Luigi Mangione is accused of stalking United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and shooting him to death on Dec. 4, 2024.
Solidarity aside, whenever you are arraigned, any lawyer worth their salt will advise you to plead not guilty, because entering a guilty plea means it’s over, move on to sentencing, where you have no leverage at all.
You can always change a not guilty plea to a guilty plea later, if a plea deal offered by the prosecution is acceptable to you. This is especially relevant in a case where the death penalty is on the table, but also applies to the possibility of reduced charges or penalties in any case.
I’ll also add that this case could well end up with an Alford plea. In short, where the defendant asserts innocence, does not admit to the criminal act, but accepts the sentence because they believe that a jury would find them guilty based on the evidence. Again, this is definitely related to a case where the death penalty is on the table.
Because of this fact a lot of courts will just automatically enter a not guilty plea during your first appearance now.
deleted by creator
I’d be very disappointed in any jury who found him guilty
Realistically they’ll try arrange one that will. They’re going to try secure a guilty verdict by any means necessary to make an example out of him.
That would be the worst thing for them to do, but they’re not the brightest.
Ideally, a jury’s responsibility is to weigh the evidence and find whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
There has been no jury selection yet, let alone presentation of evidence. I would guess that any jury nullification would depend on a defense tactic of “Yes, my client committed this act, and his motive was to prevent UHC from directly causing the deaths of their customers by refusing to honor legitimate claims or by delaying payment of claims.” There might be something there, especially since UHC changed its stance on something (I forget exactly what right now) in the wake of their CEO being killed.
But that would be a really difficult defense to mount. You’d basically be admitting to the act and hoping that at least one person on the jury would A) agree with your defense, and B) be willing to hold out over it, and C) not be replaced by an alternate for “failure to follow jury instructions” or some such thing.
Again, since a jury has not even been selected, I won’t speculate on what evidence gets presented and what evidence (if any) ends up being excluded. By extension, I cannot agree with your above comment.
Please note that I am also not saying “He’s guilty, he should hang”, because that would also entail speculating on evidence.
They’ll find 12 angry rich white women and its over for him. You know it, I know it. Dude martyrd himself from the beginning and I bet he knew it
they will more than likely choose 12 retirees, and people that dont read the news that much plus any pushovers. thats how they choose these are the most easily manipulated juror types out there. ive been in different forums about juror duties, its almost always these people.
on reddit people speculated they will probably choose one where thier own insurance hasnt screwed them over, so it creates a bias for the prosecution.
“The man who saves his country breaks no laws” isn’t that right DoJ?
They don’t have to say outright that the guy was scum and got what he deserved, just question why the federal charges are being brought while there’s a state case and ask questions about how many other people would have a good reason to want this health insurance executive dead. You can introduce the message without abandoning all other defense and saying it explicitly.
Having one person isn’t going to help much, even if they don’t get replaced, it’ll be a hung jury at best, unless they’re the most persuasive, charismatic person on earth.
And you generally don’t want a hung jury. It’s just delaying, and now the other side knows your entire defence strategy and can prepare on better countering it. You having information on their strategy isn’t as valuable.
In federal Court the judge has a lot more control in the composition of the jury., they even lead voir dire.
They can pick a jury of all ceos if they want.
That would be a bold choice, and I don’t think it would work out well overall. In terms of the public response. And imagine the security, it would be locked down harder than any place in the world.
Although in all seriousness, in a normal setting they might be challenged if they chose an all-CEO jury. You can’t fill a jury with the potential target victims of the crime that is being accused. It would not be seen as fair by any stretch of the imagination.
If someone was a accused of targeting very tall men with pink hair, you couldn’t fill the jury with people matching that description. Any sane person in the legal business would call them crazy.
that would show extreme bias by the courts, its like an all white female jury against a black defendant.
Having been on a jury,
People are dumb and have no empathy
People might not have empathy, but even less people are going to want to side with an insurance company
Having been on a juryPeople are dumb and have no empathy
I was on a grand jury some years ago in NYC. It really did a number on my faith in people and the legal system.
Now, a grand jury is different than a regular (petit) jury in a few key ways. First, you only need simple majority to move forward with an indictment. You can’t 12-angry-men hang a grand jury. Second, as I learned later, even if you do convince a majority to not indict, the prosecutor can just try again. So all those times the police didn’t get indicted for murder and the prosecutor just gave up? They could have tried again. They didn’t, because they didn’t want to.
All of that said, the cases were largely about drugs. People selling weed and heroin and the like. No violence. I suggested to the jury that we maybe just say no, and don’t ruin people’s lives over marijuana. You don’t have to show your work. You can just say whatever. The whole rest of the jury was like “are you insane?” Some of them were just anti-drug, full stop no context. Some of them were like “We have to do what they tell us” very obedient. Some of them just wanted to go home, and thought an indictment would be the fastest way.
They all voted to indict on every charge. The guy who was sleeping, and the lawyers and cops laughed at him snoring, also voted to indict.
I asked the little old white lady sitting behind me a hypothetical. I asked if she was on a jury in the 60s, and the charge was a black man eating at an all white’s diner, if she would indict. She was like, “Hmmm maybe.”
I tried. One of the cases the cops said they found a gun in the man’s house, so they charged him with intent to use it in a violent crime, or something. I was like, they didn’t even try to prove it was his or that he was going to use it. Everyone voted to indict. I’m just like, why do you have to make it easier for the police?
also heard the smart ones get out of jury duty. i had a former colleague in an old job said she was chosen because she wouldnt speak for herself.
The problem is he definitely killed the guy. In a sane world the defense would walk in, state directly to the jury “jury nullification is a thing”, and that would be the end of it.
They have engineered a system where the only recourse the common man has is violence, and I have no qualms about saying this CEO, like many others, deserved to die.
Why? It’s not even a question of if it was him. And it’s not even a question of whether he killed the guy.
He is a murderer whether you agree with why he did it or not.
So you believe that someone who followed this CEOs schedule to find an opportune moment to shoot him, escape to a pre-stashed escape bike, then rode through the one place in New York without CCTV and DITCHED EVIDENCE then carried the MURDER WEAPON, which he didn’t ditch, to a McDonald’s isn’t being set up? The inventory of what they “found” on him wasn’t done until AFTER a New York cop drove up there. It makes more sense to me that the gun was ditched in Central Park and the NYPD just held onto it until they found a good patsy, then drove it to Pennsylvania so they could “find” it on him.
the point from him “allegedly” shooting the ceo, to them trying to find evidence was botched from the getgo.
I told you he didn’t do it!
It was a me! Mario!
It was a me all along!
I thought it was Agatha All Along?
Well, that settles it then. Better release him for the sake of Government Efficiency and all that.
Good. All the best to him.
Luigi Mangione is a hero of the people.
deleted by creator
Wow! This is amazing! This garden vegetable is talking! I mean, it’s completely wrong, but god damn! Talking veggies!
But he oversaw one of the worst insurance companies out there.
Nah. He’s “just some schmuck.” TURNIP HAS SPOKEN.
I looked at some of thier subsidiaries, and i know people that have to use thier pharamcy networks, also terrible service. optum health is owned by UHG.
He operated the largest health insurance company, setting the model for the rest to follow. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people suffered/ died when he fraudulently denied them the health care that they paid for. He is a corporate serial killer, who murdered people for profit. Whoever killed him, did it to protect his customers from his fraudulent, and deadly, business practices.
Well, he operated the lowest branch of the largest health insurance company, but I’d say the rest still applies.
too bad it wasnt witty or hemsely, the head of the companies of UHG.
The guy was making north of $10 mill a year, so he wasn’t small potatoes.
I didn’t say he was any kind of potatoes, just pointing out a fact.
Was probably self-defense then.
Or in defense of others.
how about the billionaires who donate to the politicians? I’d say in several cases they have more power. And btw (while I don’t think killing him was good), the company was developing an AI under that CEOs leadership designed to find more complex ways to deny claims
Nah he was just framed as one
True hero!
For no reason at all.
Free Luigi, he did it and I stand with him.
Where’s your evidence he is guilty?
*If
I believe him.
He couldn’t have done it! He was having a couple beers with me at the time that CEO died
I remember that night! He was buying rounds for the whole bar, what a great guy!
I was at that bar too, great guy. I’ll testify under oath.
Yo, guy… Did you kill that CEO?
We all killed that
CEOleech, on this blessed day
Yeah that tracks. He was walking my dough at the time.
He was walking my dough at the time
Is that a new way to make bread?
Mmmmm, barium bromide.
It’s how you make feetza.
The yeast is included.
Free this man. The wealthy psychopaths need something to be fearful of as it’s the only emotional trigger that will keep their behavior from genociding the poor.
We are all Luigi. Make them fear all of us, not just one.
So far, only one has actually done anything.
We haven’t reached the mass violence stage yet, but it is coming. Luigi is the first, and will be the inspiration for others. His trial will be a bigger circus than the OJ trial, and protests are likely to get violent.
HitlerPig is also likely to suspend the 2026 midterm election, which will cause a lot of violence.
There are a LOT of Luigis under the surface, waiting for the Tipping Point to happen.
The only thing that prevents the working class’ genocide is that the military isn’t fully automated yet.
Soon.
Federal prosecutors claimed in their new filing that Mangione deserves the death penalty because of “the impact of the victim’s death upon his family, friends and co-workers” and because “he expressed intent to target an entire industry and rally political and social opposition to that industry, by engaging in an act of lethal violence.”
I just want to remind everyone of the impact of many of Thompson’s murders on their family, friend, and co-workers, all in the service of the money masters’ sheer, unadulterated, insatiable greed.
funny how none of thompsons family or friends came out supporting him? the estranged wife who is probably elated to not fight in divorce court, or Mr andrew witty dint even bat an eye he died.
Also we literally only know his thoughts on the matter because they released excerpts of his journal. If he was trying to rally political and social opposition, you’d think he would have published a manifesto himself.
That journal is fabricated.
The manufactured evidence then found a guy they could pin it on
Presumptive of you to assume what was put forth as his writings are actually his. His guilt or innocence need to be determined in court, not in law enforcement’s uncorroborated statements to the media.
Dude was with me in Bahamas
I was in the Bahamas and witnessed him being with you.
He’s guilty of stealing my heart tho
Why, is he made of cheese?
whatever he’s made of id eat the shit out of him.
I mean, cheese is one thing. But if shit is your thing, who am I to judge.
Guilty of my cholesterol.
At least he’s wearing armor now.
Luigi is a hero. But not because he killed a CEO, or anyone. Because he was framed by the government, dragged through the mud, humiliated publicly, and held his head high standing 10 feet tall. Not guilty plea is nothing less than I expected. We should all take note of his example. They can’t beat us all if we resist.
Does the public have any information on the evidence they have that he did it? What I have read about all sounds like a weak case with what I suspect is a mountain of inadmissible evidence gathered by methods outside of laws that would apply to the non elite class.
It is an extremely weak case. He is unidentifiable by the video, which is their best evidence by far, and any physical evidence is suspect in multiple ways, due to police corruption and corporate/ oligarch pressure. It should be very easy to sow reasonable doubt.
plus having mayor andams escorting them in a perp walk for brownie points to get trumps attention isnt helping the prosecutors case.
That probably won’t matter to the actual court case, but it was a symbol that the “System” was going to do everything they can to get this guy. It was an attempt to send a message to the citizens, poor and rich alike, that an attack on the rich would not be tolerated. It was supposed to influence public opinion, and the jury pool.
But it backfired spectacularly. The first time i saw that photo, it had a caption like “Jesus is accompanied by Roman Soldiers to his crucifixion.” That was NOT the message they were trying to send.
