Attorney General Pam Bondi is directing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for Luigi Mangione if he is convicted of the murder of CEO Brian Thompson.
Not a lawyer, but this feels like it could backfire on the government. If they don’t offer an alternative to murder, i would imagine there would be a higher chance of him being found not guilty should there be any level of uncertainty in the jury.
Luigi’s attorneys have put together an informational website that’s a pretty decent source of info, you can find it here:
https://www.luigimangioneinfo.com/
According to the latest updates, it doesn’t look like the feds have handed over evidence during discovery like they’re supposed to, and now Bondi is coming in with max charges. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s a plea deal strategy, they just want to kill him. It’s not clear to me how much evidence has been turned over in the state trials.
It might be in there somewhere but I could not find it. I don’t necessarily doubt it, but would be nice with a less biased source than the lawyer of Luigi. Any news article that can sum up the legal problem of the evidence.
If an attorney lies about that, they can be disbarred. It’s not something that they’re likely to lie about in their position, and news articles reporting on it would probably cite them as a source.
I didn’t find the information on the linked website though. I’m sure it’s there, and I want to read about it. Can someone direct me to the specific page or some other source?
Yeah, I don’t know what the problem is, but attorneys in general make terrible fucking websites. Under the statements section, this is a quote from the (current) third post down, a court transcript:
And I want to just bring to your Honor’s attention my shock, frankly, that the chief of detectives of the NYPD along with the New York City mayor had time to sit down with HBO and put hair and makeup on and provide information about the arrest, the prosecution, their theory about the case, and evidence about Mr. Mangione that we have not even received.
This journal that they’re calling his manifesto, we have never have been provided copies.
There are other mentions here and there, but this is at least a clear and specific accusation: the NYPD was talking about evidence in a press conference which had not yet been provided to the defense.
In terms of believability, statements given before the court like this one are pretty high for me, as long as the judge is not biased towards the attorneys (not in this case), because lying to a court can be career ending.
I think the reference is more about how much harder it is to prove a capitol case versus proving lesser charges. He may get off completely if the jury won’t convict.
Not a lawyer, but this feels like it could backfire on the government. If they don’t offer an alternative to murder, i would imagine there would be a higher chance of him being found not guilty should there be any level of uncertainty in the jury.
These clowns refuse to produce evidence as required by criminal procedure…
Whole thing is already beyond tainted
Any source on this claim?
Saw a youthbe video, prosecutors didn’t turn over evidence within required time line. Presumably there is a court filing of support this claim.
I didn’t check myself
Luigi’s attorneys have put together an informational website that’s a pretty decent source of info, you can find it here: https://www.luigimangioneinfo.com/
According to the latest updates, it doesn’t look like the feds have handed over evidence during discovery like they’re supposed to, and now Bondi is coming in with max charges. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s a plea deal strategy, they just want to kill him. It’s not clear to me how much evidence has been turned over in the state trials.
It might be in there somewhere but I could not find it. I don’t necessarily doubt it, but would be nice with a less biased source than the lawyer of Luigi. Any news article that can sum up the legal problem of the evidence.
If an attorney lies about that, they can be disbarred. It’s not something that they’re likely to lie about in their position, and news articles reporting on it would probably cite them as a source.
I didn’t find the information on the linked website though. I’m sure it’s there, and I want to read about it. Can someone direct me to the specific page or some other source?
Yeah, I don’t know what the problem is, but attorneys in general make terrible fucking websites. Under the statements section, this is a quote from the (current) third post down, a court transcript:
There are other mentions here and there, but this is at least a clear and specific accusation: the NYPD was talking about evidence in a press conference which had not yet been provided to the defense.
In terms of believability, statements given before the court like this one are pretty high for me, as long as the judge is not biased towards the attorneys (not in this case), because lying to a court can be career ending.
Appreciated!
Oh this absolutely will backfire.
People get bolder when they realize they have nothing else to lose.
Jury nulification is a sweet set of words.
I think the reference is more about how much harder it is to prove a capitol case versus proving lesser charges. He may get off completely if the jury won’t convict.