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.”
The way they so desperately want to make an example out of him is going to give Luigi’s lawyer plenty of ammo.
Making it a terrorism charge significantly raises the bar to get a guilty verdict even if Luigi admits to the killing.
Trying for the death penalty I think requires every member of the jury to agree on a guilty verdict instead of a majority (IANAL)
And every time they do this shit it just highlights the injustice between the classes because of course people are going to compare it to the treatment of mass shooters:
A dozen police officers to escort him vs 2 for a serial killer.
Terrorism charges and risk of the death penalty
Super special emergency line for CEOs because 911 isn’t good enough for them.
Maybe a couple more assassinations of CEOs and the only country where this repeatedly happens will finally start looking into ways to prevent this.
I’m pretty sure most (if not all) juries have to be unanimous to reach a verdict of any kind.
Maybe a couple more assassinations of CEOs and the only country where this repeatedly happens will finally start looking into ways to prevent this.
Billionaires. The CEOs are still lapdogs. We must make the “invincible dragons” realize that they are vulnerable.
It will take the assassination of a few billionaires for this country to change those laws.
Even if the politics doesn’t change, enough CEOs getting cast into Hell sure might do the trick. People say that it won’t change how companies operate, but I disagree. First, changing CEOs isn’t easy for a company. The sudden loss of one is disruptive, and it means they can’t implement whatever plans they had for the company. A company with repeated CEO murders is one that will be thrown into chaos. Second, regardless of what shareholders might want, CEOs have to consider their own interests. Even a $10 million salary doesn’t mean much if you’re dead before you can enjoy it.
Third: the next day people were getting approved for procedures they were being denied the day before. This was across all insurance companies. It literally changed how these companies operate (at least in the short term) and likely saved lives.
Super special emergency line for CEOs because 911 isn’t good enough for them.
Is this a thing?
It’s pretty standard to charge with the most serious things they can and potentially drop/lower the charges before trial. Maybe theyre trying to get a plea deal or disposition and avoid the trial - ‘we’ll drop terrorism and the death penalty if you plead to first degree murder and life without’ or something like that
Or at least they have his legal team spending time knocking down the more superfluous charges instead of dealing with the meat of it all
Obviously I don’t know enough about the situation here to know exactly what’s up, but yeah
The prosecution needs to prove their charges, the defence only needs to knock down the evidence presented. Superfluous charges waste the time of the prosecution.
If they’re truly superfluous then they waste the time of both sides, but it’s the prosecution who get to decide whether or not to include a charge. The prosecution might not be holding out real hope of a conviction on the highest charges, but by including them they could include additional witnesses and evidence that will be heard by a jury and change their perception even on the more realistic charges, which the defense would have to react to.
Again, all hypothetical. For all I know theyre confident in the terrorism charge
But realistically criminal trials are a negotiation, and most of the work happens outside the courtroom
