If I understand correctly, such statements harmful to a defendant’s team in a court case were already made by law enforcement on television.
And why should I assume that law enforcement didn’t botch-up their investigation or taken questionable measures just to have a suspect charged, given that they were reckless on television?
I do not believe Mr. Mangione - who I am personally convinced is innocent - can have a fair trial.
deleted by creator
To both of you: Given the specificity of your wording, I am honestly curious, do you believe he did not pull the trigger, or do you believe that he did, but is free of wrongdoing? There’s a big difference between the two views.
deleted by creator
I think you’re confusing the ideas of “Innocent until proven guilty” with “reasonable suspicion”. I hesitate to ask, but, do you think OJ did it?
deleted by creator
When the police do sketchy stuff it does throw a wrench in the legitimacy of the accusation. And, should he actually be innocent, they’re just letting the killer get farther away.
Its not about justice, its about making a show of someone being punished.
We’re living in Fahrenheit 451; if you cant catch the real murderer, just pick someone vaguely the same proportions that’s already on a list and punish them instead; the public doesn’t care or need to know, as long as they get their entertainment.
If Luigi had been alone and/or not in a public space when they found him, he would have had a bullet in the head from the cops; case closed.
The real killer was probably doing a hit.
But since they made such a big deal out of it, we will know a lot about the level of surveillance they actually have…. Which is apparently not much.
I think it’s a very strong case in terms of him doing it. I think it’s going to be hard for them to argue that it wasn’t him or that it was unintentional,” Rahmani said. But, in the public perception, “he is a very sympathetic accused murderer”.
They don’t have to prove he didn’t do it…
The government has to prove he did. And they have to provide evidence and disclose how they got that evidence.
With the pressure on finding someone, it’s likely they didn’t obtain all the evidence legally. If they used illegal means to find him, Im pretty sure that taints any evidence found on him.
The article makes it sound like jury nullification is his only shot, but there’s a very good chance the prosecution can’t use a lot of their evidence unless they make up a very good story about how they might have legally got it.
If they used illegal means to find him, Im pretty sure that taints any evidence found on him.
Possibly. It’s called The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. If the police obtained evidence illegally, or derived evidence from other evidence that was illegally obtained, it can be ruled inadmissible by the judge. There are exceptions shown in the link. One of the big exceptions is the first listed. If it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity it can be allowed.
Police are aware of the risks of tainted evidence so they will sometimes cover for it with a parallel construction investigation.
Parallel construction occurs when the federal government learns of criminal activity through one source but then gives the information to federal law enforcement agencies to “reconstruct” the criminal investigation so that the source of that second investigation differs from the original source.
So, let’s say the police arrest a suspect and find compelling evidence against the suspect at the location. That evidence might be suppressed if it turns out that, for example, the police found out where the suspect was going to be via an illegal wire tap. If it weren’t for the illegally obtained location information, the police would not have obtained that other evidence. Rather than admitting in court that this is how they found the suspect, one of the investigators might call in, or arrange for someone else to call in an anonymous tip about the suspect’s location to other investigators that don’t know about the illegal wire tap. The police then exclude the real origin of the knowledge of the suspects location from court filings.
Illegal, very possibly. Likely, also very possible.
I wonder what sort of illegal methods of search they could be concealing? A system capable of finding someone under those circumstances would need to have vast resources available to it and we would likely be aware of its existence through whistleblower revelations if not directly. However, since we don’t know of anything like that I find this theory to be (N)ot (S)pecifically (A)chievable.
The government has to prove he did. And they have to provide evidence and disclose how they got that evidence.
Yep.
With the pressure on finding someone, it’s likely they didn’t obtain all the evidence legally.
Good thing the same standard doesn’t apply to you.
In a world where Kyle fucking Rittenhouse was found not guilty, the flimsy evidence they have on Luigi should never stick. But the goal here is a swift win, so they’re trying to frame an innocent man and make him an example.
This whole thing just reminds me of Fahrenheit 451.
The main character Guy Montague was being chased by the police but they couldn’t find him so they shot down an innocent person that they labeled the suspect so the populace wouldn’t see the police as incompetent.
People always bring up 1984 but they need to read and bring up Fahrenheit 451.
So I just finished reading the motion filed by Luigi’s lawyer and it kind of sounds like this warning might be in response to that. One argument put forward is that the only evidence of an attempt to cause fear in a generalized population (justifying the terrorism charges) is actually information that the police themselves publicized. The lawyer argues that the only atmosphere of fear in the case was created by the police. So it seems the judge may want to remind officials that they are fucking this up by bragging about it so loudly.
