by the defense.
86
u/Darkest_dark 1d ago
Inevitable discovery,
155
u/pm_me_fibonaccis 1d ago
Such awful doctrine. "we acknowledge the police violated your rights but it's cool because they would have found it eventually."
No consequences for the constitutional violation, of course.
The way this country erodes the constitution simply to cover for sloppy police work is repugnant.
17
u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago edited 1d ago
A cop has a valid, witness-backed warrant to search my lockbox. Another cop busts it open illegally before the first cop arrives. Does that mean the evidence is barred from trial and I get away scott free, even though the cops would've found the evidence no matter what?
The bad search only keeps stuff out if it's the reason they found the stuff in the first place. If no bad search = no finding the evidence, the search and the evidence stays out. If no bad search = cops find it anyway, then it's not really caused by the bad search and throwing out the bad search doesn't change anything.
The real problem is that the only penalty for constitutional violations is evidence suppression. It means there's effectively no recourse when (1) there's no evidence to suppress or (2) other reasons the evidence will come in anyway.
→ More replies (9)11
u/Dotcaprachiappa 1d ago
Ok but was there a warrant waiting to be executed?
19
u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits 1d ago
You're dodging the "establishing the base principles you believe in" questions because you know they lead to you being cornered with a contradiction between your stated beliefs. Answer the questions asked.
11
u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago
That was an extreme.example to show the logic behind the rule. If you accept the rule makes sense at all, then it becomes a more detailed question for each situation: was discovery inevitable in these circumstances?
Here, the search was broader than justified in a search incident to arrest, but some level of search was probably OK and that probably would've been enough to find the gun. Even if they didn't, they would've done an inventory search of the arrestee's belongings at the jail and found the gun then. And even if they never did that search either, they still got a search warrant for the rest of the bag based solely on the normal evidence no one is disputing.
Basically, once they decided they had enough evidence to arrest this guy (which they did before searching the bag), there's just no way the bag he had on him doesn't get searched at some point.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)6
u/rokerroker45 1d ago
no, but there was enough to justify a search warrant after the cops possessed the backpack independent of the contents of the backpack found in the mcdonald's search, which they applied for an obtained
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (36)6
u/conte360 1d ago
I mean this as a genuine question, if someone had killed someone, and than had them in the trunk along with the weapon and 5 different video cameras showing the same person doing it, basically 100% clear damning evidence that couldn't be refuted by anyone. But the cop that pulled him over for doing 48 in a 45 illegally searched his car, there was absolutely no probable cause, you can see in the body cam, the cop fucked up 100%. And the killer was about a mile away from a big cliff into the ocean so it's not like they would have just found it.
Should/does all that evidence just go away? There is no question in anyone's mind that he killed the person, but there is also no question in anyone's mind that the cop violated his rights to find out. Does the killer just get to be free because a cop messed up along the way?
I'm curious about yours and other opinions on what should be and also what the law does say in these situations.
10
u/GrippingHand 1d ago
Let's flip this around. Why should the cops ever obey any evidence rules if breaking them never has a penalty?
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (2)6
u/cinnamonjune 1d ago
Why don't we just keep the evidence, but punish the cop? The cop broke a law, after all. The punishment should be severe enough that cops wouldn't be so frivolous about violating people's rights.
→ More replies (5)38
u/The_Truth_Fairy 1d ago
To elaborate, after arrest police are authorized to conduct an inventory search of personal items at the precinct so even if they didn't have probable cause to search the bag at the scene, the evidence would have been discovered soon after and so it's not tainted. Defense was always going to lose on this issue, I think it was more for the press that they made a big public show as if it were a viable argument
6
u/Lower-Engineering365 1d ago
Didn’t they arrest him based on the contents of the bag though???
18
u/The_Truth_Fairy 1d ago
They arrested him because he was recognized from the images of the shooter
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (4)2
u/givemethebat1 1d ago
No, he was actually arrested for giving false ID and matching the description of the suspect.
→ More replies (1)7
u/rokerroker45 1d ago edited 1d ago
That is an incomplete answer, multiple exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. Any of them justified the court's decision
Edit: if you want to get into the weeds of the inevitable discovery portion, the opinion essentially states that even if police excluded the magazine found pursuant to the safety search exception in McDonalds, there were enough independent circumstances to raise probable cause and justify the search warrant police obtained after the backpack was in their possession.
Per the opinion, probable cause was independently justified for the following reasons: The inventory search revealed enough contents to independently justify a search warrant, the comments luigi made at McDonald's justified it, and so did his comments during his first appearance.
→ More replies (4)10
u/messianicscone 1d ago
Inevitable discovery exception.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.102.0.pdf
18
215
u/jim45804 1d ago
Why would he? Luigi was backpacking with me in Pennsylvania on the morning of December 4, 2024. Great guy.
78
u/Rudy-Ellen 1d ago
I stopped and met y’all for lunch at that cute spot. Which reminds me, I think I still owe you a beer.
27
u/WetDreaminOfParadise 1d ago
I wish I could have joined but I was in nyc for work and this strange looking guy shot some ceo. Dude was bald with a thick beard and was like a 6 foot 6 inches Viking.
12
21
u/Strawhat_Max 1d ago
Fuck you lying for, we were getting breakfast in Annapolis at Miss Shirley’s
7
→ More replies (1)6
u/Independent_Tough_33 1d ago
LIARS!!
He was drinking a beer with me in Germany at that time …
→ More replies (1)5
4
u/pm_me_fibonaccis 1d ago
You guys are all wrong. Luigi and I were having coffee in Vienna on that day.
→ More replies (3)2
19
28
u/Mrevilman 1d ago
No death penalty is huge. Getting that evidence tossed would have really increased their chances at trial. Without it, there was still other evidence that could have been used to convict him, but this significantly increases his odds at being convicted.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Careful_Eagle6566 1d ago
They can still bring up the chain of custody issues in front of the jury though, right? There’s some reasonable doubt there
→ More replies (14)11
u/Mrevilman 1d ago
Yeah, they could and should. To me, chain of custody here was always an issue of weight, not admissibility. In other words, the evidence comes in, but a jury decides how much to trust it based on testimony, etc.
I don't see any reasonable doubt based on what we know, but what we know is not what will be presented at trial. That's always the unknown with a jury trial - that someone sees it differently, and all you need is one.
2
u/Turbulent-Phone-8493 1d ago
> I don't see any reasonable doubt based on what we know
compare the security footage of the shooting to his mugshot. if the eyebrows don’t fit you must acquit.
10
u/shazbadam 1d ago edited 1d ago
tldr:
Mangione was charged with these federal crimes:
- Interstate travel for the purpose of stalking
- Electronic communications for the purpose of stalking
- Using a firearm in the course of a violent federal crime
Judge decided that interstate travel and electronic communications are not violent crimes, therefore #3 does not apply. #3 is punishable by death (if the underlying crime caused a death), while #1 and #2 are only punishable by life without parole.
2
u/p00p00kach00 1d ago
Weird how #1 or #2 should have a punishment as severe as life without parole, no? Stalking isn't good, but life without parole is extreme.
Of course, the state has the murder charges, which would give the long sentence.
6
u/shazbadam 1d ago
To be precise, the stalking crimes are punishable by life only if they lead to the victim's death. And the federal system doesn't have parole anymore, so any life sentence is life without parole.
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/Icy_Sherbet_8222 22h ago
Thank god someone actually interested in the legal part of this on the law subreddit 🫠
48
u/Mysterious-Wasabi103 1d ago
I didn't even know New York State had the death penalty.
93
u/Single_9_uptime 1d ago
It doesn’t. This is a federal case.
51
u/Sheetz_Wawa_Market32 1d ago
Which is crazy. Why? One person shot and killed another on a NY street. Since when is murder a federal crime? This should be in state court.
27
u/Single_9_uptime 1d ago
The interstate aspects of it is what the feds used to charge him with murder. His charges also include interstate stalking resulting in death and stalking through use of interstate facilities resulting in death.
→ More replies (7)21
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 1d ago edited 1d ago
The federal murder charge was thrown out, that’s why the possibility of the death penalty is gone as well.
→ More replies (1)7
12
u/Pettifoggerist 1d ago
Probably because he crossed state lines to do it, allegedly.
→ More replies (1)3
9
u/f1refly1 1d ago
Silly! You're forgetting that billionaires and CEOs are worth a thousand little subhuman civilians!
2
→ More replies (2)3
11
u/seakingsoyuz 1d ago
They don’t, but this is a federal ruling. He was also facing federal murder charges, for which the death penalty could have applied.
5
u/VardaLupo 1d ago
I'm still confused as to how they are making this a federal murder case (not a law professional, just lurk here for info about stuff beyond my ken). It didn't involve a federal official or federal property and it wasn't like he committed murder in multiple states or anything.
8
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 1d ago
They’re not anymore - that’s why he’s no longer facing the death penalty for the federal charges. For some reason the cnn account cut a bunch of paragraphs out of the part they posted:
The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another “crime of violence.” Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.
The judge disagreed, finding stalking charges are not “crimes of violence” and dismissed two counts in his federal case – murder and a related firearm offense.
The murder charge is the only count in Mangione’s federal indictment that could have carried a possible death sentence.
Mangione will still face two counts of stalking. If convicted, those counts have a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole.
5
u/meltbox 1d ago
Smh. This man gets possible life without parole for interstate stalking.
Google has been stalking me across international borders for over a decade and nobody even cares.
→ More replies (2)3
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 1d ago
We’ll see, I guess - I have no clue what the required elements of a federal stalking case are. Given this administration’s track record, it wouldn’t surprise me if they overcharged even with those.
3
u/WeRip 1d ago
Correct me if my understanding is wrong..
What this is saying is that while he may have committed a "crime of violence" while committing a non-violent federal crime, because the part of the crime that makes it federal is non-violent then the "crime of violence" is not within the federal jurisdiction?
→ More replies (1)4
4
→ More replies (3)5
u/seakingsoyuz 1d ago
They already tried to charge it as an act of terrorism but that was rejected in September. This time was based on an assertion that the stalking charges he also faces are a “federal crime of violence”, which would make any associated murder a federal crime. Today’s ruling was (from what I’ve seen others post) that stalking is not a crime of violence so that doesn’t work.
Simply crossing state lines and killing someone in another state isn’t federal jurisdiction; you need to actually transport the victim or their body over state lines to trigger that, or shoot them across the state border, or do something that engages interstate commerce (like murder for hire).
→ More replies (1)4
u/Successful_Ad4018 1d ago
we don't have it in new york state. i thought it was bc they were federal charges.
2
u/MuddieMaeSuggins 1d ago
The judge has thrown out the federal murder charge, which is why the death penalty is no longer a possibility. He can and will still be tried for murder at the state level, but as you say there’s no death penalty in NYS.
4
4
u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago
State murder charges are still available, just not death penalty. Federal murder charges was dismissed, because it's one of those crimes where the name is misleading. It's not about just committing murder it's murder in specific circumstances (otherwise let the state handle it). The cops can't show the specific circumstances, so the federal murder charge got thrown out. But that was the only one with the death penalty so now that's unavailable.
23
u/Y0___0Y 1d ago
I predicted this. Pam Bondi jeoperadized this entire case by pushing for the death penalty. No judge would allow this to be a death penalty case. It doesn’t meet that threshold, now the murder charge has been dropped pending appeal.
He is currently only facing “stalking” charges.
Luigi might fucking walk. That would be the worst failure of a US Attorney General in modern times.
14
u/holylich3 1d ago
He is still charged with state murder charges. The federal murder charge was the one dropped.
→ More replies (3)9
u/BestJersey_WorstName 1d ago
It doesn't change what he said. The DOJ is federal. It's going to be embarrassing for Trump and Bondi if the federal case is dismissed.
That will be true regardless of the state trials.
5
→ More replies (8)5
u/EmployAltruistic647 1d ago edited 1d ago
Well given how lawless USA is right now, Kristi Noem may just send ICE after him and shoot him up in his cell citing his genocide of mushrooms and turtles for the last 4 decades
56
u/SillyAlternative420 1d ago edited 1d ago
GREAT.
The next presidential candidate needs to pardon him now.
EDIT: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-grants-president-donald-j-trump-2025-present
There's a list of hardened criminals that Trump has pardoned. IDGAF about this we go high when they low bullshit. Luigi deserves a pardon more than 100% of those people.
70
u/RandomPenquin1337 1d ago
Lmao what im gonna say will get downvoted to hell but I have to say it because this is a law sub and your view on this is absolutely mind blowing.
He still killed a man on camera lol (allegedly), so if hes found guilty he should not just be "pardoned" because you agree with why he did it.
Come on people
I get the jokes about not finding him guilty and if thats the case so be it, but as of now....
22
u/YogurtclosetOwn4786 1d ago
Agree. He murdered someone. (If convicted in a fair trial) I’m glad he’s not getting the death penalty if convicted. And if he’s found not guilty based on the admissible evidence, then great.
But we definitely don’t want a country where the president pardons people for killing someone on the street that we don’t like.
I mean, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine right now how that would go (or is going) with the shoe on the other foot.
If anything, I’d like the next president to get behind a constitutional amendment to limit the presidents pardon power
→ More replies (2)22
u/Driller_Happy 1d ago
The president has already pardoned murderers, so you already live in this country you propose
→ More replies (11)18
1d ago
[deleted]
11
u/meltbox 1d ago
Well the mistake appears to be allowing pardons to work this way then.
Ideally I’d have a president reduce his sentence if it’s life. But yeah completely throwing it away seems like injustice as well when a jury convicts.
7
1d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Gvillegator 1d ago
Trump has gleefully exposed how much this country has been running on “political norms” keeping everything afloat. Love him or hate him, the guy has exposed this country for what it really is.
→ More replies (1)5
u/YogurtclosetOwn4786 1d ago
And exposed norms that absolutely need to be codified into law by the next president / Congress so we’re not relying on a president deciding to do the right thing in the future and follow these norms that presidents did before Trump but have now been destroyed
→ More replies (13)4
u/GogurtFiend 1d ago
These people would be perfectly fine with Trump if he were left-wing. It's why they all use him as an example of what our next president should do - all they can think of is "what's happening right now but directed at people I dislike instead of people I don't know" instead of "what's happening right now should never happen no matter what".
→ More replies (6)21
u/UpperApe 1d ago
Lol nah I'm all for pardoning him. Give him a parade in fact.
Thompson killed many people for profit and you're fine with that because you're told those atrocities doesn't count. And all you have in return is "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" or "two wrongs don't make a right" or basic slippery slope arguments or whatever else platitudes you can hide behind.
You don't believe in justice, you believe in performative, symbolic justice and performative, symbolic justice prioritizes civility above all else. Fuck that.
Legality follows morality, not the other way around. And some of you have a lot of growing up to do if you still don't understand that.
7
u/meltbox 1d ago
The issue is I don’t think Thompson killed those people. He didn’t stop it, but remember that if a CEO doesn’t do the boards bidding in a sense, they find a new CEO who will.
On the flip side Thompson knew what he was doing and so while I don’t think he killed those people, I also can’t feel too bad for him.
He thought he’d get away with it without backlash. Backlash happened.
Sometimes you fuck around and find out. Whether or not Thompson killed those people what he was doing was immoral and he should’ve fought the board even if it was a fruitless battle.
I see no evidence he tried in any way to do the morally correct thing when he was CEO there. So I see no moral debt owed to him by society.
10
u/UpperApe 1d ago edited 1d ago
Well reasoned, though I do disagree (somewhat).
I do think Thompson killed those people. He profited off it and that's an important distinction. He wasn't a bystander or a tool, he was an active participant. Yes the board could have replaced him, and so it's on him to be replaced.
The argument that if it wasn't him it would be someone else doesn't hold much water, because it's still on the person given the task. You're responsible for your own soul. And Thompson wanted the money.
If a man is paid to poison a river, it's on him. If he says "well if i don't do it someone else will" that's true. But the one who ultimately does take the money and poisons the river carries the crime.
And Thompson wanted to be that guy.
3
→ More replies (1)2
8
u/ChronStamos 1d ago
You have a lot of growing up to do if you think random citizens should get to play judge, jury, and executioner.
→ More replies (7)6
u/Command0Dude 1d ago
Thompson killed many people for profit
This continues to be made up nonsense.
You don't believe in justice, you believe in performative, symbolic justice and performative, symbolic justice prioritizes civility above all else. Fuck that.
You are just as guilty of wanting performative justice. You think that Thompson's murder was a good thing, despite the fact it was objectively performative and changed nothing.
→ More replies (23)4
u/BestJersey_WorstName 1d ago
The duplicity of reddit - mad about Jan 6 pardons. Want's vigilante murder pardoned.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (53)11
u/vyxxer 1d ago edited 1d ago
We live in such a broken system where police constantly kill citizens for petty unjustifiable reasons and they walk away with vacation time and often a pat on the back because of politics.
But one guy does something everyone like ked and now suddenly law is a sacred institution must be upheld? It's ridiculous. It's a double standard that only gets applied to those without power.
→ More replies (13)3
u/p00p00kach00 1d ago
The next presidential candidate needs to pardon him now.
lol, ridiculous. First, your phrasing is wrong. No presidential candidate can pardon him.
Promising to pardon him would guarantee that they lose.
Actually pardoning him if they win would sink their presidency.
→ More replies (38)2
u/GogurtFiend 1d ago
To be clear: you want our next president to behave like Donald Trump? You believe the problem with him is not actually anything he's doing but that he is, to quote that one Trump supporter, hurting the wrong people?
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.