Why would he? We were playing stardew valley together at the time, and he was showing me how to reel in the legendary fish.
post
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.
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.
Probably not a good thing.
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?
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
Doesn't that kind of go directly against the purpose of lawful searches?
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.
The issue is that a key piece of evidence that should have been a very obvious find at first glance wasn't found at the scene, but only later after the officer had stopped searching the bag and driven to the police station.
Ok, but why start by saying you like it in the butt?
That's a good question.
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.
Well that is bullshit, but gives good grounds for an appeal later
Finally, some good fucking news
Not really since the obviously planted evidence with a broken chain of custody is allowed to be presented at trial.
Is it a jury trail where the defence can seed reasonable doubt on the obvious chain of custody issues?
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
What a strange requirement for a murder charge
But Jonathan Ross should (I'm actually against the death penalty, even for those ice murderers, just venting)
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.
But we can all agree Charlie Kirk cashed a check he himself wrote?
"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..."
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?
I wonder how that applies in the digital age
If someone is using press briefs to digitally follow where someone is, does that count?
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.
top 50 comments