• It's FREE to join our group and ALL MEMBERS ARE AD-FREE!

UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson killed in Midtown Manhattan by masked gunman in December 2024 (2 Viewers)

I thought the federal charges and death penalty were a given in this as he travelled from out of state to commit the crime then immediately left the state after the crime. I don't undestand the judge's ruling, I guess, and will have to read up on it some more.
 
Tresir said:
I thought the federal charges and death penalty were a given in this as he travelled from out of state to commit the crime then immediately left the state after the crime. I don't undestand the judge's ruling, I guess, and will have to read up on it some more.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd say it's political. I believe he still faces murder charges and he'd darned well better. It said in the one link the necessary things were not in the charge filed or something so I took that to mean they can refile.

I'm not going to look into it deeply either. I care, but these kinds of cases aren't my first cup of tea for the types I want to follow. I do follow, if I get caught up in them at first, etc., but I don't choose them first. There are others to I tend to stay away from, school shootings for instance.

They all get very political is one reason and there's no discussing normally. I don't mean here specifically.

Both sides jump on and use them.

I'm hoping the judge is just going by the letter of the law. We will see I guess.
 
Tresir said:
I thought the federal charges and death penalty were a given in this as he travelled from out of state to commit the crime then immediately left the state after the crime. I don't undestand the judge's ruling, I guess, and will have to read up on it some more.
Click to expand...
The judge ruled that the underlying charges of interstate stalking did not meet the legal definition of "crimes of violence" required to support the federal murder charge under strict legal interpretations.

www.ksl.com

Luigi Mangione will not face death penalty after judge dismisses murder charge

Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty after a judge on Friday dismissed murder and weapons charges against him in a major blow to federal prosecutors.
www.ksl.com www.ksl.com
Federal murder statutes carry different legal requirements than comparable state laws, and Garnett said federal law required Mangione's murder and weapons charges to be tied to another crime ‌of violence.

Stalking, the judge said, did not meet this requirement because it was neither "inherently" violent nor always intentional. Garnett acknowledged that the average person might be bewildered ⁠by the dismissal.
 
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
The judge ruled that the underlying charges of interstate stalking did not meet the legal definition of "crimes of violence" required to support the federal murder charge under strict legal interpretations.

www.ksl.com

Luigi Mangione will not face death penalty after judge dismisses murder charge

Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty after a judge on Friday dismissed murder and weapons charges against him in a major blow to federal prosecutors.
www.ksl.com www.ksl.com
Federal murder statutes carry different legal requirements than comparable state laws, and Garnett said federal law required Mangione's murder and weapons charges to be tied to another crime ‌of violence.

Stalking, the judge said, did not meet this requirement because it was neither "inherently" violent nor always intentional. Garnett acknowledged that the average person might be bewildered ⁠by the dismissal.
Click to expand...
Guess I'm an average person then. We can't all be smart alec judges. The victim's family deserve justice so hopefully they will refile.

He brought the weapon across state lines to specifically commit murder. I could perhaps understand if he travelled without a weapon and bought one in the state, but he didn't.
 
Tresir said:
Guess I'm an average person then. We can't all be smart alec judges. The victim's family deserve justice so hopefully they will refile.

He brought the weapon across state lines to specifically commit murder. I could perhaps understand if he travelled without a weapon and bought one in the state, but he didn't.
Click to expand...
Lol me too. Don't you like how she considers anyone bewildered by it just average? Kind of an insult imo.

No it means we don't live and work in the law and not much was explained, at least to the public.

I caught immediately that it was due to something wrong with the filing, wording, statutes but that's about it.

I guess we're average. Suits me. LMAO. I'll shake off the insult from the judge and go on with life though. :D
 
GrandmaBear said:
Lol me too. Don't you like how she considers anyone bewildered by it just average? Kind of an insult imo.

No it means we don't live and work in the law and not much was explained, at least to the public.

I caught immediately that it was due to something wrong with the filing, wording, statutes but that's about it.

I guess we're average. Suits me. LMAO. I'll shake off the insult from the judge and go on with life though. :D
Click to expand...
I know I am new here, but I'd like to weigh in on this. I am an attorney (is there a verification process here?) and I read the Court's orders on the evidence issue and on the issue of the death penalty/stalking charges. The evidence order was pretty straight forward, of course that evidence can all come in.
The order on the death penalty matter is rather complicated. But I don't think the judge was really being insulting. I took it quite the opposite.
The Judge sort of acknowledges that the result is ridiculous. The court has to decide if the stalking charges are crimes of violence. The Court begins by saying, "The Court would be remiss to not mention at the outset the apparent absurdity of the inquiry." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.103.0.pdf. Of course it is a crime of violence given that Mangione tracked Thompson down, travel interstate with a gun, lay in wait on the street and ambushed him. But, that the rules of interpreting this are so convoluted that the Court has to decide they are not actually crimes of violence. In my opinion, she clearly stating this needs to be over-ruled on appeal and sort of sets out the path on this. Will the DOJ appeal this? They might because it is a serious impediment to enforcing these statutes and so the implications are far beyond this case alone. But they may not bother. I don't think the Judge is being condescending, she is in fact indicating that this is a ridiculous result, but the case law requires her to find this way. Now, I do think there are a hole or two in her hypotheticals that might be more easily overturned.

Anyway, that was just my interpretation of the ruling.
 
Prairiewind said:
I know I am new here, but I'd like to weigh in on this. I am an attorney (is there a verification process here?) and I read the Court's orders on the evidence issue and on the issue of the death penalty/stalking charges. The evidence order was pretty straight forward, of course that evidence can all come in.
The order on the death penalty matter is rather complicated. But I don't think the judge was really being insulting. I took it quite the opposite.
The Judge sort of acknowledges that the result is ridiculous. The court has to decide if the stalking charges are crimes of violence. The Court begins by saying, "The Court would be remiss to not mention at the outset the apparent absurdity of the inquiry." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.103.0.pdf. Of course it is a crime of violence given that Mangione tracked Thompson down, travel interstate with a gun, lay in wait on the street and ambushed him. But, that the rules of interpreting this are so convoluted that the Court has to decide they are not actually crimes of violence. In my opinion, she clearly stating this needs to be over-ruled on appeal and sort of sets out the path on this. Will the DOJ appeal this? They might because it is a serious impediment to enforcing these statutes and so the implications are far beyond this case alone. But they may not bother. I don't think the Judge is being condescending, she is in fact indicating that this is a ridiculous result, but the case law requires her to find this way. Now, I do think there are a hole or two in her hypotheticals that might be more easily overturned.

Anyway, that was just my interpretation of the ruling.
Click to expand...
Welcome, and thanks for sharing your insight!
No verification processes here. We're simple folk. You state that you're an attorney, and members make their own decisions whether to believe you or trust your interpretations. :)
 
Prairiewind said:
I know I am new here, but I'd like to weigh in on this. I am an attorney (is there a verification process here?) and I read the Court's orders on the evidence issue and on the issue of the death penalty/stalking charges. The evidence order was pretty straight forward, of course that evidence can all come in.
The order on the death penalty matter is rather complicated. But I don't think the judge was really being insulting. I took it quite the opposite.
The Judge sort of acknowledges that the result is ridiculous. The court has to decide if the stalking charges are crimes of violence. The Court begins by saying, "The Court would be remiss to not mention at the outset the apparent absurdity of the inquiry." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.103.0.pdf. Of course it is a crime of violence given that Mangione tracked Thompson down, travel interstate with a gun, lay in wait on the street and ambushed him. But, that the rules of interpreting this are so convoluted that the Court has to decide they are not actually crimes of violence. In my opinion, she clearly stating this needs to be over-ruled on appeal and sort of sets out the path on this. Will the DOJ appeal this? They might because it is a serious impediment to enforcing these statutes and so the implications are far beyond this case alone. But they may not bother. I don't think the Judge is being condescending, she is in fact indicating that this is a ridiculous result, but the case law requires her to find this way. Now, I do think there are a hole or two in her hypotheticals that might be more easily overturned.

Anyway, that was just my interpretation of the ruling.
Click to expand...
First of all, welcome! You are also more than welcome to weigh in.

I was just sort of kidding in that post about being average and in response to what Tresir said. I don't really think badly of the judge. I gathered it all was for a reason just based on what she initially said. You helped to clarify the issue quite a bit. Sounds like yes, the laws need some changing or clarification?

I'm happy to have an attorney here, I've often wished we had one and believe me, I will be one that will be asking you case questions lol.

Can I ask what kind of law you practice and where? Just generally, maybe the state? I'm in MN but I consider WI my home.
 
GrandmaBear said:
First of all, welcome! You are also more than welcome to weigh in.

I was just sort of kidding in that post about being average and in response to what Tresir said. I don't really think badly of the judge. I gathered it all was for a reason just based on what she initially said. You helped to clarify the issue quite a bit. Sounds like yes, the laws need some changing or clarification?

I'm happy to have an attorney here, I've often wished we had one and believe me, I will be one that will be asking you case questions lol.

Can I ask what kind of law you practice and where? Just generally, maybe the state? I'm in MN but I consider WI my home.
Click to expand...
Federal criminal law is not my area, I have done a few cases but not a lot. Federal criminal law is a bit weird since the fed was never really given the police power in the Constitution. So those statutes have to get authority from the commerce clause and other places. So the crimes have sometimes some weird convoluted elements that have to be met. So yes, Congress should clarify some statutes (not that anyone thinks Congress is capable of doing anything right now) but also the Courts have overturn some of the rulings on how to interpret the statutes.

I practice in Wyo and Colo, various areas of civil litigation, and general practice. I don't do much criminal anymore. I am happy to help explain some legal issues as they come up. And of course my personal views are just my own. I tried to just provide explanation over on WS, but lately that was just being attacked.
 
Prairiewind said:
Federal criminal law is not my area, I have done a few cases but not a lot. Federal criminal law is a bit weird since the fed was never really given the police power in the Constitution. So those statutes have to get authority from the commerce clause and other places. So the crimes have sometimes some weird convoluted elements that have to be met. So yes, Congress should clarify some statutes (not that anyone thinks Congress is capable of doing anything right now) but also the Courts have overturn some of the rulings on how to interpret the statutes.

I practice in Wyo and Colo, various areas of civil litigation, and general practice. I don't do much criminal anymore. I am happy to help explain some legal issues as they come up. And of course my personal views are just my own. I tried to just provide explanation over on WS, but lately that was just being attacked.
Click to expand...
Most of us are pretty anti WS here and left from there :) I can believe you were getting attacked. I may recall you, your screen name sounds familiar, was it the same there? Mine was different.

Wyoming and Colorado. We have quite a few Colorado cases. My pet case is Suzanne Morphew although I follow most current cases except for certain types.

I worked, way back when in my 20s, for attorneys and I learned a lot there. Both firms I worked in handled a variety of law with various lawyers in the firm but little federal. They also never "sued", they were on the other side, the defense on civil cases. One did criminal, a few did family, probate, covered most things. The second fir was mostly civil defense. The first, a wider variety.

I'm no lawyer of course but have a fair understanding of a lot of things but so do most here who follow crime.

Federal, yeah, that's a different animal, I follow some of it but did not know all that which you just explained about their laws, why it is the way it is, and how their laws came about and work.
 
www.courttv.com

Prosecutors will not appeal ruling barring death penalty for Luigi Mangione

Prosecutors say they will not appeal a ruling that bars them from seeking the death penalty for Luigi Mangione.
www.courttv.com www.courttv.com

Prosecutors will not appeal ruling barring death penalty for Luigi Mangione​

Federal prosecutors said Friday they won’t appeal a judge’s ruling that bars them from seeking the death penalty against Luigi Mangione in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

In a letter, Deputy U.S. Attorney Sean Buckley told Judge Margaret Garnett that the government will not ask the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse her decision, clearing the way for a trial beginning in September. His state murder trial is set to start in June.

Jury selection in Mangione’s federal case is scheduled for Sept. 8, followed by opening statements and testimony on Oct. 13. His state trial is scheduled to begin June 8, but the judge in that case, Gregory Carro, said it could have been pushed back until Sept. 8 if federal prosecutors appealed the death penalty ruling.
 
Prairiewind said:
I know I am new here, but I'd like to weigh in on this. I am an attorney (is there a verification process here?) and I read the Court's orders on the evidence issue and on the issue of the death penalty/stalking charges. The evidence order was pretty straight forward, of course that evidence can all come in.
The order on the death penalty matter is rather complicated. But I don't think the judge was really being insulting. I took it quite the opposite.
The Judge sort of acknowledges that the result is ridiculous. The court has to decide if the stalking charges are crimes of violence. The Court begins by saying, "The Court would be remiss to not mention at the outset the apparent absurdity of the inquiry." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.103.0.pdf. Of course it is a crime of violence given that Mangione tracked Thompson down, travel interstate with a gun, lay in wait on the street and ambushed him. But, that the rules of interpreting this are so convoluted that the Court has to decide they are not actually crimes of violence. In my opinion, she clearly stating this needs to be over-ruled on appeal and sort of sets out the path on this. Will the DOJ appeal this? They might because it is a serious impediment to enforcing these statutes and so the implications are far beyond this case alone. But they may not bother. I don't think the Judge is being condescending, she is in fact indicating that this is a ridiculous result, but the case law requires her to find this way. Now, I do think there are a hole or two in her hypotheticals that might be more easily overturned.

Anyway, that was just my interpretation of the ruling.
Click to expand...

We really need a lawyer around here. Thanks for joining.
 
Prairiewind said:
Federal criminal law is not my area, I have done a few cases but not a lot. Federal criminal law is a bit weird since the fed was never really given the police power in the Constitution. So those statutes have to get authority from the commerce clause and other places. So the crimes have sometimes some weird convoluted elements that have to be met. So yes, Congress should clarify some statutes (not that anyone thinks Congress is capable of doing anything right now) but also the Courts have overturn some of the rulings on how to interpret the statutes.

I practice in Wyo and Colo, various areas of civil litigation, and general practice. I don't do much criminal anymore. I am happy to help explain some legal issues as they come up. And of course my personal views are just my own. I tried to just provide explanation over on WS, but lately that was just being attacked.
Click to expand...
Thank you for helping us! You don’t know how much I appreciate it.

I haven’t been following this case closely, but I plan to when it goes to trial.
 
I was in a Zoom meeting earlier today regarding our company's health insurance plan options. Our carrier said that our next meeting won't be until fall because they should be hearing about the new rates "from the state" by then. HUH? The States are dictating rates, too? Why haven't I heard of this before?
 
Kimster said:
I was in a Zoom meeting earlier today regarding our company's health insurance plan options. Our carrier said that our next meeting won't be until fall because they should be hearing about the new rates "from the state" by then. HUH? The States are dictating rates, too? Why haven't I heard of this before?
Click to expand...
The states dictate what companies can insure in their state. Not sure if that's what's going on in your case, but it could be related.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)

Forum statistics

Threads
3,247
Messages
294,816
Members
1,088
Latest member
Haley2050
Back
Top Bottom