- cross-posted to:
- luigimangione
- cross-posted to:
- luigimangione
Summary
Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, has asked his supporters to limit the number of photos they send him to 5 at a time due to overwhelming volume and screening delays.
Charged with murder, he has pleaded not guilty. Mangione’s case sparked debate about healthcare, with supporters sending fan mail and donations.
His legal defense fund has raised over $615,000. He expressed gratitude for the letters, acknowledging support across “political, racial, and even class divisions.”
Mangione also faces federal and Pennsylvania charges. His attorney argues he’s being treated differently, held in federal custody.
I seriously doubt that this sentiment will be part of their defense. They will not argue that the victim deserved it. That is not a legal defense for murder in the first place, and it would be based on the premise that Luigi is in fact guilty of murder. That would be a really bad way to defend their client.
They probably will establish that his treatment was unusual and harsher than typical for other defendents through documented facts. They may even bring police or prison staff to the stand to ask them about their views on the case that may establish cause for the unequal treatment (beyond happenstance). They may even extrapolate that into how that bias that led to his unequal treatment may draw into question the trustworthiness of the evidence gathered when so many authority figures have demonstrated an abnormal bias against the defendent and whether all due process and procedure was followed as legally required. Whether the police had probable cause before the arrest, whether the correct court has jurisdiction, whether the jury could have been biased against the defendent by the way the authorities framed the facts and events, etc.
But at no point will they ask about the CEO’s victims or anyone’s feelings on that matter. It just won’t be relevant or helpful in this murder trial. Morally relevant, yes. Legally, no.
That’s different.
They’ll highlight the amount of resources and actions that were taken to apprehend him along with his treatment since arrest to show it is not normal treatment.
But never give a possible reason why his treatment was/is unusual.
It’s going right up to saying what I quoted, but stopping a sentence before the judge has to say “objection”.
Like, that’s what lawyering to a jury is…
Walking them up to the conclusion you want, and making them believe they “figured it out”.
Some as running a con, that’s why the Venn Diagram of succesful lawyers and wealthy conmen looks like a solar eclipse.
They “just ask questions”.
That’s more likely, yes. That is still dangerous though. If the makeup of the jury is generally anti-vigilante justice, then bringing them to that point may backfire.
Yeah, but if they don’t need to get to that step
The defense doesn’t need the “why”, it’s just icing
Judges don’t say “objection”. Opposing council does.