The man accused of gunning down a health insurance executive in a brazen hit in New York that sparked fierce debate about the industry pleaded not guilty Monday to state charges including “terrorist” murder.
Monday’s hearing came after Mangione, 26, appeared in a New York court last week to face federal charges also including murder following his dramatic extradition by plane and helicopter from Pennsylvania, where he was arrested at a McDonald’s restaurant. The suspect is charged in both state and federal court in the December 4 shooting of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson.
People demonstrating against the industry gathered outside court Monday brandishing banners reading “free Luigi” and “innocent until proven guilty.”
If convicted in the state case, Mangione could face life imprisonment with no parole. In the federal case, he could technically face the death penalty.
Mangioni’s attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo has previously sought clarity on how simultaneous federal and state charges would work, calling the situation “highly unusual.”
Agnifilo raised concerns on Monday that Mangione could not receive a fair trial, and questioned why New York mayor Eric Adams had been present when Mangione was brought off a police helicopter at a Manhattan helipad last week. Aginifilo told local media Monday that officials “are treating him like he is like some sort of political fodder.” She said the sight of Mangione flanked by rifle-wielding tactical officers during the final stage of his extradition that was widely broadcast was “utterly political.”
You can keep convening grand juries against someone for the same event until they agree to indict?
Think about it this way. The grand jury is basically taking on the role of a prosecutor for the sole decision of whether or not to indict, after that, the actual prosecutor takes over.
If you are a civillian, and the prosecutor that has jurisdiction refuses to prosecute, say, the murder of your child, you can then wait for the prosecutor to lose office (either by losing an election, or wait for someone else to get appointed, depending on how its selected in your area), then ask the new prosecutor to file the charges, and since murder has no statute of limitations, you can keep trying this until a prosecutor decides to indict.
This is essentially what a grand jury is. They are temporary taking the role of the prosecutor, for one act, and one act only, deciding whether or not to indict.
Right, but that doesn’t answer if they convene a grand jury for a specific alleged crime, and the grand jury says “no”, can they try again with a new jury? For the same alleged crime? That seems like an obvious flaw in that they can just keep trying until they get an indictment and can proceed. There’d be no point in the grand jury step because it eventually returns an indictment.
Edit: Internet is telling me
Even if a grand jury does not indict an individual, the prosecutor can re-bring the same defendant before the grand jury on the same charges multiple times, although prosecutors will usually wait until a new grand jury is convened for especially high-profile cases. This is allowed because issues of double jeopardy do not attach until a person has been formally charged.
Which seems insane.
https://www.arnoldsmithlaw.com/who-decides-whether-or-not-i-will-be-charged-with-a-crime.html
Our legal system seems really bad, folks
I don’t think its insane.
If half of a grand jury is enough to acquit, then you are basically doing a coin toss to see if someone like Dylan Roof gets to walk free.
Trials require uanimous jury verdict to make sure the verdict is as correct as they can be
it seems weird that the state can keep trying until they get the answer they want. Why is that protection only available later?
It wouldn’t be a coin toss - the odds are heavily slanted in favor of the prosecutor. The defense has no role.
Also does this mean that those times cops didn’t get indicted, the state could have tried again?
