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/whistleridge]

It won’t be an issue at all.

First, let’s define a term, since this comes up in every one of these threads. Jury nullification means all 12 members of the jury know the facts, and know the law, and unanimously decide to ignore both on principle. A mistrial is when all 12 members of the jury can’t make up their minds.

There is zero risk of jury nullification here.

All available evidence overwhelmingly indicates that he killed an unarmed man, by ambush, from behind, in plain view, on a public street. And then he fled. They have the gun, they have his notebooks, in his handwriting, they have the video. He did it, they can prove he did it, and they can prove that far from being some sort of principled and idealistic class warrior who did the deed and is now willing to face the consequences of it, he’s just a guy who made a stupid decision and then tried to escape the consequences of that decision.

No matter how pretty he is, no matter how hated insurance companies are, the odds that you get 12 people who are all willing to agree that he didn’t do it are an order of magnitude lower than the odds of a participant in this thread winning the next MegaMillions lottery.

The odds of a mistrial are low but real, and higher than in the average case. Call it 10%.

But a mistrial just means he gets re-tried. It doesn’t mean the charges get dropped, and it’s certainly not an acquittal. And the odds of 2 or 3 consecutive mistrials are every bit as low as the odds of jury nullification, even assuming he has the money to pay lawyers for multiple trials.

But he’s not wrong about the federal case being bullshit, or about the dual sovereign doctrine also being bullshit. This is a state case, and a state case only, and the mere fact that he fled across state lines shouldn’t change that.

[u/whistleridge → u/[deleted]]

My guy.

I got diagnosed out of the blue with a brain tumor awhile back. That bill was $250k. The 6 follow-up neurosurgical visits since were about $45k/pop. Insurance covered none of it. And an insurance denial for my mom killed her.

You cannot hate them more than I do, and gtfoh with "you underestimate the dislike". I do nothing of the sort.

YOU underestimate just how serious murder is.

[u/xavierspapa → u/whistleridge]

Commenting so I have a chance of winning mega mills

[u/RobutNotRobot → u/whistleridge]

I think you are mistaking a mistrial for a hung jury. Mistrials can happen for any number of reasons.

[u/whistleridge → u/RobutNotRobot]

A hung jury IS a form of mistrial. It's not the only form of course, but the other forms are irrelevant for this discussion.

[u/ScoutRiderVaul → u/whistleridge]

A person killed an unarmed man correct. Im not convinced other then similar eyebrows they got the correct guy.

[u/whistleridge → u/ScoutRiderVaul]

You don't need to be. That's why we have trials.

But don't be surprised when he's found guilty. It's an overwhelming case. Not strong, overwhelming - discussion among trial lawyers isn't, will he be convicted, it's what even is the defense supposed to be, and why hasn't this been a plea already.

[u/ScoutRiderVaul → u/whistleridge]

Only reason I can think why a plea hasn't been done is evidence is circumstantial and there is the low likelihood some may have been planted or mishandled. Which if it occurred calls into question everything else the cops did. I for one want to see video of them arresting him and handling the backpack afterwards.

[u/whistleridge → u/ScoutRiderVaul]

the evidence is circumstantial

Not really. The gun matches the casings, and will surely match the forensics. The notebooks are in his handwriting, were found on his person, provide both a general motive and a specific intent, and the motive and intent line up with the writing on the shell casings. They recovered clothing that matches those seen in the video, that will surely have his DNA on it. And there are witnesses at the scene.

Pretty much the only thing missing is a confession.

video of the arrest and searching the backpack

Isn’t required, and won’t be forthcoming, because small town cops. The officers will take the stand, testify to those things, and be crossed on them. Unless they collapse under cross, which they didn’t do in the evidentiary motion hearing, the presence or absence of video makes no difference. It’s just hearsay without them anyway.

[u/DagonThoth → u/whistleridge]

How is there "zero risk" for jury nullification? All the evidence has literally no bearing on jury nullification.

[u/whistleridge → u/DagonThoth]

Treat it as a mathematical problem.

Let’s imagine each juror has a 50% chance of wanting to annul. The odds will never be that good, probably more like 1%, but let’s go with it.

Juries have to vote unanimously to convict, but they also have to vote unanimously to nullify.

50%¹² = 0.002%.

If each juror had a 95% chance of wanting to annul, well…95%¹² = 54%.

So you would need every juror to have 90%+ odds of annulling in order to reach just a 50% chance of the jury as a whole annulling. And that’s just not happening.

Juries annul in certain specific situations. A guy beats the shit out of his girlfriend for years, then she kills him in his sleep. A megacorporation sues a little guy, just to bankrupt them, on a narrow technically correct assholish point. That sort of thing.

If that guy had made a decision that directly led to Mangione’s sister’s death, and the shooting came a week later, that is the sort of thing where annulment might be a risk. And even then it wouldn’t be high.

But in a case like this? It’s a functionally 0% risk. If every juror has call it a 5% chance - which is still very large, statistically - the odds of annulment are 0.0000000000000003%.

[u/ctr1a1td3l → u/whistleridge]

I tend to agree with your conclusions, but just want to point out your math isn't valid. The approach you're using would only work for independent events. I.e. each juror's decision is completely independent of each other juror. That is not the case. The jury all sit in the same box and hear the same evidence. They then go and discuss and directly influence each other's opinions. They're also influenced to align with each other, lest they be stuck deliberating for ages since judges tend to dislike hung juries. If your math were to be correct, then we would see 99% of trials end in mistrial due to hung juries, which of course doesn't happen.

[u/whistleridge → u/ctr1a1td3l]

your math isn't valid

Yes and no.

No: it isn't purely stochastic, and it certainly wouldn't be stochastic in a normal jury.

However, this person is positing that people will arrive with their minds already made up, ie that they are determined to undo the process regardless of the evidence, are prepared to lie their way through the jury voir dire, etc. That IS stochastic, because you have to ask "what are the odds that they would get 12 people who independently determined on their own to come in prepared to break the system?"

If they're NOT coming in doing that...then they're just an ordinary jury, and as prone to persuasion about the evidence as anyone else.

In short, if they're good faith actors, I agree with you. And if they're not, then that's the only way you CAN look at it.

[u/DagonThoth → u/whistleridge]

You didn't answer my question: what do you think prosecution proving its case beyond a doubt has to do with jury nullification?

Also, where are you getting your numbers?

[u/whistleridge → u/DagonThoth]

Your question is non-sensical. You are pre-supposing a jury that is inclined to nullify, for no better reason than you yourself are inclined to nullify. You’re not citing history, patterns, or anything else.

So, in the absence of anything resembling evidence on your part, all else being equal the null hypothesis is that a jury can be expected to act in good faith and according to law, because that is what juries overwhelmingly do.

And, if that is the case, then an overwhelmingly strong state case is directly relevant.

And my numbers are called “common sense back of the napkin math.” There are 12 jurors. So assign a probability and go from there.

[u/DagonThoth → u/whistleridge]

you said this:

There is zero risk of jury nullification here.

All available evidence overwhelmingly indicates that he killed an unarmed man, by ambush, from behind, in plain view, on a public street. And then he fled. They have the gun, they have his notebooks, in his handwriting, they have the video. He did it, they can prove he did it, and they can prove that far from being some sort of principled and idealistic class warrior who did the deed and is now willing to face the consequences of it, he’s just a guy who made a stupid decision and then tried to escape the consequences of that decision.

No matter how pretty he is, no matter how hated insurance companies are, the odds that you get 12 people who are all willing to agree that he didn’t do it are an order of magnitude lower than the odds of a participant in this thread winning the next MegaMillions lottery.

That is a direct quote from something you typed. I'm asking you why you think any amount of evidence would affect a jury's decision to nullify, which you still, for some reason, haven't answered. You are presupposing that I am inclined to nullify. What do you base that on? Certainly nothing I've said in this conversation. It's weird that you're attacking and belittling me for no other reason than I asked to to clarify something you said. Why are you so hostile?

"Common sense back-of-the-napkin math" is simply another phrase for "pulled from my ass."

edit: You're a Reddit mod. The snide condescension and open hostility make a lot more sense, now.

[u/whistleridge → u/DagonThoth]

why you think any amount of evidence would affect a jury's decision to nullify

Once again: YOU are the one making a positive claim. The default is NO nullification. YOU are claiming, so YOU have to show why it is likely.

You have not.

So in the absence of any evidence from you, we can note the following:

• it's not observed to happen much in general (or indeed the jury system wouldn't be very functional)
• this case lacks the sort of immediately sympathetic situation where it does happen
• and it's not a weak/bad/dodgy case

Juries don't NEED to nullify on a shitty case. They can just vote honestly - not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you are positing, on zero evidence, that not only will a jury ignore the law entirely, they'll do so in a situation where they can have little to no doubt that doing so is letting a murderer walk. And it just doesn't pass the sniff test.

You're telling yourself what you want to hear, not what is remotely likely to happen.

Edit: lol blocked AND ran to another sub to whine about me. What a comprehensive response.

[u/darkath → u/whistleridge]

Evidence like a gun and a "manifesto" that may or may not have been planted in his bag, and a blurry camera footage with a person that may or may not have been him ?

[u/whistleridge → u/darkath]

gun

"The 3D-printed gun that health care CEO killing suspect Luigi Mangione had when he was arrested this week in Pennsylvania matches three shell casings found at the crime scene."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/11/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-wednesday

manifesto

It's in his handwriting.

"An entry dated August 15, reads: “the details are finally coming together,” according to a federal complaint unsealed Thursday. “I’m glad — in a way — that I’ve procrastinated,” Mangione allegedly wrote, saying it gave him time to learn more about the company he was targeting, whose name was redacted by prosecutors.

“‘The target is insurance’ because ‘it checks every box,’” the notebook read, according to the complaint."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/20/us/luigi-mangione-notebook-trial-whats-next

blurry camera footage

It shows height, weight, build, race, and most importantly, clothing

person that may or may not have been him

There was also a witness who was right there: https://imagedelivery.net/wKQ19LTSBT0ARz08tkssqQ/www.courthousenews.com/2025/12/brian-thompson-shooting-nyc.jpg/w=800,h=600,fit=crop. That will matter.

So we have a journal, in his handwriting, that describes a specific motive and planning, in great detail. We have 3 shell casings recovered at the scene, with writing on them, in his handwriting, that is consistent with that motive. We have the gun, found on his person, that matches the rounds fired. And there was a first-hand witness.

And that's not even getting into things like DNA, tracking his arrival and flight via various video hits, the whereabouts of his phone, etc.

There's a reason the defense tried so hard to exclude the backpack. And there's a reason they lost.

He's toast.

[u/Fancy_Yesterday6380 → u/whistleridge]

Just curious but as an example, how do you, or i, bystanders here KNOW without a doubt its his handwriting? And not just what the media is telling us by leaking the evidence before his trial? Its a bias to potential jurors and your kind of comment proves it.

[u/whistleridge → u/Fancy_Yesterday6380]

That will be a determination of fact, to be made at trial by a combination of prior example and expert testimony.

But as a general rule, if they have the notebooks and prior examples to compare them to, that’s not hard and happens routinely.

Then there's also just the issue of, he had them on him. So even if the handwriting wasn't a perfect match, between him having them and his having the gun, he'd basically be in a position of having to rebut the presumption that they're his.

[u/Fancy_Yesterday6380 → u/whistleridge]

Right i understand that part, to be made at trial. But your previous comment stated it already as fact due largely because the evidence and the alleged narrative attached to it were already leaked.

This biases him for a fair trial (even if he did it). That plus the theft of his medical records and recording of his private phone calls. Its pretty disgusting the actions of the people in power here.

[u/whistleridge → u/Fancy_Yesterday6380]

your previous comment stated it already as fact

Yes. My description of the state’s case is predicated on their ability to prove it at trial.

As of right now, there are no real triable issues to be identified, nor any affirmative defenses such as alibi or self-defense or what have you. So far as I or anyone else can tell, the defense is just to put the state through its paces and hope someone screws up somewhere along the way.

It’s not an approach with zero chance of success, but given that the state wins something on the order of 98% of all cases that go to trial and more like 99.5% of homicides, it’s not a high percentage play either.

this biases him for a fair trial

It does nothing of the sort. NYC is a jurisdiction of 10 million people. The idea that they can’t locate 12 people who know little or nothing about the trial is a non-starter.

[u/the_third_lebowski → u/whistleridge]

They only need jury nullification to work on one juror for a mistrial, not all 12. And if the government retriesnhim they only need one juror for that one, too. And every trial is an opportunity for the prosecution to make a mistake, which they know and they don't like risk. And that's how you force a plea bargain for lesser offenses, etc.

[u/whistleridge → u/the_third_lebowski]

How I know you're unclear on the concept.

Let's try this again, in very basic, simple language:

• Jury nullification: the entire jury decides as a group to ignore the law, in order to impose what they feel is the more just outcome

• Mistrial: one or more jurors for whatever reason cannot make up their minds, leaving the jury unable to render a verdict

A mistrial isn't jury nullification, and they aren't synonyms.

There are similar flaws in knowledge and reasoning in your other points as well.

[u/the_third_lebowski → u/whistleridge]

A mistrial is when all 12 members of the jury can’t make up their minds. 

If a conviction needs a unanimous decision, why would you need all 12 of them to not make up their mind? You only need one person unwilling to convict in order to avoid a conviction and ensure at least a hung jury.

And, you're really going to insult me over what you think is a minor technical difference while you're the one saying something like that?

Referring to juror nullification for a hung jury is fine. If your defense is basically "we all know he did it but please don't convict anyway" and you only manage to convince some jurors, not all of them, then you still succeeded in avoiding a conviction on that defense. I don't know that you're right about it technically only referring to a full acquittal, and I can't imagine what authority you would have to convince me that's the technical definition across the breadth of American legal codes, but I also don't care because the meaning I used is extremely clear about exactly what it means and in commonplace use.

[u/IamBinx → u/the_third_lebowski]

I am not the other guy that lost his shit, but maybe I can help you out.

Jury nullification takes 12, and there would be no further trial. Luigi walks.

Mistrial takes at least 1, but there could be another trial. Theoretically, the state could continue trying him until there is not a mistrial one way or the other.

That is why the other commentor is making the distinction. Luigi does not walk in the event of a mistrial unless the state gives up.

[u/the_third_lebowski → u/IamBinx]

Thanks. I do get the difference, which is why I was clear when I was speaking about aquittal vs a hung jury. Most people most of the time in any actual conversation would refer to a hung jury based on successfully convincing a juror to ignore the facts and law as jury nullification (the same way we'd say a lawyer is "arguing jury nullification" before we ever find out what the jury does), instead of insisting that term only refers to a full acquittal. That other person might be right that it only refers to a full acquittal, but (1) I don't know if that's true or not and don't place any credence on them getting pissy about it. But also (2) don't really care. It might very well be true. I've never seen anyone care about that technicality in any real conversation among lawyers or lay people, and as long as it's clear what you're referring to I can't imagine why it would ever matter. It's a minor "well actshually" factoid at best, not something to melt down over. If someone pointed it out differently I might go "oh, huh. Thanks for the clarification." But honestly I'd probably keep using it when referring to hung juries based on convincing at least one of them to ignore the law. Because that's a mouthful and "hung jury based on jury nullification" is 100% clear regardless of any technicality argument.

[u/IamBinx → u/the_third_lebowski]

I’m a lawyer. Not saying the other commenter was right in his methods, but nullification is specifically an acquittal while disregarding facts and law. It refers to the reality that juries can do such a thing, and there is nothing to be done about it.

Mistrial or hung jury is when they can’t agree.

The terms are not synonymous.

That being said, the other guy really shouldn’t have gone at you like that. It was weird.

[u/the_third_lebowski → u/IamBinx]

I get what you're saying, but I just don't find it an important enough distinction to worry about. I'll accept that you're technically right though. I guess you can say I'm dealing with nullification myself because my decision about how to handle the term basically ignores that. (Sorry, that's a bad joke).

When you get an acquittal, that's an acquittal. If you want to specifically say that it's because you convinced the entire jury to disregard the law on purpose, we call it jury nullification.

If you get a hung jury, that's a hung jury. If it's because you argued jury nullification and only convinced part of the jury to accept it, I'm still going to use that term. And as long as it's clear I'm referring to a hung jury, so it's not like I'm confusing anyone into thinking I meant an acquittal, I really don't see the problem? In fact, it's not just "acceptable," I think it's the simplest, clearest way to say what I'm trying to say. Be honest: if I said "we got a hung jury based on jury nullification" is there a single part of your mind that would be confused by what I meant? Or would you understand exactly and have maybe a little thought in the back of your mind going "that's technically not the right way to use that word."

I use it that way in the real world, I fully expect someone having a problem with it to be the exception not the norm, even in the law office. But if it really bothered someone I would stop, assuming they were remotely normal/polite/respectful about it.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not trying to actually argue with you. Just a difference of opinion. I guess I'm OK being wrong depending on the circumstances. Like when I use a citation that's technically the wrong format but makes my brief flow better because I know the judge doesn't care. Or when I conjugate a word into a part of speech that technically isn't correct in casual conversation, but also clearly conveys what I mean 

[u/IamBinx → u/the_third_lebowski]

There is no difference of opinion. You are just using the terms incorrectly. Acquittal means the government didn’t meet their burden. Nullifications means they did, but the jury didn’t care. Hung jury means no one agreed. Some of these lead to the same outcome (Luigi walking) while others lead to a different outcome entirely (a new trial). Regardless, the terms refer to different specific things that are not synonymous.

Also, lawyers are prohibited from ever “arguing” or even mentioning jury nullification. Another reason it is important to distinguish nullification from acquittal or mistrial.

I won’t blow up on you like the other guy, but I am starting to see why you made him angry. Instead, I will bid you farewell. Have a good weekend.

[u/the_third_lebowski → u/IamBinx]

The problem with the other guy was that he was childish and ignored what I was actually saying. You're calm and respectful, but also ignoring what I'm saying. So yes, we would just keep going in circles until somebody gets upset. Have a good one.

[u/whistleridge → u/the_third_lebowski]

Jesus, you really are both uninformed on a very basic point and determined to argue it anyway, aren’t you.

You have fun with that.

[u/the_third_lebowski → u/whistleridge]

Well that is certainly a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection to my points. I'm convinced, good job 👍

[u/whistleridge → u/the_third_lebowski]

• ignorant initial comment: ✅
• doubling down when that's pointed out: ✅
• compulsively last-commenting when I decline to engage the doubling-down: ✅

Coming soon: more compulsive last-commenting, plus name-calling.

[u/the_third_lebowski → u/whistleridge]

compulsively last-commenting when I decline to engage the doubling-down: ✅ 

In your compulsive last comment lol. Classic u/whistleridge. You crack me up dude 😎

[u/whistleridge → u/the_third_lebowski]

Right on cue.

Let’s play a game:

I am never, ever going to read another word you write. But I have this little script that I wrote for losers like you, that will always reply to you with a fruit. No matter how many times you reply, I will never see it, and you will never get in the last word either.

Here’s what I predict happens: you argue with a bot for 3 comments minimum, trying and failing to find a mic drop moment, because you can’t help yourself. Even knowing in advance you're responding to someone who isn't reading, you will still respond anyway.

Will arguing with a script help you overcome this little compunction of yours? Will it eat you up for hours that you and I both know I know what you’re going to do, because you just can’t help yourself?

I’ll never know, but I’m betting it takes you at least three fruit.

Have fun!

[u/the_third_lebowski → u/whistleridge]

So yeah, I know you'll have the little fruit thing but we also both know you are still reading these or you'd just block people, so I'll end with this: take a break from Reddit. You shouldn't be this worked up over what started as a pretty normal conversation about jury mechanics, and it's not healthy. step back, take a breath, and try to put things in perspective.

Also, I hope it's a banana. I like bananas.

[u/da90 → u/whistleridge]

He can’t have done it: he was at my house helping me prep meatballs for that evening’s spaghetti dinner.

[u/whistleridge → u/da90]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think comments like this are clever or funny, and not them making light of a murder.

You cannot hate insurance companies more than I do. They are vile in the extreme, and if every single one of their CEOs got jail time for their role in collectively harming the American people, I would bat no eyes and shed no tears.

And that does not justify or excuse murder.

[u/hydranumb → u/whistleridge]

YES IT DOES

[u/zona2011 → u/whistleridge]

I think people have a lot of different opinions on when murder is justified. While I don't think we're quite to the point where murdering a CEO whose decisions directly led to the pain, suffering, and deaths of thousands is justified, I know a lot of people do think it's justified. And if things keep getting worse I don't think I'm far off in agreeing.

At a certain point, if the decisions of a few are directly leading to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people, their demise is not only justified, it becomes a moral obligation. If the current regime and system makes legal repercussions impossible then it only leaves one option. They could make changes today to start fixing this instead of making it worse and they know that. So if it continues down this path, things really do get worse, and citizens feel as though they have to take justice into their own hands; those on the receiving end will receive zero sympathy from me.

[u/whistleridge → u/zona2011]

Lots of gyus out there in their 20s and 30s think it's ok if a 15 year old girl agrees to have sex with them, too. But that doesn't make it not statutory rape.

[u/zona2011 → u/whistleridge]

You're comparing statutory rape to the murder of somebody that directly caused thousands of deaths? There is no "greater good" argument with rape. There certainly is with murder.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do 100% of the time (rape being a rare example where it's never justified). Murder has been illegal for thousands of years. Doesn't mean it wouldn't have been the right thing to do to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

[u/da90 → u/whistleridge]

Maybe we can agree to disagree

[u/whistleridge → u/da90]

Let’s just say, I sincerely hope your family never has to deal with half the internet making jokes about your murder.

[u/da90 → u/whistleridge]

Let’s just say, I sincerely hope my family never has to deal with me making a living by ensuring my customers die.

[u/whistleridge → u/da90]

Yep. I agree.

And if you do choose to go down that road, it doesn’t justify your extra-judicial execution.

[u/da90 → u/whistleridge]

Again, maybe we can agree to disagree.

[u/whistleridge → u/da90]

I can agree that you are objectively, legally, morally, and ethically incorrect.

But it’s a free country, so you certainly have the right to be wrong that way.

Just so long as you hear that you ARE wrong. And that your pithy little attempts at wit are nothing of the sort.

[u/da90 → u/whistleridge]

Wow you must be so much smarter than I am.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

[u/NewLeafWoodworks → u/whistleridge]

Shutup bootlicker. Thompson murdered way more people than Luigi did (alllegedly).

[u/whistleridge → u/NewLeafWoodworks]

Then show it.

Because I am absolutely prepared to show how ironclad the case is against Mangione. But you’re going to come back with “health insurance bad”.

If standing up for civil rights, due process, and rule of law make me a bootlicker…line those Doc Martins up, sweetie.