I think you’re misunderstanding me. I acknowledge that every accused is entitled to a defense attorney to protect their rights. As some of the lawyers on the board have pointed out, even if the accused is clearly guilty, a defense lawyer can still do a lot for them, for example crafting a plea deal and arguing for a reduced sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
What I find laughable and worthy of ridicule is when the defense tactic, in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, is to say “Youse got the wrong guy! At the time of the murder, my client was in another town, walking from church to an animal shelter where he was going to adopt a kitten”. No ethical lawyer should have to resort to blatant dishonesty, and it’s all the more laughable when the dishonesty is so transparent.
I’d be the first to acknowledge that the media often gets a lot of things wrong. But we have to be conscious of the kinds of things they get wrong. When police release straightforward announcements about objective evidence they have obtained, like positive fingerprint matches, there’s not much room for confusion or misinterpretation. There is so much evidence incriminating this guy that it’s almost comical.
Let’s remember that in spite of all the evidence against him at this point, Mangione has the right to a trial and to assistance of counsel: Sixth Amendment, US Constitution. He also has the right to see, examine, and question all the evidence against him. (Sixth Amendment, plus precedent.) He does not have to incriminate himself. (Fifth Amendment.) If he chooses to exercise those rights, and especially if he chooses not to take the stand, we cannot draw an adverse inference against him (guessing here, but I’m pretty sure that’s common law).
Point is, that in spite of the overwhelming evidence against him at this point, he is still entitled to due process, with a trial and witnesses and physical evidence and not a word from him, if he wishes it.
But if I was his lawyer, and especially given the evidence found, I might counsel an early guilty plea. Dependent, of course, on reviewing the evidence found; along with negotiating a plea deal with the state prosecutor. However, if Mangione wants a trial, which is his right, then that is what he shall have.
Yes, I realize that this is “yougottabekiddingme” to many. But it’s the way the law works. And it may seem to work slowly, but it works exceedingly fine. Note that this is not “fine” as in “okay”, but “fine,” as in “let’s get down to the nitty-gritty.”
Mangione’s current lawyer has not done anything like that, and frankly no competent lawyer would attempt to ‘testify’ on behalf of their client by making baseless statements about which they have no supporting evidence. Most of what a defense attorney does in terms of trying to achieve a not guilty verdict (or a dismissal, or set up for overturning a guilty verdict on appeal) is not trying to concoct some unlikely alibi or provide an alternative story where their client is demonstrably innocent, but instead to cast reasonable doubts on the prosecution evidence, witness and expert testimony, theory of the crime, or validity of investigative and interview procedure in obtaining evidence and testimony in a way that violated their client’s constitutional rights, i.e. forcing a confession or using certain techniques to ‘trick’ a defendent into admission of guilt.
Contesting various procedural steps such as extradition to the state where the defendant was alleged to have committed the crime is a standard defense tactic not because they are trying to be somehow dishonest or obstructive but just to force the prosecutor to demonstrate that they have some real basis for accusing the defendant and also to gain early insight into the evidence or thesis well before mandatory pre-trial hearing and disclosure. Similarly, making statements such as that no evidence has yet been presented or questioning that investigators have been thorough in looking for all possible suspects instead of just single-mindedly focusing on their client is standard practice in establishing a record of whether police and prosecutors have been prejudicial and intentionally sandbagging their client, which does, in fact, occur not infrequently and can lead to a completely innocent person being railroaded into a false confession or plea must to stop the harassment.
And again, in the case of Luigi Mangione, it is not as if some legal trickery is going to result in his walking free, assuming that the evidence of his presence at the scene and the weapon he was found with are as solid as they appear. He’s not going to plead down to a petty misdemeanor or be successful in fighting extradition to New York, or any other scheme to subvert the law regardless of how ethical or not you believe his counsel to be.
Would it be excessively pedantic to say it’s really only potential evidence, unless and until it’s been accepted and presented in court?
Because if the evidence was illegally obtained or is otherwise tainted such that it gets excluded at trial, it isn’t really evidence at all, is it? In the (extraordinarily unlikely, yes, but still) event all the physical evidence we’re hearing about cannot be used for whatever reason, then the trial will proceed very differently.
There are very good reasons not to rush to conviction based on the breathless scoops that emerge in the initial media avalanche.
What, again, did his attorney say that was even remotely like that? “I’ve seen no evidence that suggests my client is guilty?” Something like that? Because if so, I believe the likely literal truth of that assertion as it was made has already been explained: absent a formal disclosure of evidence, such as through discovery, from the prosecution, it’s as if the prosecution is proceeding with no evidence at all from a defense perspective. That would in fact be a very strong defense at trial. So strong it should actually preclude a trial proceeding altogether.
So frankly I don’t think it’s ridiculous for a defense attorney to stand on what may well be their (or any!) client’s strongest possible defense at this point in the proceedings.
But then maybe there was something else he said that actually was ridiculous or laughable?
Luigi Mangione had the gun when he was searched by local police at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s, New York Police Department Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny said Monday, five days after the 26-year-old allegedly gunned down the executive outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel.
The weapon was capable of firing a 9 mm round and “may have been made on a 3D printer,” Kenny said — a claim echoed by a criminal complaint filed in Pennsylvania, where police said they found a “black 3D-printed pistol” in Mangione’s backpack. Investigators also recovered a suppressor, which muffles the sound of gunfire, authorities have said.
From the pictures, a Glock knock-off. It would most likely be the polymer lower frame that would have been 3-D printed and the rest of the gun assembled around that as a kit from aftermarket parts (the Glock 19 being the Honda Civic of modern handguns, there’s plenty of that).
Nah, evidence is anything tending to prove a pertinent fact.
It’s still evidence, but you are right that whether it is admissible is a matter for the court to decide, and it’s always possible that some evidence was unlawfully obtained, and could be excluded.
It’s a good point, but from a practical perspective, I doubt anything the government obtains will be excluded.
I’d argue, though, that the reason the government is being so thorough about gathering evidence is precisely because the defendant has the ability to challenge it. It would certainly be easier for law enforcement if they could just assure everybody that they did good. In our adversarial system, where a defense attorney gets to doubt the sufficiency of the evidence, and mistakes can tank the case, the government has a strong incentive to be accurate, and to gather as many clues as they can.
I’m pretty sure it was this slide with suppressor-height sights, a “springs, levers, and trigger group” kit, and an aftermarket barrel. I’m not going to link to a ghost gun build page because of the questionable legality but you just do a search to find plenty of information about how to print a frame (or purchase an “80% frame”) and build your own (really shitty) Glock or XD clone, and it isn’t even technically illegal in most states as long as it is for personal use and you don’t sell or transfer it to someone else.
Which is a good thing because it forces investigators to be thorough in handling and documenting evidence, and prosecutors to (hopefully) be diligent about not jumping to conclusions. For all of the handwringing over what unethical conduct a criminal defense attorney might get up to (which makes for good drama/comedy when Bob Odenkirk is playing a slimy ‘criminal’ defense lawyer), the rate of incarceration of people later found to be arrested and falsely convicted for serious crimes would indicated that the far larger problem is an excess of “prosecutorial discretion”.
The McDonald’s employee who turned Mangione in might not get a reward. (Ithink she’ll get something, but…)
The tipster would have to be ‘nominated’ by a U.S. investigative agency, and then ‘tip will still have to be, per the FBI website, “carefully” evaluated and go through a process of “deliberation” by a committee. From there, the committee makes a nonbinding recommendation to the Secretary of State, who makes the final call.’ Furthermore, the Secretary of State can choose not to authorise the reward, or can change the amount.
Meanwhile, the additional $10,000 offered by the NYPD is not required to be fulfilled unless the McDonald’s tipster phoned into the department’s Crime Stoppers hotline, where they would have received a specific reference number.
San Francisco police gave FBI a tip as to the identity of the shooter the day after it became news, including his name, based on a missing person report they had received earlier:
A defendant can be charged with second-degree murder when they committed or attempted to commit one of the following felonies, regardless of intent to kill, causing someone’s death, and they can be charged with first-degree murder when the defendant had intent to kill
Robbery
Burglary
Kidnapping
Arson
First-degree rape
First-degree criminal sexual act
First-degree sexual abuse
Aggravated sexual abuse
First-degree escape
Second-degree escape
Apologies for the bad quoting. I’m in bed on my phone but this is also from Wikipedia.