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.
You must log in or # to comment.
Why would he? We were playing stardew valley together at the time, and he was showing me how to reel in the legendary fish.
Can confirm. I was working as an Uber driver at the time of the killing, and clearly remember delivering a pizza to a guy named Luigi and a surprisingly kinky fish-shaped sex toy to a guy with the username Gullible. They were both playing Stardew Valley.
I was watching a streamer and saw this all happening in the background of their livestream
I can confirm, I was the fish shaped sex toy.
Luigi is innocent anyway
Even in the completely off-chance that he wasn’t, we don’t give the death penalty to first-time murderers who committed one murder and no other crimes. No, the death penalty is for fishermen who are suspected of smuggling drugs.
suspectedaccused
We are luigi mangione
This is the way
Luigi is innocent anyway
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.
Probably not a good thing.
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?
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
Doesn’t that kind of go directly against the purpose of lawful searches?
Heh Anal
Ok, but why start by saying you like it in the butt?
That’s a good question.
Curious! Hmmm…
IANAL, but, HINAL.
It’s pertinent information for any exchange.
You’re assuming Bottom, he might be Top.
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.
That sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
Well that is bullshit, but gives good grounds for an appeal later
Nice.
Finally, some good fucking news
Not really since the obviously planted evidence with a broken chain of custody is allowed to be presented at trial.
Is it a jury trail where the defence can seed reasonable doubt on the obvious chain of custody issues?
Jury nullification. The jury can all just decide not guilty and go to lunch. They get their jury duty paychecks in the mail.
Nah, still good news. Getting off OJ style would be really good news, baby steps.
Evil empire full of child killing pedofiles trying to kill the man who showed us the only way out ….im surprised people aren’t more pissed
A lot of his support is being censored by the corporations we keep sucking off.
What a strange requirement for a murder charge
Yes very interesting detail.
But Jonathan Ross should (I’m actually against the death penalty, even for those ice murderers, just venting)
It’s hard to not think this way when people like Renée Good and Alex Pretti were effectively sentenced to death, with no trial.
I agree that venting can be quite cathartic, and I respect the fact that you make it clear that you are just venting. I think drawing those kinds of boundaries for yourself can help to prevent you from slipping into genuinely believing these things.
But we can all agree Charlie Kirk cashed a check he himself wrote?
ERIKA sure did after his death.
deleted by creator
Know the feeling, venting can be carthatic. I feel similarly as much as I don’t think anyone’s life should be taken without their consent so just a dwelling reaction to the entire situation that I don’t think is right, my reaction or the situation to be clear.
Shouldn’t have been on the table in the first place.
LETS GOOO
“Shit, when we wrote the laws to subtly favor us, we were too subtle”
Understanding the Scope of Stalking Conduct
The federal statute defines the prohibited action as a “course of conduct,” requiring a pattern of behavior made up of two or more acts over time. A single, isolated incident of unwanted contact is not sufficient to meet the elements of the federal crime
Source: https://legalclarity.org/what-is-18-u-s-c-1801-federal-interstate-stalking-laws/
Could he get off since it only happened once?
I wonder how that applies in the digital age
If someone is using press briefs to digitally follow where someone is, does that count?
Yeah wishful thinking, following him online probably counts as multiple instances.
The 1984 crime control act is kind of interesting. It was written to walk a line and really limit the death penalty for federal cases. The death penalty requires murder to be stacked with something like robbery, kidnapping, mob shit, etc.
Even though a premeditated murder would be considered a violent crime, the crime control act requires premeditated murder to be sandwiched within another violent crime to unlock the death penalty as a punishment option.
This is one of those things that appears to go right up to the line, but the judge ruled on precedent.
Not a lawyer and haven’t read the law, but it seems logical that “stalking” isn’t a separate crime from premeditated murder when it’s just determining the location of the target and traveling to reach the target.
Yeah. I do find it interesting that the crime control act from the 80’s has a lower punishment tier for a la carte premeditated murder. I wonder what the logic was behind that.
Maybe it’s there to reduce the risk of executing people who are innocent? A defendant has to be found guilty on two violent offenses, which is a higher bar for prosecutors to clear.
I’m not a big fan of the death penalty, but the history nerd in me is mildly curious about why this act was drafted in this way.
Wahoo!
Unless it’s a pre-existing condition…
