Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, a federal district judge ruled.

The decision is a loss for federal prosecutors, who were adamant about pursuing the death penalty in the case.

The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another “crime of violence.” Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.

The judge disagreed, finding stalking charges are not “crimes of violence” and dismissed two counts in his federal case – murder and a related firearm offense.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 230 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

Why would he? We were playing stardew valley together at the time, and he was showing me how to reel in the legendary fish.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 73 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    Can confirm. I was working as an Uber driver at the time of the killing, and clearly remember delivering a pizza to a guy named Luigi and a surprisingly kinky fish-shaped sex toy to a guy with the username Gullible. They were both playing Stardew Valley.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 122 points 7 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 70 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Even in the completely off-chance that he wasn't, we don't give the death penalty to first-time murderers who committed one murder and no other crimes. No, the death penalty is for fishermen who are suspected of smuggling drugs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 115 points 7 months ago (26 children)

    Judge Margaret Garnett also ruled Friday to allow into Mangione’s trial evidence recovered from his backpack at the time of his arrest.

    Law enforcement seized several items from Mangione’s backpack, including a handgun, a loaded magazine and a red notebook – key pieces of evidence that authorities have said tie him to the killing.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 92 points 7 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] 89 points 7 months ago (15 children)

    IANAL, but that's surprising to me. He wasn't read his rights at the time, and there were chain of custory issues

    Any lawyers know if it's common for evidence to be allowed in situations like with Luigi?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Some lawyers made a video explaining that if the evidence was likely to have been found in a legal search anyways, it can usually still be admitted. I also ANAL

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Doesn't that kind of go directly against the purpose of lawful searches?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    It would be expected that he would be read his rights and the bag searched in due course. It wasn’t like they looked in a random person’s bag then decided to arrest him.

    If the purpose of lawful searches is to prevent police from harassing just anyone on the off-chance, that purpose is still intact here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Ok, but why start by saying you like it in the butt?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    It depends. It gives the defense a chance to destroy their case in front of a jury.

    They now get to show the jury the unlawful search, the turned off body cam during the search, and the broken chain of evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 60 points 7 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
    [–] 52 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Finally, some good fucking news

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    Not really since the obviously planted evidence with a broken chain of custody is allowed to be presented at trial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 47 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Evil empire full of child killing pedofiles trying to kill the man who showed us the only way out ….im surprised people aren’t more pissed

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 46 points 7 months ago

    Obviously. No innocent person should get the death penalty.

  • source
  • [–] 38 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    What a strange requirement for a murder charge

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    But Jonathan Ross should (I'm actually against the death penalty, even for those ice murderers, just venting)

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    It's hard to not think this way when people like Renée Good and Alex Pretti were effectively sentenced to death, with no trial.

    I agree that venting can be quite cathartic, and I respect the fact that you make it clear that you are just venting. I think drawing those kinds of boundaries for yourself can help to prevent you from slipping into genuinely believing these things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 20 points 7 months ago

    Shouldn't have been on the table in the first place.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago

    "The judge disagreed, finding the stalking charges did not amount to “crimes of violence” and dismissed two counts in Mangione’s federal case – the murder charge and a related firearm offense.

    “The analysis contained in the balance of this Opinion may strike the average person – and indeed many lawyers and judges – as tortured and strange, and the result may seem contrary to our intuitions about the criminal law,” Judge Margaret Garnett wrote in her ruling. “But it represents the Court’s committed effort to faithfully apply the dictates of the Supreme Court to the charges in this case.” "

    Supreme Court: "Not like this..."

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    "Shit, when we wrote the laws to subtly favor us, we were too subtle"

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago*
    [–] 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Understanding the Scope of Stalking Conduct

    The federal statute defines the prohibited action as a “course of conduct,” requiring a pattern of behavior made up of two or more acts over time. A single, isolated incident of unwanted contact is not sufficient to meet the elements of the federal crime

    Source: https://legalclarity.org/what-is-18-u-s-c-1801-federal-interstate-stalking-laws/

    Could he get off since it only happened once?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    The 1984 crime control act is kind of interesting. It was written to walk a line and really limit the death penalty for federal cases. The death penalty requires murder to be stacked with something like robbery, kidnapping, mob shit, etc.

    Even though a premeditated murder would be considered a violent crime, the crime control act requires premeditated murder to be sandwiched within another violent crime to unlock the death penalty as a punishment option.

    This is one of those things that appears to go right up to the line, but the judge ruled on precedent.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›