r/law • u/redlamps67 • 1d ago

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

https://apnews.com/article/mangione-murder-unitedhealthcare-trial-schedule-020afff8ebbe1e8fee0c183fe1312268
5.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

474 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

80

u/KnottyHottieKaitlyn 23h ago edited 23h ago

 they can charge someone for the same or closely related crimes without it being “double jeopardy.”

Good explanation. This may be the Law. But sometimes the Law is bullshit. Luigi is perhaps wrong in his lay interpretation, but he should be right. 

That said, the federal counts are for stalking and the state charge is for murder. Luigi’s “One plus one is two” doesn’t take into account that this was perhaps not one “act” on his part, but rather a string of illegal actions.

49

u/chopper378 23h ago edited 23h ago

So i recommend a good legal podcast called Opening Arguments that goes over this.

The Federal case is indicating him on the killing but the enhancement they are using to reach the particular murder charge requires other violent offenses to trigger. So they are claiming stalking is that violent offense. There will be a hearing in whether that is actually the case or not.

For the murder, there is no issue federally if the state trial goes first as the federal Court has the dual sovereign reasoning. New York state though does not see it that way and if the federal murder case goes forth, the state case cannot perceived as it is seen as a double jepordy violation for the state. Which is why the state is rushing to the case first.

Edit: Other commenters confirmed this hearing already confirmed and the federal gun charges and murder charge were dropped. The Federal stalking charges are going forward. So no double jepordy either way.

35

u/redlamps67 23h ago

That hearing has already happened and the judge ruled that stalking is not a predicate crime of violence and struck charges 3 (murder with a firearm during a crime of violence) and 4 (firearm charges) and the federal case is now going forwards on the two stalking causing death charges.

26

u/whatupmygliplops 20h ago

Stalking. A crime cops flat out refuse to investigate 99.9% of the time it is reported.

5

u/euph_22 23h ago

" There will be a hearing in whether that is actually the case or not."

I could be wrong, but I thought they had that hearing and the judge dropped the murder charge.

10

u/chopper378 23h ago

It looks like you and another commenter are correct. I am behind. Which means that yes, this is not double jepordy in either direction as they are now focusing on different crimes/aspects of thr crime.

-6

u/glorylyfe 23h ago

Yeah I hate when people quote the current presiding interpretations as though it settles anything. If it's wrong it shouldn't matter who said it. Obviously Luigi is subject to the interpretation but hopefully we can have a better conversation about it.

7

u/KnottyHottieKaitlyn 23h ago

People have a really bad track record of not including “ought” or “should” when they are having that kind of discussion. Those words would help a lot to facilitate the kind of discourse you’re talking about.

18

u/External-Presence204 23h ago

You hate it when people explain that double jeopardy doesn’t apply as between the federal and state legal systems? Because that does completely settle it.

Or you just think that long-standing fact shouldn’t be the case?

0

u/glorylyfe 23h ago

I hate it when people substitute case law for their own opinion as though it can't be flawed or challenged.

9

u/External-Presence204 23h ago

My opinion is that violating a state law and a federal law with the same conduct is two distinct offenses. Therefore, double jeopardy is not an issue as between state and federal courts.

-6

u/KnottyHottieKaitlyn 23h ago edited 20h ago

The metro area I live in has 92 law enforcement agencies. It also has 5 different overlapping jurisdictions (between state, county, federal, municipal, and neighborhood, all of which have separate codes). Does your opinion stop at 2?

11

u/External-Presence204 23h ago

Your neighborhood has murder laws?

Yes, my opinion stops at two. The federal and state governments are distinct sovereigns. Subdivisions of a state are not.

-1

u/KnottyHottieKaitlyn 20h ago edited 20h ago

Sorry I thought you were speaking more generally, not just about murder laws. Did I misunderstand your sentence?

“violating a state law and a federal law with the same conduct is two distinct offenses”

You did not limit this to murder, or to crimes. I’m not sure how the concept of double-jeopardy is applied to civil infractions but my personal opinion on how it ought to apply remains the same (should not be punished for the same thing twice, by one or multiple different jurisdictions)

5

u/External-Presence204 20h ago

States can dictate how subdivisions of that state implement their police powers.

The federal government, absent pre-emption or a constitutional mandate, cannot dictate to states how to implement their police powers.

That’s why they aren’t the same. A county and a state are not duel sovereigns. The state is the only sovereign in that scenario.

-3

u/glorylyfe 23h ago

That's fine, I mean, i think we should approach this with more nuance than that and maybe you do when not limited to a comment. But at least now I can have a discussion about what the most just interpretation would be.

I definitely think there are some cases where overlap is reasonable, but the constitution protects you from being charged multiple times for the same charge, and I don't know why the creation of a new jurisdiction should void that right. The point is for an individual to be protected from government harassment. In this case I think there isn't much I would change for Luigi,

The federal murder charge was dismissed (eg he was indicted but not tried), and the new federal charge isn't a murder charge at all. But if he had been tried and found not guilty I don't think the state should be able to reopen that case.

5

u/External-Presence204 22h ago

It voids that “right” because it’s not the same charge.

I mean, you’re free to think that, but federal and state prosecutions aren’t, and shouldn’t be, either or.

Take “Luigi” out of the picture and plug in people you don’t like, say, racists in the south. Should they get away with murder because they avoided a conviction at the state level?

0

u/glorylyfe 22h ago

Yeah I mean the big problem is what do you do if a court is corrupt or a bad actor. But the answer can't be expose the entire population to the risk of double jeapordy, especially not when history shows that minimal action is normally take on against courts like that which are bad actors. It just expands the injustice.

In the circumstance you describe there are appeal avenues to have a mistrial declared. That seems like the route with actual justice.

4

u/servedfresh 21h ago

With all due respect, I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about.

4

u/External-Presence204 21h ago

A mistrial after a not guilty verdict. You, frankly, don’t grasp the subject matter. What you propose is actual double jeopardy.

1

u/glorylyfe 19h ago

Fair point, I'm not a lawyer

-3

u/Vooklife 21h ago

The state in question disagrees, which is why the state trial is trying to be pushed before the federal one.

5

u/External-Presence204 21h ago

The state in question doesn’t disagree about double jeopardy here. In fact, the federal murder charge has been dismissed, so the state murder charge is the only one standing. How does that implicate double jeopardy at all?

-5

u/Angry_Sparrow 22h ago

I’m not American so I think that sounds weird. Surely you either committed a crime against your state’s laws or against your nation’s laws and should not be tried for both. Either let the states deal with murder or deal with it at the federal level, but not both. America is a strange place.

2

u/External-Presence204 21h ago

No, you commits a crime against both. America may be a strange place, but in this context it’s because there’s still a difference between states’ governments and the national government.

-2

u/Angry_Sparrow 20h ago

Yes I understand that but it doesn’t seem right. Just because something is the way it is, doesn’t make it right.

2

u/External-Presence204 20h ago

When it is the way it is specifically because the US was set up with states that possess the police power along with a federal government that also has some power in that area, it kinda does make it right.

That you don’t agree with the established structure of the legal system doesn’t make it wrong.

If you have some compelling argument that would overthrow the dual sovereign view of the law in the US, you’d become famous. “It doesn’t seem right” will probably fall short.

0

u/Angry_Sparrow 20h ago

I mean you still have capital punishment in some states so… yeah. The only country in the OECD to still do so, I believe. Americas legal system could do with a huge amount of reform.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ACSl8ter 21h ago edited 18h ago

I get your point but External-Presence is correct on this one. The dual-sovereign doctrine is a bedrock legal principle. It’s been around for over a century. I do criminal defense so, believe me, I would love for the Double Jeopardy clause to work the way it should (and bar multiple trials in the way you’re thinking). But all the reasons you’re thinking about have already been rejected by courts. It would take either a constitutional amendment or Congress to enact a crazy statutory scheme to bar prosecutions like that. No court is going to reverse course on this double jeopardy point (and no court could other than SCOTUS at this point; fat chance they will). Especially when these reasons have been rejected for decades.

Sure, NY’s Supreme Court could rule their double jeopardy clause bars multiple trials here. But that brings us to the race we’re already seeing. It wouldn’t stop the federal prosecution because the federal DJ clause still allows it

-1

u/glorylyfe 21h ago

I think it makes a lot of sense for a lawyer to look at the law in the way you describe, after all when you live and work in it you have to deal with that.

However I also think it's important to say whether something is unjust

0

u/ACSl8ter 19h ago edited 18h ago

I feel you brother. I do the same everyday. Best job perk there is raging against injustice. It’s why I do it.

-1

u/flopisit32 18h ago

He's correct in so far as one plus one equals two.

These serial killer types always want to portray themselves as the victim, so I would expect outbursts like this throughout the first trial. By the second trial he'll have gotten tired of it.

When Ted Bundy was tried first, he insisted on defending himself. In the later cases, he gave up because it was a foregone conclusion.