Accused killer of US insurance CEO pleads not guilty to 'terrorist' murder
Accused killer of US insurance CEO pleads not guilty to 'terrorist' murder
The man accused of gunning down a health insurance executive in a brazen hit in New York that sparked fierce debate about the industry pleaded not guilty Monday to state charges including "terrorist"…
The man accused of gunning down a health insurance executive in a brazen hit in New York that sparked fierce debate about the industry pleaded not guilty Monday to state charges including "terrorist" murder.
Monday's hearing came after Mangione, 26, appeared in a New York court last week to face federal charges also including murder following his dramatic extradition by plane and helicopter from Pennsylvania, where he was arrested at a McDonald's restaurant. The suspect is charged in both state and federal court in the December 4 shooting of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson.
People demonstrating against the industry gathered outside court Monday brandishing banners reading "free Luigi" and "innocent until proven guilty."
If convicted in the state case, Mangione could face life imprisonment with no parole. In the federal case, he could technically face the death penalty.
Mangioni's attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo has previously sought clarity on how simultaneous federal and state charges would work, calling the situation "highly unusual."
Agnifilo raised concerns on Monday that Mangione could not receive a fair trial, and questioned why New York mayor Eric Adams had been present when Mangione was brought off a police helicopter at a Manhattan helipad last week. Aginifilo told local media Monday that officials "are treating him like he is like some sort of political fodder." She said the sight of Mangione flanked by rifle-wielding tactical officers during the final stage of his extradition that was widely broadcast was "utterly political."
You're viewing a single thread.
Mad that the grand jury didn't refuse to indict.
Hope the jury nullifies.
If he is found guilty, maybe it'll be time for unrest.
It's already time for unrest.
Looks like it's been time for unrest for over fifty years now, since this kicked off in the early 70's.
It shouldn't have taken a murder to wake people up.
That graph is probably the best one to show the exact moment where capitalism became absolutely obsolete.
Im guessing that elites took over the North American government and this time Smedley Butler wasn’t around to stop them.
Actually, it was the US president removing the convertibility of the US dollar to gold.
Yeah it's past time, the working class has basically lost the class war and we're just running on fumes now. At the same time, the owner class is working double time to implement AI so they can employ even fewer of us.
Anyone not in a corporate atmosphere is probably not as privvy to this, but it's insane the effort going into replacing human work with AI. Of course it's all under the guise of 'improving working conditions' or 'keeping current employee levels' but in the end you know they're salivating at the thought of firing a bunch of people.
And we can't fight progress but we sure as hell should be fighting for some kind of UBI and share of the work that gets done by AI.
no! its time to vote!
hahahahaha. because, clearly, that has been working /sarcasmI'm voting as hard as I can! I can't vote any harder!
Yeah, he's the start of it
No, but he's an escalation, and now's not the time to back down.
That doesn't really matter.
A grand jury decides if theres enough evidence for an indictment, not determine guilt. Whether the evidence is enough for conviction, is not up to them. Only half is required to indict. A non-indictment is not an acquital.
Murder has no statute of limitations.
They'll just wait for a different grand jury and get to try to get an indictment again, this time, probably with less media coverage and less scrutiny.
The petit jury, or trial jury, decides if evidence is legit. This is where it really matters.
You can keep convening grand juries against someone for the same event until they agree to indict? That seems dubious. And is especially damning in the context of police that don't get indicted and never go to trial.
You can keep convening grand juries against someone for the same event until they agree to indict?
Think about it this way. The grand jury is basically taking on the role of a prosecutor for the sole decision of whether or not to indict, after that, the actual prosecutor takes over.
If you are a civillian, and the prosecutor that has jurisdiction refuses to prosecute, say, the murder of your child, you can then wait for the prosecutor to lose office (either by losing an election, or wait for someone else to get appointed, depending on how its selected in your area), then ask the new prosecutor to file the charges, and since murder has no statute of limitations, you can keep trying this until a prosecutor decides to indict.
This is essentially what a grand jury is. They are temporary taking the role of the prosecutor, for one act, and one act only, deciding whether or not to indict.
Right, but that doesn't answer if they convene a grand jury for a specific alleged crime, and the grand jury says "no", can they try again with a new jury? For the same alleged crime? That seems like an obvious flaw in that they can just keep trying until they get an indictment and can proceed. There'd be no point in the grand jury step because it eventually returns an indictment.
Edit: Internet is telling me
Even if a grand jury does not indict an individual, the prosecutor can re-bring the same defendant before the grand jury on the same charges multiple times, although prosecutors will usually wait until a new grand jury is convened for especially high-profile cases. This is allowed because issues of double jeopardy do not attach until a person has been formally charged.
Which seems insane.
https://www.arnoldsmithlaw.com/who-decides-whether-or-not-i-will-be-charged-with-a-crime.html
Our legal system seems really bad, folks
I don't think its insane.
If half of a grand jury is enough to acquit, then you are basically doing a coin toss to see if someone like Dylan Roof gets to walk free.
Trials require uanimous jury verdict to make sure the verdict is as correct as they can be
it seems weird that the state can keep trying until they get the answer they want. Why is that protection only available later?
It wouldn't be a coin toss - the odds are heavily slanted in favor of the prosecutor. The defense has no role.
Also does this mean that those times cops didn't get indicted, the state could have tried again?
Also does this mean that those times cops didn’t get indicted, the state could have tried again?
Oh yes they could.
But remeber how 90% of the cops who murder people never even get an investigation. Yea, they don't give a shit.
it seems weird that the state can keep trying until they get the answer they want. Why is that protection only available later?
Oh, wanna know something funnier.
If Luigi gets a hung jury, its a mistrial, whivh doesn't count against double jeopardy clause, so the prosecution can try again. And each hung jury is also another chance to try again.
Oh even if he gets acquitted on state charges, the federal government can still prosecute on any federal offences he may have committed.
And that hung jury shenaigan still can happen over and over again.
Like 11 says not guilty, 1 says guilty, bam hung jury. That's how it works, like it or not.
(Unrelated, but wanna know more shenanigans? The USCIS can see all arrests, even those not resulting in conviction, and they can see all interactions with the law, even sealed, expunged, or pardoned cases. You heard that right, ALL of them! They can even see any juvenile records with the last 5 years.
Shenanigans... shenanigans...)
Oh the time for unrest is long past
A grand jury is weird.
Selected at random like regular jurors, they are on duty for an extended period, they meet in secret and protected. They are only allowed to examine prosecutorial evidence, and only allowed to say if the collected evidence is enough to stand trial.
It's not a great system mostly because some of the stuff they have no choice but to agree to indict with, or they get held in contempt themselves.
The only other country in the world to use grand juries is Liberia.
Yeah, our system is shit.