Obviously the names of the executives are hidden now but I assure you that they aren’t almost always male. (See below a graphic from 2022). And why is is creepy for a man to get made up before a meeting? Have you seen newscasters?
They have to cover up the green tint, and it is really difficult to get wig tape to stick to scales.
Stranger
They must have really wanted that Monopoly money…
You’re too kind, because I agree with this
Most cases resolve by plea; this is likely to be one. As defense counsel, you aren’t worried about “winning” the case. Rather, your job is to ensure that your client’s rights are respected, and he gets a fair review of the evidence.
So, the correct attitude is to take a methodical approach, knowing that the government is the one who has the burden to prove the case. For example, a comment like “I’ve seen zero evidence” is entirely correct, because the case hasn’t yet moved to the “discovery” phase, when the defense gets all of the evidence in the government’s possession.
Now, it may indeed be the case that the press has reported everything entirely accurately, and it may be true that all of the information that was collected is indeed overwhelming, but from the defense perspective, we don’t know that yet. Mass media isn’t where you try the case, so it’s not going to form the basis of your analysis.
Fighting extradition is another example of a lawyer doing their due diligence. It doesn’t matter if it is something that they lose; the important point is to force the government to justify its decision to move the defendant.
Once that evidence is reviewed, defenses may arise. Hard to say at this point. For now, any thoughts are just brainstorming:
But, in this very thread people are saying that this guy looked like lots of other people. So it’s not entirely conclusive that he’s the guy just based on his appearance. And you mean to tell me that it’s impossible for there to be a wannabe copycat who wrote up his own “manifesto”? That doesn’t prove he shot the guy. I also heard the defendant was disputing the money that police said he had in his possession when arrested (Again, the ghost gun may track back perfectly, to say nothing of other things. But defense wants to be optimistic before the evidence puts a damper on things)
Also, upthread it was stated that a defense lawyer wouldn’t want such a loser of a case. Most of our clients lose - they’re guilty! If you can get the charges reduced (maybe there’s a legal defense that his chronic pain mitigated the severity of the crime, although I doubt it), you “win”. Get this guy a reduced charge to manslaughter, and you’ve come out ahead.
The real hope for the lawyer is the amount of publicity. If you can get some media coverage, it’s going to enhance your reputation. Also fees. In such a high profile case, with a client being from a wealthy family, you can imagine that representation is probably costing north of $100,000 (I’d quote $150k, but I always quote low).
Paradoxically, by the way, that high fee is due to the high profile nature of the case. Yes, the lawyers want lots of media coverage, but dealing with that scrutiny takes lots of time.
I agree with @Procrustus , @Stranger_On_A_Train and @Moriarty .
He is not a “slimeball lawyer”. He is a lawyer protecting the constitutional rights of his client from the government. Maybe he will be unsuccessful, or maybe he will get the charges knocked down, as Moriarty suggests. That doesn’t make him a slimeball.
(Of course, I’ve had posters on these boards tell me that the constitutional rights of an accused person in a criminal case are just technicalities, so I assume our defence of defence counsel will not get traction.)
I would just add one comment to Stranger’s post:
He will also get more consideration and just legal representation than Brian Thompson did before he was executed.
These people will never espouse the same expensive reading of tax laws!
There are a lot of people out there who seem to think Thompson had the ultimate privilege and complete protection from any consequence for wrongdoing. Mangione is, I’m sure, one of them.
Not as if innocent people are not arrested, tried, and convicted at unseemly rates (especially certain classes of people and in certain regions) but in general if there is enough evidence for a prosecutor to bring a case to trial there is a very good chance that there is sufficient basis for conviction or at least to make a plea agreement look enticing. The role of the defense counsel in that case is to shepherd their client through the process, ensure that they obtain the best possible ‘deal’ in terms of sentence, and to make every effort to make the details of that agreement most favorable for their client, i.e. early chance at parole, detention at a facility with the best amenities and access for family, et cetera.
The provably innocent client is, if not a ‘blue moon’ event, the exception rather than the norm because, as you note, most clients are actually guilty (or at least sufficiently associated with the criminal act to bear some significant degree of culpability), and a defense attorney who only took on cases they could win would be a very poor and unpopular lawyer, or else ready to be lionized in a court procedural series along with his devoted secretary and hangdog investigator who always rushes into the courtroom just before final arguments with the key piece of evidence that undermines the prosecutor’s entire theory of the crime. Perry Mason has nothing on that guy.
Actually, in this particular case with both the publicity it has received and the cultural zeitgeist it has inflamed, the value of speaking fees and the inevitable book deal is conservatively 10-20 times that amount, to the extent that assuming Dickey has sufficient cash on hand to work the case he might just take it for a nominal retainer or even pro bono. “I defended the client who shot one of the biggest white collar ‘criminals’ bleeding America into bankruptcy” has a real Erin Brockovich, underdog-against-the-system, “the more you tighten your grip…” vibe to it. So, upon reflection, I’m betting this case has legs even if the evidentiary aspects are open and shut.
And frankly, plea or no, Mangione is doing 20-to-life for an unambiguous act of evidentially premeditated murder (assuming that his attorney can’t raise reasonable doubt on identity or some essential element of the crime) and seems predisposed to showboat, so why not just go to trial where he can get on the stand and testify at length about being the avatar of a public done wrong by the for-profit medical system, and if the judge shuts that down as irrelevant testimony (although it clearly goes to motive and, ostensibly, mitigation) then so much the better to “try the case in the court of public opinion” as a wronged victim of a broken and corrupt system. That is the kind of story that any screenwriter longs to adapt because it sells itself without having to do much in the way of manufacturing story elements (although Mangione definitely needs a tortured love interest who turns on him for his own good, and parents that stand by him no matter what, and also a Jim Beaver cameo as they guy who sold him the plans for the ghost gun and silencer, because every story needs a Jim Beaver character) and the rights to that are easily in the low seven figures alone, with Steven Soderbergh directing, Scott Burns writing, and Timothée Chalamet in the lead role. Heck, I’m ready to go out and do a spec pitch on this right now.
Oh, absolutely; I’m not an advocate for ‘extrajudicial remediation’, and it isn’t as if executing an insurance company CEO on the street made any case for rethinking the entire for-profit medical system of which medical insurance and HMOs are one element of an ethically bankrupt system; if anything, the public enthusiasm and gallows humor of this murder serves to highlight just how much the general public has lost confidence in not only the courts but the entire system of democratic governance (and not without substantial justification) that has led to recent events in American politics which threaten to undermine our almost two-and-a-half century experiment in pseudo-representative democracy which, however compromised it may be, is still better than the most likely alternatives. However much Thompson might have contributed to the policies of United Healthcare in denying legitimate insurance claims and approvals, he also deserved ‘his day in court’ to defend his leadership decisions.
But we all know that was never going to happen because with rare exceptions white collar crime is protected by a system favorable to displacing responsibility, and even if UHC were found to be legally culpable for deaths due to negligence Thompson at al would never be held personally accountable and at most would be released with eight figure ‘golden parachutes’. Which is precisely the reason for public schadenfreude of this murder; it is the closest thing that they will see as a form of justice, however perverse it may be. Which should be of real concern to…well, everyone. Because revolutions rarely proceed on a linear path to anything approximating justice, and are often twisted into their own form of autocracies.
Stranger
Unlikely to happen, given prospective jurors get questioned about all sorts of things that might bias them one way or the other. That sort of insurance issue would get a prospective juror struck for cause by the prosecution and never sit on the trial.
Oh, one other thing: I see the murdered CEO regularly called “a family man,” which jars a bit given it’s been reported he’d been living apart from his wife and family since, I believe, 2018.
I would be mildly surprised if Dickey is his attorney for more than a month (or at least, for the actual homicide charges in New York). The man appears to be a prominent local attorney in Altoona, PA. An ideal candidate for fighting extradition and handling the PA state charges, but hardly uniquely qualified (or even the best candidate) to defend a case in New York criminal court.
Even if he is licensed to practice law in New York (wouldn’t be surprised if he is), it’s a much bigger pond with much bigger fish to choose from. So while I wouldn’t entirely rule out the possibility he sticks with the case to its conclusion in New York, there’s really no need for him to be involved beyond extradition to New York, except perhaps as a caretaker defense attorney for any charges that might remain open or pending in PA. I guess we’ll see.
I’m still puzzled about where Mangione’s parents are in this entire thing. Are they paying for his lawyer or will they when he ends up in NYC?
Not sure about their relationship but some of the reporting has been about how they haven’t been in touch for the 6 months prior to the killing. Apparently they were contacting friends to see if anyone knew where he was. This indicates some estrangement but I haven’t seen any reporting about it.
I know at that age if I went 6 months without contacting my parents or siblings they would have been actively searching for me.
I agree. He’ll be around until the handoff.
They were, at least his mother was. They’d been inquiring of his friends before November, I believe.
This bit just makes me so angry. Not at you, but at people in general. A man gets shot in broad daylight because someone didn’t like the business he was in and suddenly a sexy new folk hero is born. It’s just enough to make me a misanthrope. I get that the healthcare industry is terrible. I do. But ffs giving him a “cool” nickname and lionizing him is kinda disgusting.
It is precisely the same underlying sentiment that brought us the MAGA movement. People don’t feel like society is fair. I’m not trying to hijack (thus, I avoided a certain name) just saying that it shouldn’t surprise you. There’s a massive portion of the country (and we see it in other countries too) that are fed up. Debating how, why, and appropriateness is for another thread, I suppose.
If your business generates misery for millions of people, don’t expect sympathy when one of those people comes after you.
Very well. If I (in theory) murder a very high-ranking member of the military, that’s all right with you? Or an alcohol manufacturer? Or a fashion executive?
Don’t expect sympathy. It’s indifference rather than approval.
If these people you mention are the proximate cause of misery, and actively work to prevent any proposed reduction in that misery, then someone may choose to do something rash. Should we have wrung our hands if a few tobacco CEOs got assassinated in the 60’s for working so hard to kill their customers?
Just to be fair, there is no shortage of lawyers who have perfected the ability to multitask! 
I would be shocked - I had checked out his website to see if by chance he was licensed in NYS ( he does not appear to be). The "areas of practice " for his two-attorney firm range from homicide (criminal law) to divorce (family law) to school law and unemployment law ( civil). I don’t think any two people can be expert in that many different areas. I cannot see any way he ends up keeping the homicide case - not if the defendant’s parents pay and definitely not if he is somehow eligible for a private attorney to be appointed in NYC.