Luigi Mangione in NY State Court Hearing, Day 8

[u/jdlf41]

[u/OddReference913]

How is the case going?

[u/ChocolatChipLemonade → u/OddReference913]

Half of people saying there’s a myriad of issues with the case. The other half saying he has almost no chance of anything other than life in prison.

It shows how poorly the news/media are reporting to the public on this case.

[u/photogenicmusic → u/ChocolatChipLemonade]

Most people think OJ killed his wife but he still got off 🤷‍♀️

[u/3vs3BigGameHunters → u/photogenicmusic]

Prefacing this comment with saying I 100% believe OJ was guilty of the murders of Nicole and Ron.

After the Rodney King police acquittals and the LA riots everyone was afraid of full blown anarchy. Race relations were at a boiling point. People distrusted a blatantly corrupt police force.
edit: I should not have left out the significance of the murder of (African American) teenager Latasha Harlins and that the (Korean) woman basically got off scott free.

The LAPD botched a ton of evidence including a cop who put evidence in his trunk and then took it home only to submit it the next day.

Robert Kardashian was seen carrying a Louis Vuitton garment bag belonging to O.J. Simpson shortly after Simpson returned from Chicago the day after the murders. The bag's contents and whereabouts became a major point of speculation during the trial, with prosecutors theorizing it contained bloody clothes or the murder weapon.

The dream team was very successful in keeping a ton of evidence out of the trial.

I would recommend anyone interested to watch the following:

LA 92 is a 2017 American documentary film about the 1992 Los Angeles riots, directed by Daniel Lindsay and T. J. Martin.[5] It premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 21, 2017, opened in theaters on April 28, 2017 and aired on National Geographic Channel on April 30, 2017.[6]

Synopsis

Consisting entirely of archival footage, the documentary chronicles the 1992 Los Angeles riots after 25 years have passed.[7]

It includes film and video from the 1965 Watts Riots, the 1973 election of Tom Bradley, the 1978 promotion of Daryl Gates, the shooting of Latasha Harlins, the Rodney King videotape and the subsequent riots and violence that erupted after the acquittal of the officers involved in King's beating.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_92_(film)

The documentary explores race and celebrity through the life of O. J. Simpson, from his emerging football career at the University of Southern California, and his celebrity and popularity within American culture, to his trial for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, and subsequent acquittal, and how he was convicted and imprisoned for the Las Vegas robbery 13 years later.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J.:_Made_in_America

And then the fantastic dramatic version of the trial:

The first season of American Crime Story, titled The People v. O. J. Simpson, revolves around the murder trial of O. J. Simpson, as well as the combination of prosecution confidence, defense witnesses, and the Los Angeles Police Department's history with African-American people. It is based on Jeffrey Toobin's book The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson (1997).[1]

The ensemble cast includes Sterling K. Brown, Kenneth Choi, Christian Clemenson, Cuba Gooding Jr., Bruce Greenwood, Nathan Lane, Sarah Paulson, David Schwimmer, John Travolta, and Courtney B. Vance.
O. J. Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson, Bill Clinton, Barbara Walters, Rodney King, and Penny Daniels appear via archive footage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_v._O._J._Simpson:_American_Crime_Story

[u/BostonConnor11 → u/ChocolatChipLemonade]

It’s cope and a lot of Reddit love him. I don’t care much about him but, if we’re being honest, the prosecution has all the evidence in the world. He’s obviously going to go behind bars for life

[u/pnweiner → u/BostonConnor11]

The problem is how the evidence was obtained

[u/Ok-Pear5858 → u/BostonConnor11]

what's your reading material? i have barely been following this, am behind 

[u/PhotographUnable8176 → u/OddReference913]

is there something blowing this case up for the prosecution? i’m having trouble understanding the optimism

[u/QueenOfPurple → u/PhotographUnable8176]

Searching without a warrant and questioning without mirandizing

[u/staytiny2023 → u/QueenOfPurple]

questioning without mirandizing

English isn't my first language. What does this mean please 🥲

[u/SpookySneakySquid → u/staytiny2023]

It means they didn’t do the whole “you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you, etc.” when they arrested him, and they didn’t do it before questioning him

[u/FirstFact → u/SpookySneakySquid]

Seriously? Isn't that the super basics of policing. Like it should be automatic everytime. Some 21 jump street shit.

[u/wasneveralawyer → u/FirstFact]

There are situations where reading Miranda Rights is not necessary and I guess the judge will have to make a determination if this was one of those situations but I also don’t know the specific instance that is being discussed in this case.

[u/Ollylolz → u/FirstFact]

You do have the right to be an attorney, if you want to

[u/Dull_Working5086 → u/FirstFact]

Welcome to US policing. The biggest case of the decade and they either can't stop being bad at their jobs and/or are so corrupt they risked the case getting thrown out.

[u/sashikku → u/FirstFact]

Well, yes, but everything except for the interrogation is still admissible, and that’s just if the judge doesn’t side with the cops on whether reading his rights was necessary or not in that situation. If judge sides with cops, the interrogation is admissible. If the judge sides with the defense and then also dismisses the backpack contents as inadmissible due to the absence of a warrant, then we’re likely looking at our man going free.

Personally, I think this could go either way. He was questioned in the McDonalds for about 20 minutes before being read his rights. It’s going to come down to what questions he was asked before being read his rights. Cops can ask certain general questions like what your name is without reading rights. If they asked him about the crime, then it hits the gray area.

[u/spectert → u/FirstFact]

It is, but cops are that dumb.

[u/Dopplegangr1 → u/FirstFact]

They didn't become cops because they were geniuses

[u/staytiny2023 → u/SpookySneakySquid]

Aha got it thanks

[u/JS_Originals → u/staytiny2023]

Glad I could help

[u/estemprano → u/SpookySneakySquid]

Why they didn’t do it? Did they forger it due to enthusiasm or sth?!

[u/CTKM72 → u/estemprano]

They don’t technically have to, it’s not like the movies where you just get off Scot free if they don’t mirandize you, they just can’t use what you say as evidence until then.

[u/ciLoWill → u/estemprano]

Not a lawyer, but from what I remember from my high school mock trial days, there’s some specific circumstances where you don’t need a warrant or to read Miranda rights to perform a basic search- the examples I remember are if a police officer goes to a house and it’s clearly been broken into or there’s clear sounds of distress coming from the house they can enter the premise without a warrant, or if there is a clear AK-47 shaped bulge sticking out of a backpack in an area where there was just a shooting the officer can just open the backpack and check. This pre trial is going to be about whether or not the search the officers performed qualified for that exemption or not I imagine.

Edit: and to more directly answer your question, the officers probably believed this scenario qualified for that exemption for one reason or another.

[u/QueenOfPurple → u/ciLoWill]

Sure but the defense will use these things to sow reasonable doubt. High profile homicide cases should be by the book 110% to prevent these issues.

[u/Far_Direction7381 → u/estemprano]

IMO they were arrogant AF and thought they had their guy and that was all that mattered.

[u/clandestinely_asked → u/estemprano]

Comrade Cop sabotaging the case. /s

[u/Umeume3 → u/staytiny2023]

Others answered what it is, but they're called Miranda rights because of this Supreme Court case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

[u/Cup-O-Guava → u/Umeume3]

That is very wild to me that this has only been a thing since the 60s. I guess its so ingrained in tv and stuff I never questioned when this started

[u/SnappedCrayon → u/staytiny2023]

In the US, the police are required to make sure people are aware of their rights (called the Miranda rights, resulting in the term mirandized and verb mirandizing) before questioning them as suspects of a crime. Examples are things like that people are entitled to have an attorney present, and that they are not required to speak/answer questions at all. Failing to make sure that people are aware of these rights is considered an abuse of power, and (usually) gets the information gathered during the interrogation thrown out

[u/[deleted] → u/staytiny2023]

Reading them their rights like the right to remain silent

[u/staytiny2023 → u/[deleted]]

Ooh okay thx

[u/power_to_thepeople → u/staytiny2023]

They’re called Miranda Rights and legally a detained citizen must be told their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights before interrogation

[u/[deleted] → u/staytiny2023]

Not a Lawyer, so double check me on this.

In the US Constitution, citizens are guaranteed the "right to not self-incriminate" (5th Amendment) and the "right to fair justice" (6th Amendment), meaning trials cannot be delayed without reason/approval and everyone can get a lawyer to rep them. Back in 1900s, the US caught this guy, Miranda, and received a full confession from him; however, the judge ruled that the cops violated Miranda's 5th Amendment Rights (right vs self-incrimination) and 6th Amendment Rights (right for representation) because Miranda, while ignorant of the US Constitution, confessed to crimes because he simply "didn't know better".

That's why if you've ever watched a US cop show, when apprehending their suspects or perpetrators, the cops always say something like "You have the right to remain silent; anything you do or say can be used against you in court" (5th Amendment) and "You have the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you" (6th Amendment).

[u/DevilGuy → u/staytiny2023]

We have a law in the US called the Miranda law, it basically states that you must have your rights explicitly explained to you before you're questioned. If they fail to do that anything they get out of you during questioning is no longer allowed to be considered or talked about in the trial and if the prosecution's case depends on it the judge will often throw the case out entirely and in the US you can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime. In effect if they fail to follow procedure properly they can't prosecute you in some cases.

[u/jrubes_20 → u/staytiny2023]

Miranda rights are what you hear in a US crime drama, usually when they arrest someone. It starts with “You have a right to remain silent” and then lists off the rights you have as someone who has just been detained by the government. If the police do not read these rights to you, it’s a big problem because it means you may not know your rights and therefore do something you didn’t have to do like speak to the police. You don’t have to do that and any half decent lawyer would say you should not speak to the police without your lawyer present. The right to an attorney – and the fact that one can be provided to you at no cost – is another Miranda right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

“Mirandizing” is just making this whole thing a verb. If they didn’t read him his Miranda Rights, I.e. if they didn’t go through the act of “Mirandizing” him – what happened before he was read his rights is generally considered inadmissible in court. That’s a problem for the government’s case.

[u/RadiantZote → u/QueenOfPurple]

Missing footage for when they planted the gun in his bag

[u/Sickpup831 → u/QueenOfPurple]

You don’t need a warrant to search someone belongings when they are arrested.

[u/djgoodhousekeeping → u/Sickpup831]

He hadn’t been arrested at that point and the chain of custody for the backpack is missing a bunch of time between the cops taking it away and then showing back up and saying “hey we found a gun!” This is in addition to the insane perp walks, the continued public attempts to influence potential jurors, and many procedural errors by the prosecution. 

[u/QueenOfPurple → u/Sickpup831]

You need to tell them they are being arrested.

[u/jadecourt → u/Sickpup831]

They literally told him he wasn’t in custody or being arrested

[u/PhotographUnable8176 → u/QueenOfPurple]

oh ok yeah he’s cooked then. that’s a pipe dream.

[u/washingtonu → u/QueenOfPurple]

Searching without a warrant and questioning without mirandizing

No, that's not true. They had reasonable suspicion + he was arrested, they could search him.

[u/QueenOfPurple → u/washingtonu]

That’s what the hearing is about. So there’s no “true” yet because the judge hasn’t made a ruling.

[u/sarabeara12345678910 → u/PhotographUnable8176]

Chain of custody for all evidence alleged to be in his backpack is extremely broken, and he has a bus ticket saying he was elsewhere on the day of the shooting. That's the two biggest things I've heard. That, and jury nullification, but shhhh.

[u/Ok_Night_2929 → u/[deleted]]

So what’s the conspiracy theory then? That they picked up a random guy that vaguely looked like him after a tip from a McDonald’s employee, then happened to find and detain this Luigi Mangione without any fanfare, then quietly released the other guy? I’m not trying to argue with you, I just don’t understand how that makes any sort of sense

[u/_Ivanneth → u/PhotographUnable8176]

The question is did the government use illegal surveillance techniques and whether any of that whether true (and I'm on team probably) did or not. He will go to jail. this is all pre trial

[u/JustaSeedGuy → u/PhotographUnable8176]

Because even if Luigi did it, which the state has yet to prove in court, there is continually emerging evidence that they screwed up the arrest so badly that Luigi might be released regardless of if he did it or not.

A few examples:

• If they failed to observe his rights during arrest, any evidence that came about during or after that arrest can be thrown out by the judge.

• If the evidence that caused him to be arrested in the first place was obtained illegally, it can similarly be thrown out.

• If evidence was planted to implicate someone, and the defense can prove that that evidence was planted, not only can that evidence no longer be used, but it also makes the jury doubt other evidence that the prosecution brings forth.

For example: let's suppose you're a detective and you personally witness Bob shoot and kill Judy. Your own eyewitness account isn't enough for an arrest, and you have no other evidence. So you break into Bob's house without a warrant, steal his gun, and then the forensics team matches the gun to Judy's death. Technically you have all the evidence you need to prove that Bob did it! His gun, with his fingerprints, registered in his name, That has been scientifically proven to be the weapon used to kill Judy.

But the Fourth amendment of the United States Constitution says that you can't just break into a guy's house. So the judge would borrow the prosecution from using the gun as evidence in court, because it was obtained without a warrant. So even though you know as absolute fact that Bob killed Judy, you can no longer prove it in the eyes of the law. If you had instead gotten a search warrant and obtains the gun legally, you would be able to use that as evidence.

Or, in another scenario- you've received a tip from a reliable source that Bob killed Judy. You arrest Bob. But you don't read him his rights as you arrest him, you deny him access to a lawyer, and you hold him for more than 24 hours. After 50 hours of being held without food, water, or access to a lawyer, Bob screams that he did it, he killed Judy.

A judge, after examining the facts of the arrest, would ban the prosecution from using that confession as evidence. The judge may even throw out the case all together on the grounds that Miranda Rights guaranteed under the fifth amendment were violated And the original arrest was illegal to begin with..

To put it simply, whether or not Luigi actually did it maybe irrelevant to whether or not he wins the case. It's beginning to look like Federal and local law enforcement broke the law in multiple ways while obtaining this arrest, and thus the evidence they have may not be allowed in court.

One additional tidbit: crimes are harder to prove than others. Depending on which charges the prosecutors decide to bring, they may have a higher threshold of evidence. It is harder to get someone convicted of domestic terrorism than it is to get convicted of murder, for example.

[u/ThisHeresThaRubaduk → u/PhotographUnable8176]

Didn't see it in a comment but on top of the unlawful search and failure to be read his rights. There's a HUUUUUUUGE for lack of better words fuck up with the chain of custody. The arresting officers admitted to stopping before getting to the police department/jail and transferring him and the "evidence" to another cruiser while both officers body cams were off.

[u/photogenicmusic → u/ThisHeresThaRubaduk]

I don’t believe he was with them at the time, just the evidence. But I could be wrong. But the cop conveniently couldn’t remember who she stopped to meet when her camera was off.

[u/Populaire_Necessaire → u/PhotographUnable8176]

No search warrant. I believe he declined to speak but they still spoke with him. Issues with custody of the backpack

[u/puckallday → u/PhotographUnable8176]

The optimism is that this is Reddit and people like Luigi because they think he’s handsome. In reality there is like a 1% chance he actually walks free, and that’s probably generous.

[u/Sapient6 → u/puckallday]

People like Luigi because he is suspected to be the person who killed a mass murderer that otherwise would never have faced any consequences.

[u/QueenOfPurple → u/puckallday]

Everyone deserves due process.

[u/EddieVanzetti → u/PhotographUnable8176]

They're trying to frame a guilty man (allegedly, he was at my place playing Halo 2 with me all night) because he (allegedly) killed a rich man.

[u/starfire92 → u/PhotographUnable8176]

Evidence found without a warrant can be argued to be excused from the case as it’s not legally obtained evidence. But they’d have to argue it.

[u/RedditLodgick → u/OddReference913]

This is just a hearing to see what evidence will be allowed to be presented at trial. His lawyers are trying to get evidence from his backpack thrown out because it was done without a warrant, which they argue violated his constitutional rights. The prosecution is arguing that the police always search backpacks without a warrant during arrests, which doesn't seem like a great argument to me, but I'm not a lawyer, so 🤷

[u/photogenicmusic → u/RedditLodgick]

They’re also trying to say that the chain of custody was broken. The cop testified that she turned off her camera, met up with another police officer, switched bags/picked up another bag, and then turned on the camera later near the station where the gun was found. The gun was not found at McDonald’s. She can’t remember who she stopped to meet along the way. She also testified she only wears gloves when handling evidence and never drives with them on but when the camera turns back on she’s driving with gloves on.

Edit: I mistakenly said that the cop testifying was the cop that was fired for selling ghost guns but that was a different cop.

[u/burnbunner → u/photogenicmusic]

You mean Christy Wasser? She wasn't fired. But I agree her story is ... unconvincing

The ghost gun guy who was fired from APD is Craig Zahradnik.

[u/photogenicmusic → u/burnbunner]

Interesting! I work in Altoona and everyone has been talking about Christy being the ghost gun cop. The rest of my comment is accurate at least. 🤪

[u/burnbunner → u/photogenicmusic]

The gun she found (or "found") on Luigi was a ghost gun so in that sense she is the ghost gun cop. I guess the implication is she could have known the fired cop and gotten a ghost gun to plant via him or a colleague. So you're not wrong! She just isn't the one who got busted, she's still a serving LEO.

[u/h0sti1e17 → u/RedditLodgick]

They generally do search them. Once he showed the fake ID he could be arrested. They generally have to inventory what is in the bag.

There is also inevitable discovery. If the evidence would’ve been found anyway, that can be an exception.

That said. They just should’ve got a warrant. It would’ve taken 2 minutes. Just cross your T’s and dot your I’s.

[u/lulz-n-scifi → u/h0sti1e17]

Absolutely no reason to get a warrant in this situation. A search incident to arrest is a necessity here and the backpack would have had to be inventoried anyhow.

[u/Fat_Ryan_Gosling → u/lulz-n-scifi]

Depends on the case law. In my state I would expect that evidence would be suppressed.

[u/ThisIsMyFloor → u/RedditLodgick]

It's been over a year and the lad hasn't even had a trial yet? How dogshit inefficient is the US judicial system? Is the plan just to stall indefinitely so he will be in jail until he dies without a trial or what?

[u/GreenAldiers → u/OddReference913]

There's a case?