Someone just donated $50,000 to support Luigi Mangione's legal fund

I bet they do everything in their power to keep this from actually going to trial.

How long can they hold him without a trial?
- Missed out on all the concentration camps recently, have you?
- Depends on how he's classified. The US has held some terrorists indefinitely without charges or trial.
  
  "terrorists"
  
  They're just people. They always have been people who have been hurt and destroyed by the systems that pretend they didn't cause it. And America sure as shit isn't the authority on who's a terrorist
  
  Putting quotes around the word doesn't change anything. He can still be designated a terrorist and held indefinitely without charge or trial.
  I don't think he's a terrorist. But my opinion doesn't matter.
  
  My point is that it's just a magical justification for torture.
  
  That's fair. But at the same time, I think his actions fit the definition of terrorism - politically motivated violence - to the letter.
  
  That's ... a definition of "terrorism," I suppose. I thought it was understood to be systemic and used against a general populace. This was a single, targeted killing.
  
  Brian Thompson is not a politician, nor did he have plans to become one, nor was he in the public eye. This killing was public but it was not specifically publicized beyond just being a broad-daylight street killing which happens literally dozens of times daily across America. There wasn't even a manifesto until the police "found" one inside of the backpack that they "found" on Luigi without due process. Why would this be considered politically motivated?
  And if it is considered politically motivated, while having nothing to do with politics or politicians, then where does that definition end?
  This is partially me being snarky to make a point but this is also a real question. I don't think there are any grounds to call this "terrorism" on account of being "politically motivated". However, it sure is being called this in court. I know the reason why this is (scared rich boys want this to be a capital offense), but I do not understand the legal reasoning why.
  
  And if it is considered politically motivated
  I worry about the manifesto. Supposedly, they have some stuff 'by him' along the same lines on a substack or something.
  If he gets fucked, it'll likely be on this level, something that is loosely defined, used as a hammer and the jury being told they'll be forced to apply the logic of it. The police and prosecutors are being led around by their noses to make sure he's held as an example to keep corporate america untouchable.
- Haven't checked in a while but aren't they now hashing out which evidence is admissible?
- I think they can send him to Gitmo or some other black site whenever, wherever
  
  They're sending people farther for less. But he has eyes on him. He's not a nameless immigrant.
  
  That's not very nice of them. I wonder what their grandmothers would think if they knew

I think it’s more likely that the jury will vote to acquit just based on lack of evidence combined with police misconduct (and incompetence).

The evidence they’ve publicly talked about is both itself fishy and has chain of custody issues.

Normally they’d be able to get away with that because most defendants can’t afford good legal representation and most cases don’t get much scrutiny.

In this case, however, I think those issues completely sink the prosecution’s case and he’ll be acquitted just because the jury won’t believe he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If at least half of what his lawyer claimed is true and able to be proven in court, he has a decent chance.
This is assuming that everything you've just described is permitted into evidence.
- No it doesn’t. He’s innocent until proven guilty.
  The evidence presented by the prosecution has to stand up to scrutiny, and it won’t.
  
  has to stand up to scrutiny
  But to what scrutiny, precisely? If a judge decides that certain specific problems with the evidence are inadmissible (including police misconduct and chain of custody issues), what other scrutiny could be given to the evidence?
  Judges already have a lot of leeway over how they run trials even within the law, and we're talking about a country that has removed even the pretence of rule of law in the past six months (more, if we go back to the Trump v United States ruling last year).
The way it’s described sounded like he was on his way to the next one. Why else would you carry all of that with you?
They didn’t Miranda him. Maybe they didn’t want to Miranda him.
- They didn’t Miranda him. Maybe they didn’t want to Miranda him.
  What?
  Miranda warning is for custodial interrogations, they don't have to read it to you if they aren't asking questions or if its non-custodial (you weren't under arrest). And only those statements made under a custodial interrogation would be inadmissible, everything else would still be admissible, including the gun and manifesto that they supposedly found on him.

The jury will be told that they have to find according to the letter of the law, and they'll almost certainly be screened by the prosecution during jury selection to avoid people who know nullification is a thing.

It's certainly possible that it could occur regardless, but they'll do everything they can to avoid it.

Prosecutor: Potential Juror #5. Are you aware of the concept of Jury Nullification?
Juror: I am now.
Defense has as many strikes as prosecutor....
- True, but if the prosecution seeks the death penalty (which is likely), any jurors that say they'd have difficulty condemning someone to death will be automatically disqualified with no strikes used.
  Since people who don't have any problems with the death penalty is MUCH more likely to have a clear bias in favor of the prosecution and the cops are good at spotting people lying in order to get on (or off) a jury, making it a death penalty case all but eliminates any chance of a fair trial.
- But a strike can't bring back in someone who has been eliminated. You can use your strikes to whittle away people who have a property likely to be bad for you, but you can't use it to include people with a quality that would be good for you.
How do you screen for jury nullification without informing everyone as to what jury nullification is?

Luigi is innocent. Just from looking at the pics, the brows are different. Luigi didn't do it. Jury nullification is not needed. A simple acquittal is all that is needed.

12 jurors all being aware of it and wanting to do it is extremely unlikely, unfortunately.

Only one juror needs to be aware of it before the deliberation, the hard part is getting everyone to agree to it. Repeated trials with repeatedly hung juries would almost be better though
- Having him be released under jury nullification would send a powerful message to the elites.
  Honestly, an activist film maker should make a movie about how people arrested for helping fugitive slaves escape were often released under jury nullification. Get the idea out there.
  
  In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction
  If the jury is nullified, it will end up back at the SCOTUS, and under the current circumstances, the majority of the court is FULLY and OPENLY owned by the oligarchs.
  We need an acquittal.
  Also, if it looks like he's going to get out, I would not be at all surprised to see him oofed with more 'lost' footage.
  
  I would not be at all surprised to see him oofed with more 'lost' footage
  I expect this is how it's actually going to go down
  
  That's a fantastic idea
My jury experience was not confidence inspiring. Granted, it was not high profile. It was a civil case that drug on for a week. Essentially, there were three of us that lead the decision by force of personality. Everyone else was waiting to go home.
- The nature of the selection process alone will make it extremely difficult for them all to be of the same mind.
  
  Well, yes, however there is some predictability regarding people and how they move on groups. In addition, how people flow in terms of the numbers of leaders and non-leaders in any given group. What are the odds of 12 random people who are individual, self starters with opinions with no fear of “confrontation” (with fellow jurors) and no reticence regarding speaking in a group of twelve?
  There is a large body of research within the cognitive science / behavioral economics paradigm on juries. Dig in. It’s not reassuring, either way.
  For any jury, I posit that it would take 1 person with a personality who knows about jury nullification to present it to the rest. What is the likelihood that none of the 12 know?
  Personally, I made no effort to get out of jury duty because of my past studies and research. Curiosity drew me in, and it will again on the next call. You should check out the process, given the opportunity.
  
  Check out 1988 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
  I worry that even if it goes to null, it'll get frozen and go to SCOTUS who will certainly side with the bourgeoisie.
  
  During the Viet Nam War, activists robbed paper lists of potential draftees from the federal office housing the lists, were caught, and tried. The defendants more or less put the war on trial. The jury acquitted all activists of all charges. Yes, they robbed a federal office, but, nah. Their act was a direct attack on the federal government and its war, and yet, no SCOTUS.
  My main concern for Luigi is related to 2024, the year of the whistleblower murders. I look at that, in terms of what CEOs are capable of. I look at Luigi. And wonder if those same CEOs will allow him to walk even if acquitted.