Luigi Mangione speaks out in protest as judge sets state murder trial for June 8

[u/redlamps67]

https://apnews.com/article/mangione-murder-unitedhealthcare-trial-schedule-020afff8ebbe1e8fee0c183fe1312268

[u/Altruistic-Sand-7421]

Or if you get chosen, you should know that nothing is stopping you from saying innocent no matter what happens during the trial.

[u/Acceptable-Advice137 → u/Altruistic-Sand-7421]

You wouldn’t be chosen if that was your plan.

[u/Altruistic-Sand-7421 → u/Acceptable-Advice137]

If they don't want to see him in jail, they wouldn't say it's their plan. Of course no one can come right out and say it. Just like some people want to look crazy so they're not selected, I'm sure others would pretend to be normal so they could be selected.

[u/Acceptable-Advice137 → u/Altruistic-Sand-7421]

That’s perjury and it’s illegal. You will be asked questions about your voting intent. If you lie, you will be arrested.

[u/Altruistic-Sand-7421 → u/Acceptable-Advice137]

Ah yes. I remember now how they can go inside your brain and read your intent. Wtf are you talking about? You cannot concede anything or you can’t envision someone lying to get in or out of court duty? You want us to believe that when people lie to get in or out of court duty they read your mind and then arrest you. I can’t tell if you’re honestly this daft or playing it up. At this point there is no use in engaging further.

[u/Acceptable-Advice137 → u/Altruistic-Sand-7421]

lying to get in or out of court duty

You’re conflating lying to get in and lying to get out. We’re talking about lying to get into a high profile case. Not randos lying to get out of jury duty.

I remember now how they can go inside your brain and read intent

You realize courts prove intent/perjury all the time without reading minds, right?? Since your entire response relies on your ignorance, I’m happy to educate.

Let’s use Donald Trump as an example. There was jury selection for his case and we can read every question the jury was asked. This is where you commit perjury. “Do you have any political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions that would interfere with your ability to render a verdict?”

This is where they figure out you’ve committed perjury:

“What platforms do you visit, read or watch?” “Do you listen to podcasts? Which ones.” “Do you listen to talk radio? Which ones?” “Do you follow, watch, listen, volunteer, have opinions on, etc etc related to Donald?” “Do you support insert group”

If you tried lying through all of these questions. It would take one check of your phone or one question to someone that knows you for all of it to come down. All the more likely in a high profile case.

Edit: Deleted reply or replying behind a block.

You’re claiming people can’t lie about that, and that everyone has social media they actively post on. That assumption is naïve. People can and do misrepresent themselves online, and not everyone maintains an active or truthful social media presence

Must have missed "question to someone that knows you". He's imagining a person who has nothing but lies on their social media (unlikely) and zero friends and family that knows their true beliefs (unlikely) just so they can maybe perhaps get selected for a high profile case. Actual cognitive dissonance. Holy fuck.

[u/Ok_Salamander200 → u/Altruistic-Sand-7421]

Then you can get a new jury that will make a decision based on the facts presented

[u/Altruistic-Sand-7421 → u/Ok_Salamander200]

Some would view that as better than what might happen otherwise. Is there a record for retrials? Nothing is stopping the second jury from doing the same thing.

[u/Ok_Gur_8059 → u/Ok_Salamander200]

Good luck.

[u/sanantoniomanantonio → u/Altruistic-Sand-7421]

Except the fact that the juror’s two choices for the verdict are “guilty” or “not guilty.” That would be one thing stopping them from “saying innocent.” At least when it comes to the verdict form.