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.

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.

  • sik0fewl@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    19 hours ago

    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.

      • Taldan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        86
        ·
        19 hours ago

        IANAL, but that’s surprising to me. He wasn’t read his rights at the time, and there were chain of custory issues

        Any lawyers know if it’s common for evidence to be allowed in situations like with Luigi?

        • DrFunkenstein@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Some lawyers made a video explaining that if the evidence was likely to have been found in a legal search anyways, it can usually still be admitted. I also ANAL

            • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              16 hours ago

              It would be expected that he would be read his rights and the bag searched in due course. It wasn’t like they looked in a random person’s bag then decided to arrest him.

              If the purpose of lawful searches is to prevent police from harassing just anyone on the off-chance, that purpose is still intact here.

              • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                I thought it was like Uno rules: if someone calls you out before you read them their Miranda Rights, you have to toss all your evidence…

              • moody@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                16 hours ago

                The issue is that a key piece of evidence that should have been a very obvious find at first glance wasn’t found at the scene, but only later after the officer had stopped searching the bag and driven to the police station.

                • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  You would need to produce reasonable suspicion of tampering with the evidence to have it removed as evidence. Some random local cops in buttfuck nowhere wouldn’t need to frame the murder of a New York private healthcare CEO on some schmuck, and there is other related evidence from Luigi’s computer and banking records which help legitimize the evidence in the bag.

      • village604@adultswim.fan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        18 hours ago

        It depends. It gives the defense a chance to destroy their case in front of a jury.

        They now get to show the jury the unlawful search, the turned off body cam during the search, and the broken chain of evidence.

      • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It’s funny seeing people simultaneously say “these charges are bullshit” and also “jury nullification can free him” because the jury nullification bit acknowledges he would be found guilty with the evidence presented.

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          So i think it’s accurate to say there are some real doubts he did it (eyebrows don’t match) There are also some issues with the collection of evidence. Then you have a little bit of memeing.

          There’s a good chance that the evidence presented could convince a jury he did do it. But they still have the option to nullify.

          Honestly I’ve haven’t seen one person state both those views in the same comment. I think you should interpret what you’re seeing as people having different opinions to arrive at the same outcome. That outcome being luigi going free

            • arrow74@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Disagree, this may blow your mind but we can draw different conclusions without either of us lying to the other.

              Also truthfully I don’t care if he did do it. He should go free either way

              • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                10 hours ago

                I think he should go to prison for life, unless proven reformed after a couple of decades. I say this for two reasons: He definitely did the crime, and his freedom is inconsequential to anybody else.