Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the jury decide not to convict him and he'd be a free man? I've read that in some places at least. Or is there a mechanism to prevent that?
It’s theoretically possible but it requires a justice system that is actually blind. A justice system that didn’t just assign him a judge who’s married to a dude that was a former executive at a pfizer and still holds hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthcare companies, which apparently is something that she feels doesn’t require her to recuse herself even given the stature of this case
The jury selection process will be rigorous and will ensure that the people sitting on the panel are sympathetic to capitalists
It does seem they'll try to use his case as a deterrent to anyone thinking about following in his footsteps. I think they will be harsh and he'll be made into a martyr. The religious imagery of Saint Luigi may be apt and more than just a meme.
Historically speaking, yes. He will be convicted and executed as a message. The message to the rich is that the justice system ~~they've~~ we've bought and paid for has their back. To the rest of us it's a message about the cost of going after the wealthy. Thing is, the more they fuck the rest of us over, the more it's a cost worth paying. But they are trying to keep us in line.
Wild how you spent time typing that out instead of engraving your brass.
Karen Friedman Agnifilo is an absolute pro who worked in the system for 30 years, I think he's in very capable hands and if its unduly stacked against in him, I gurantee she will be very vocal about that publicly and she has a massive platform inside and outside the courtroom since she's an original player in the Meidas Touch Network which is fantastic.
There's no other lawyer or person in general I would trust more than her for something life or death like this
You have a source for that connection with the judge?
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigi-mangione-judge-married-to-former
Thanks
They are gonna bribe and threaten this jury like we've never seen before.
They won't need to. If the jury is not unanimous, they can keep trying the case. Infinitely.
That might happen but is very unlikely. Jury selection is done by both sides so it's very unlikely you'd get a jury united in deciding not to convict him.
However the Supreme Court ruled that jury verdicts have to be unanimous. It is very possible that the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict if 1 or more jurors refuse to convict. If this happens it would be a mistrial, and the case would be retired with a new jury. In theory this could keep happening until either a unanimous verdict is reached by a jury or a judge decides that this should not be retried as its been tried multiple times without outcome.
Another key element will be his defense which could lead to him getting a not guilty verdict. The only real defense as a mitigation would be insanity. Otherwise it seems unlikely (albeit possible) that it's the wrong man.
The most likely scenario is a jury unanimously convicts him in my opinion. However people may feel about the case, a jury has to make a decision on whether the facts show he committed a crime - it seems pretty clear there is enough evidence to make a decision and it's unlikely other factors will come in to play in a jury room.
In the US, a jury can choose to ignore the facts, and they can not be punished for it.
I actually think that's quite a nice check on judicial power
On one hand, yes. On the other hand, this has largely been used in the deep south to ensure that people who openly lynched black people evaded conviction.
Well this is the time for plebs to use their power for good!