Summary

Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, is set to appear in a New York courtroom Friday for a hearing on evidence exchange and a potential trial date.

He faces state murder charges with a terrorism enhancement, carrying a life sentence without parole.

Mangione also faces federal charges, including one with a potential death penalty, and separate charges in Pennsylvania. His defense claims political bias in the case.

In a statement, Mangione thanked supporters for their letters from across the country and the world.

    • ccp@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      If you want to participate in jury nullification, it’s imperative that you do your research and know how to conduct yourself. It’s not as simple as just making sure you never say “jury nullification” within hearing range of the court room. And doing your due diligence isn’t as simple as reading some surface-level web pages about how jury nullification works.

      The first thing you need to know is that this is exceedingly difficult. If you get summoned, don’t get summarily dismissed, get through voir dire and onto the jury – here there are already three distinct stages, and passing each of them is its own small miracle. That’s before you even get to the part where you convince the rest of the jury to go along with it, which you have to do without saying the words. You also have to appear to be earnestly engaged in doing your duty as a juror properly. Obstinance is cause for dismissal and contempt, so just sitting there and saying “not guilty” for no reason and refusing to explain yourself or change your position may not go as well as you might think. You have to actually play the game, go along with the process, and bring up reasonable and compelling questions and concerns about the state’s burden of proof.

      Regarding voir dire: Here’s one area where you’ll need to have done in-depth research. If you haven’t even googled things like “detecting deception during voir dire” or “how to identify a stealth juror” – if you haven’t read all the material you can get your hands on that gives advice to attorneys about the nuances of juror vetting and selection – then you haven’t spent enough time knowing your enemy, and you will fail. If you haven’t heard of a “stealth juror” before, you are out of your depth and you will fail. If it hasn’t occurred to you that the attorneys might look you up online (they will) to see if you’ve posted anything that conflicts with what you tell them in court, then you have probably already failed before you even started.

      You will basically need to be in deep cover with regard to your knowledge of and inclination toward jury nullification. It’s not even as easy as just pretending you’ve never heard of it. That can end up being too much of a good thing, too hard to believe, depending. In a similar way, they don’t necessarily want to hear that you’re some kind of totally impartial person with no opinions about anything, no biases. Everyone has those; what they want is people who can set them aside to do the job they’ve been given. It’s surely not an easy balance to strike, seeming like you’re someone who will be a good juror, while making sure you also give the appearance of being a realistic and believable person, and avoiding a host of little reasons why they might decide to use one of their peremptory strikes on you (if you don’t know what that is, you haven’t done enough research and will fail).

      You’ll also need the same obsessive depth of familiarity with the entire process, voir dire to verdict, that someone would have if they actually were some kind of deep cover clandestine agent sent to infiltrate a jury. You will need to accomplish this without ever talking to anyone about your interest in this subject. You have to be either very dedicated or very lucky.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      1 day ago

      And if you’re on the jury, you never say the words “jury nullification”. It technically isn’t allowed, and you can be removed from the jury.

      But if you just think there’s reasonable doubt, then nothing can be done.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It’s totally allowed. It’s why citizen juries exist instead of professional jurors, and a jury’s right to determine the law is established in Article I, Section 8 of the New York Constitution. It’s specifically discussing libel cases, but that doesn’t necessarily limit them.

        You still shouldn’t say it, because you’ll be removed anyway, but jury nullification is the legal system’s last line of defense against unjust just laws.

        • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Its “allowed” in the sense that you can return a verdict of innocent without providing an explanation for why you found him innocent, and the court is not allowed to issue a verdict notwithstanding the jury in criminal cases. It’s perfectly legal for the court to dismiss you as a juror if you announce your intention to nullify at any point in the trial or explain that your intention is to nullify when you announce your verdict. So if you intend to nullify, you should stay quiet about it until you finish deliberating.

          Source: I’m a law student and we just covered this in Criminal Law.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            21 hours ago

            They can also dismiss you for saying you intend to declare guilt no matter what.

            A juror deciding a verdict before hearing the case should be dismissed.

          • tourist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Do you think enough people will learn of this in time for the jury selection, in theory?

            Historically, how often has this happened?

            Can nods or other physical gestures count as an intent to nullify the process? Like a fresh tattoo of the green super mario bro. There’s plausible deniability there, right?

            Sorry for all the questions, I’m just sick of talking to chatbots. I crave answers from human beings. I don’t want a chatbot’s heartless, supposedly unbiased answer. Throw in as much bias as you’d like.

      • arotrios@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        That being said, if you don’t want jury duty for a criminal case, mentioning jury nullification is a sure way to get the prosecution to kick you out of the jury pool. It’s one of the reasons why I haven’t had to sit on a jury for over 30 years.

      • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 day ago

        Its 100% supported by Supreme Court precedent.

        Judges are permitted, also supported by precedent, to lie and say it isn’t. That doesnt change that it is though.