this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
151 points (98.1% liked)

Overseas News

503 readers
57 users here now

A place for Australians and friends to share news from the other countries. Like all communities here, we discuss topics from the Australian perspective.

If you're looking for a global /c/worldnews instead, search for the many options on federated instances.

Rules
  1. Follow the aussie.zone rules
  2. We are not a generic World News clone. News must be relevant to Australians and our region. Obvious disregard will earn an warning and then a ban if continued. (If an article isn't from an Oceanian news outlet, and it doesn’t mention Australia, then it’s probably off-topic)
  3. Leave seppocentrism at the door. If you don't know what that means, you're not ready to post here yet.
  4. Avoid editorialising headlines. Opinions go in the comments, not the post.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In short:

Luigi Mangione has pleaded not guilty to state murder and terror charges.

Mr Mangione is accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel.

What's next?

Prosecutors say the state case is expected to run parallel to a federal prosecution.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 19 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Interesting. Is he going with the “you got the wrong guy” defence?

[–] dave881@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago

This is the normal way to begin a jury trial.

He's not admitting guilt, requiring the prosecutor to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) to a jury that he's guilty of the charges.

If I understand correctly, NY has chosen to charge Murder 1 with a terrorism enhancement, which requires the state to prove claims about his mental state, intent, and motivation.

I assume that the defense is hoping to push for some sort of settlement latter in the pre-trial process, and/or to cast sufficient doubt over the specific elements of the charges brought

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean, the police sculpted his eyebrows before extradition to make him present more like the assailant. He does not look like the same person, so of course he is. He seems like an innocent person who's had charges pinned on him for the appearance of a functioning justice system.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They did? Do you have a source for that?

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Look at him when he was initially arrested and then in the PR orchestrated extradition photos.

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

My partner was listening to some online people that said he was given a good treatment by the jailhouse barber and that is why he has a better haircut and shave than the average perp but he was probably only in holding not full on jail so he might not have been where a inmate barber was available so it could have been done by the state to make him look more put together and menacing to his "terror" targets.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This is requirement in US Court system to even have a trial. If you admit guilt, they skip right to sentencing

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wait... Is this not a requirement elsewhere?

[–] Steve@startrek.website 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are reasons why someone might admit guilt when they didnt do it. A fall guy for the mafia, for example. In that case an honest court system might want a trial to uncover the truth, rather than just lock up the patsy.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

Ah.

It seems like the court system you describe is considered an investigative body.

Under the US system, the investigation proceeds independent of the courts. The fall guy pleading guilty doesn't stop the investigation.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 3 points 2 days ago

Ah ok. Didn’t know this. Thanks.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Just base on the first pictures they shared, they did get the wrong guy.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 25 points 2 days ago

Well it can’t have been him because he was getting drunk in Canada with me at the time of the shooting, obviously.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 14 points 2 days ago

He's going with the "Go ahead and make me a martyr; I fucking dare you" defense.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think pleading guilty skips the jury trial entirely.

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

Plus, I think many people agree that the charges the prosecution brought are not charges he is guilty of. They pushed for terrorism so they could get first degree murder charges instead of a lesser charge.

He may have plead guilty if they had brought more appropriate charges.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Probably the “I’m not guilty of this exact crime” defense. The burden of proof for murder 1, let alone terrorism, is a lot higher than murder 2.

In effect he’s saying “I may have murdered him, but I didn’t murder 1 him.”

At least if I’m understanding Legal Eagle correctly.