OH YEAH THEYRE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW
Please do not remove mods, really sorry for the Google AMP link, but this is a “subscribers only” blocked article on CNN that for some reason AMP just straight up bypasses and opens fine.
Direct link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/us/jury-nullification-luigi-mangione-defense/index.html.
Edit 1: updated title, CNN changed it on me
I know it’s in NYC, but I live in New York State and really hope I get a summons.
Really hope this is fully televised.
Nah, the topic of the month is going to be Trump declaring war on Mongolia because UFOs and Jewish Space Lasers.
Can’t have the plebs talking about real issues.
Not sure the mods are the ones to worry about, last I heard the admin on this instance was censoring and/or prohibiting talk of jury nullification.
IIRC, it’s because the country this instance is hosted in has laws that make it difficult to publicly discuss the subject.
No, it’s hosted in the United States where is is a perfectly valid, legal term and you are absolutely allowed to talk about it.
The reason given was that they were afraid of being sued, but that reason does not stand up to scrutiny for a variety of reasons including the above (plus, nobody would have the standing to sue and even if they did they still could not successfully sue the host).
I don’t know if their admin has an agenda or they’re just being excessively cautious, but there is no valid legal reason whatsoever to censor talk of legal terminology (even one that is controversial).
Lemmy World is not hosted in the US.
I’ll be damned, you’re right: It’s hosted in the Netherlands! My mistake, I totally thought it was in the United States.
Still not clear on how or why they would have any law at all regarding the discussion of a legal term from the American legal system though, especially in the context of a criminal case in the US courts.
Y’all screaming legal terms like it makes any difference. Luigi is going to jail for the rest of his life like the rest of the incel terrorists.
incel terrorist
Pretty sure he impregnated the whole damn country when his pics were posted.
Just like the Boston bomber guy and the rolling Stones cover.
All the best to Luigi. Good luck to him.
I hope he’ll be judged as innocent. He seems a nice guy.
The jury nullification toolkit:
https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf
Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. This can be a form of civil disobedience, a political statement against a specific law, or a show of empathy and support to the defendant.
“It’s not a legal defense sanctioned under the law,” said Cheryl Bader, associate professor of law at Fordham School of Law. “It’s a reaction by the jury to a legal result that they feel would be so unjust or morally wrong that they refuse to impose it, despite what the law says.”
Over the centuries, American juries have nullified cases related to controversial topics like fugitive slave laws, Prohibition and, in recent decades, the war on drugs.
Giggity.
Jury nullification is also why cops who murder people and klansmen get acquitted. It’s not necessarily a good thing, just a quirk of the system.
Oh it’s definitely a good thing. But sometimes people are bigots. Fortunately most people dont want to let Klansman get aquited.
As much as most people on the left want juries to nullify in cases of unfair or unjust laws, the reality is it mostly results in murderous cops going free and corporations getting free passes. Like I said in another comment, while jury nullification could be used to tackle unfair laws, the reality is you mostly end up with actual racists and actively harmful corporations not being held accountable. Jury nullification is itself not good or bad, but it’s mostly used for bad. Frankly, I don’t really love the jury system but that’s a while bigger issue.
Most people wouldn’t support a muderois cop. The reason cops go free is because most of them never see a jury trial. They dont even get indicted.
It’s not some minor quirk of the system. It’s the only reason we have juries at all. If you just wanted a group of 12 people to decide guilt and innocence based on the facts of the case and the letter of the law, you would never hire 12 random untrained nobodies for that purpose. If that is all juries were for, you would have professional juries; being a juror would be a career that required a law degree.
We have juries to protect against corrupt laws. That is the only saving grace of having guilt and innocence be decided by 12 random untrained nobodies. Legislatures can become corrupted and end up criminalizing things that the vast majority of the population does not consider to be wrong. A jury of your peers is the last line of defense against corrupt laws. And this mechanism is the only reason we have juries like we do.
No, juries are the triers of fact. Juries do not exist to make a determination as to whether the law is fair or not and are (usually) explicitly told this. They have to listen to the facts, decide what actually happened, and then whether the facts match the elements of whatever crime is being charged.
I agree that getting a jury of twelve randomish peers is actually not the greatest system, but it’s what we’re working with. So in this paradigm, jury nullification is a huge problem because it’s twelve random people just deciding not to enforce a law the rest of society (sort of) has said needs to be enforced. This in turn leads to white supremacists getting acquitted by juries after prosecutors proved beyond a doubt that the defendants committed the crime and the same happening with police that abuse their powers.
It could end up working to protect civil liberties. But the reality is it mostly results in the status quo being upheld and/or actual criminals that need some kind of punishment being acquitted.
This is a self-serving lie promulgated by legislators and jurists who loathe a check on their own power.
Form follows function. The jury nullification “loophole” has been known for centuries. Entire constitutions have been written knowing full well that they will enable jury nullification. There are ways you could design a legal system that wouldn’t allow nullification. Yet time and time again, the people have chosen not to reform the system to eliminate jury nullification.
Yes, giving juries power to judge the law often produces negative outcomes. But that’s simply democracy. Sometimes democracies produce bad outcomes, just like any system of government.
Please, please, god don’t put me on the jury. I would hate to hold a murderer accountable for getting in the way of an innocent man’s bullets.
I’ve been on a jury in the last little place I lived and you better believe they made sure it was all employed older white people against a young black man. I was the youngest on at 28. What they did to me is made me sit in a room with these, some probably decent, people, while one guy just talked and talked and lied and told fake stories like long discredited shit while a bunch were like oh yeah and I remember.
Fucking makes me sick. Sick at myself that I was such a little shit at that age that I didn’t tell the old prick to shut the fuck up and stop lying. But what really makes me sick was after sitting in a room for hours with these people is the state’s house slave walks in with cops and says we just walked the guy by, showed him who was going to convict him, and he took the plea deal. Fucking gross. Don’t believe your fucking TV this is how most cases go.
Jury nullification doesn’t really exist. It’s just an attempt to label something the jury decides that you believe goes against the law. The fact is, the jury is part of the law, and the jury can decide what parts of it are relevant, are enforceable in the case, and which need special considerations. Complaining about “jury nullification” is complaining about one of the fewest democratic elements in the judicial system, a system that on its own is almost completely autocratic and as such that much more susceptible to the formation of oligarchies and nepotism from within.
Is it true there only needs to be one holdout in the 12 to grind it to a halt?
It depends on the charge. Some only need a majority, some need a unanimous vote.
They can order a new trial with a hung jury.
Yes
It’s actually the conclusion of 2 things:
- Double Jeopardy means your cannot try someone twice for the same crime
- A juror cannot be held accountable for a decision they make
If both hold true, then logically, a jury can make a decision against legal precedent, without fear of repercussion - unless they are paid/coerced to come to that conclusion, and the defendant - once cleared by by a jury - cannot be tried again.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
Only when it comes to acquittals though, which aren’t appealable. Those decisions can and will be reversed in civil cases or if people convict inappropriately. You mentioned as much by noting double Jeopardy but I still think it’s an important distinction that makes it irregular.
The salient question is not whether it exists, but whether it’s a feature or a bug.
If jurors are intended to resolve questions of law, then judges really have no purpose. Just let jurors decide based on how much they like the defendant.
You may as well just do trial by combat instead - equally as just but far more entertaining.
By that logic, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat?
The problem with your logic is that you assume jurors don’t have a sense of ethics and justice. If they truly don’t, then forget the judiciary as a problem, because the society itself isn’t going to hold up. So in that way, applying your logic here and under that assumption you are right, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat when people no longer care about acting in good will?
you assume jurors don’t have a sense of ethics and justice
I’m not assuming that at all. Jurors have a very specific role, which is to determine whether the evidence against a defendant is sufficient to find them guilty of the charges against them. That does not require a sense of ethics and justice.
Technically, you’re correct. In this particular case though, I don’t think it’s the best kind of correct.
Juries are the triers of fact when present. In a civil case, that means the judge can ask all kinds of nuanced questions in the jury instructions, as that could be necessary for the judge’s application of the law later down the line.
In the US criminal justice system, the laws are meant to be interpretable by the common person (a lot of work being done by “meant-to-be”). A judge only asks them a single question: For the charge X, how do you find? Since juries do not need to justify their decision, they can use whatever reasoning they want to behind closed doors to reach their decision: facts, ethics, or flipping a coin. The lawyers use voir-dire to try to exclude jurors that would be too biased, or would be willing to use a coin flip (juries almost universally take their job seriously—they hold the freedom of someone in their hands.)
As mentioned elsewhere, an acquittal by a jury in the US is non-reviewable. It doesn’t matter why they acquit. Convictions, OTOH, are reviewable, and judges have famously thrown out guilty verdicts from juries before.
It’s not a question of can, but ought.
Ought a jury just make up the law based on the vibe of the case?
How would you feel if it were Trump on trial for whatever crime and the Jury just decided that although the evidence says he’s guilty as sin it just didn’t feel right to convict such an important person.
“Juries are required to perform determinations based on a system of ethically based laws and justice. That does not require a sense of ethics and justice.”
Try again.
That’s not what I said at all.
I can’t be any clearer. Jurors consider whether evidence confirms the defendant performed the acts they are charged with.
They do not “perform determinations” in any way. They do not consider ethics. They do not dispense justice.
I can’t be clearer either. The jury needs to have a sense of what they are participating in it, and “consider whether evidence confirms the defendant performed the acts they are charged with” is just another way of saying they have to determine something but disingenuously acting like it’s completely different. Grammar Nazis, people who will argue to oblivion about something, MAGAists, they all have one thing in common, they focus and overextend very limited but convenient interpretations in order to build walls around a context that suits them.
Sentenced to one night of rehabilitation?
Aren’t jury trials statistically more likely to result in a false coviction than other trials? Given how much presentation, charisma, gender and race can influence a verdict its already about how much the jury like the defendant.
Not really. I mean sure some jurors may not like a defendant because of their race, but the court process seeks to mitigate these issues. For example there are 12 jurors and a unanimous verdict is required. The hope being that the majority of jurors will be able to convince a few racist ones to set aside their prejudism.
This isn’t really a reason to just throw out the whole process and make trials popularity contests.
Judges = letter of the law
Jurors = spirit of the law
Jurors have no idea what “the law” actually is.
When you say “spirit of the law” really what you mean is “the vibe”.
Surely the judge still has a role, and that is to determine the punishment if found guilty.
… but in this case everyone is advocating jury nullification so as to avoid punishment, so you don’t really need a judge to determine punishment.
The judge’s other main role in a trial with jury is to actually run the proceedings of the trial. Order of operations, keeping the two counsels in line, scheduling, etc.
If it’s a bug, wow. Almost 250 years, and they can’t fix it?
Also, judges are there to make sure both sides play by the rules.
It is fixed, albeit imperfectly.
Jurors are instructed to determine whether a defendant is guilty of the charges against them.
To return a verdict of “not guilty” despite knowing that the defendant is guilty, merely because jurors know they can not be prosecuted is still corruption.
Honestly, I’m amazed Luigi hasn’t had an “accident” in jail
Nah, that would make a martyr. If anything he’s the safest guy in the place.
Not sure if you refer to this accident, but Jeffrey knew too much and was a risk. Luigi is not a risk anymore, his followers are. And they would probably be fueled by his death.
Yeah; he’s already become evangelised to an absolutely insane degree globally that the ruling class didn’t see coming, making any rash moves, especially any that would martydom him, would backfire.
Saint Mangione! The patron saint of medical benefits.
the whole point of a jury is to allow the people to decide the law on individual cases. There are many problems with juries, but complaining about jury nullification just means you don’t like the good parts of having a jury.
There are good parts and bad parts to it. Historically, it was used for good in the form of letting slaves go free. It was also historically used to let lynch mobs go free, which is horrifying.
It’s not 100% good, nor is it 100% bad.
It’s just another part of democracy. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.”
Any form of government can produce positive and negative outcomes. Even absolute monarchy had its moments. Once in a very blue moon, you would actually get a “good” king or tyrant, one that really did try to use his power and influence for the greater good. But through trial and error we learned that, on average, democratic systems produce far better outcomes than monarchical or dictatorial ones. No system of government has entirely positive outcomes; they just vary in their ratio of positive to negative.
Agreed, 100%. Democratic juries are absolutely better.
I was mostly addressing this part:
complaining about jury nullification just means you don’t like the good parts of having a jury.
There are some valid cases to complain about it. But the majority of the time, it’s a good thing.
My unpopular opinion on this is that the jury should find him guilty, if there is sufficient evidence.
Luigi may not deserve to be punished, but a justice system where juries just make up the law based on the vibe of the case sounds much worse than whatever we have now.
I do believe that there is a time to kill, but one would do so willing to bear the consequences.
A part of me is with you. The end goal is equally applied rule of law, so it’s important to respect the system when you’re trying to improve it, right?
However, I think you could argue that the jury and its power to nullify is very much an intended check within the system. It’s kind of an ideal situation where “the people” get to bookend the legal process. They vote for the people making the laws, and they have the final OK before somebody gets sent to prison.
But that is all assuming people perceive the system as working for them to a reasonable degree. If it’s simply broken then why would people go along with the BS while hoping and voting for a better system? They can still vote for a better system while reducing harm in other ways.
There’s also the pragmatic side of me that wants to see good results for humanity (which includes our environment) regardless of the text of the local laws. And yeah, it’s very much a two-edged sword when random citizens do what they think is “right.” Bad examples of it are everywhere. But taking things case by case, what Luigi did was akin to shooting a serial killer between their murder stops. And more importantly, it shines a giant public light on the fact that real people suffer and die so that other people who are already set for life will make $10 million next year instead of only $9 million.
The jury’s power to nullify is not an intended check.
If the jury is intended to weild this power then you don’t need a judge at all. Jury’s can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case.
Yeah, because cops never lie or plant evidence. Surely we can make such decisions based solely on what they’ve publicly said. /s
The whole point of a defense attorney and jury is to determine the strength of the evidence.
If a jury feels that evidence is insufficient, that’s “reasonable doubt” and they can simply return a verdict of not guilty. You don’t need jury nullification for that.
Why have juries at all then?
Because they prevent corrupt judges pronouncing innocent defendants guilty.
Piss off with that noise.
A good point well made.
https://youtu.be/B-2qrFlwYlY?si=yTE7sODiDNtA9IzG
If you can’t put together why I am linking you a 50 year old workers conflict in response to your comment, well I don’t want to even talk to someone that can’t understand common sense.
Sorry mate I’m not going to watch an hour and a half long video so I can understand your common sense.
Let’s not forget, maybe, just maybe, this guy is absolutely innocent, was nowhere near the crime at the time, and had nothing to do with it.
And the cops, in their over zeal to catch someone, anyone, found a poor unlucky person who looks like the guy in the crime scene photos and handily fabricated the rest of the physical evidence. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
Seriously, a written statement admitting guilt? How likely is that? Anyway, this is what I think is happening. And I doubt the real truth will ever be known, sadly.
You’re engaging in “Hopefullism” based on an emotional need. He absolutely did it. They have a preponderance of evidence that he was at the scene and committed the murder. Bordering on irrefutable proof if not outright.
I hope you don’t engage in hopefullism in other areas like climate change, and trump.
“Hopefulism”? I didn’t know we had a slur for optimists now.
Hopefullism is not optimism.
Hopefullism is misplaced optimism.
deleted by creator
They have a preponderance of evidence that he was at the scene and committed the murder.
Youre from the future and have seen it, I presume?
Or are you just believing the cops like an idiot?
Corrupt doesn’t mean stupid. This isnt some nobody weed smoker they collared who nobody cares about. They are well aware that every news org around the world and every eye in this country is going to watching this case with a keen interest. They know that everyone and his brother will be picking over the trial and evidence with a fine tooth comb. They know what’s at stake here. The evidence will be irrefutable.
Action, not misplaced hopefullness helps us.
If the cops were that smart they would’ve found the guy instead of a McDonald’s worker. Saying that just because they arrested someone that they have to be guilty doesn’t sound right either.
Since when did we start defining intelligence as “being everywhere and observing everything?”
It’s not “guilty because he was arrested”, he was arrested due to evidence found that implicated him. Smart or dumb, cops cant be everywhere at all times.
There is too much sunlight and scrutiny on this case for the prosecutors to put forth a patsy. The last thing any prosecutor would want is for this case, especially this case, to turn into an OJ Simpson farce. Rest assured the evidence presented against the defendant will be iron clad. It will involve dna and video captures. It will be very difficult for an objective person to deny he did it.
It is quite possible to approve what he did and at the same time recognise his guilt. You need not be conflicted about that.
I’m not sure if there would be any DNA as the guy was shot, not stabbed. As far as I understand most if not all of what they have is either grainy video snapshots or circumstantial evidence.
You’re right the cops would never lie or plant evidence! No sir! ಠ_ಠ
They would and do all the time. But it would be risky for them to do it in this particular case.
I don’t see your point
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/12/13/edny-fbi-investigating-nypd-drug-planting-allegations/
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/18/nypd-misconduct-body-cameras-marijuana/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ex-nypd-cop-we-planted-ev_n_1009754
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-throws-man-guilty-plea-224510985.html
It’s a hard truth to accept that police lie, falsify evidence, and frame people. And I don’t even need to make the claim that cops in general plant evidence. I can make that claim for the NYPD specifically.
NYPD has been caught before planting evidence on people. They were caught doing this not in the dark days of Tammany Hall, but literally just within the last 10 years.
The only physical evidence linking Luigi to the crime scene is a bottle or wrapper that was found in a nearby trashcan that had his DNA on it. The shooter was dressed in a similar outfit to Luigi, a generic outfit that hundreds of men in NYC are wearing at any given time of the day or night. It might have been Luigi that placed that trash there. Or it could have even been the real killer. The real killer could have simply waited until someone that looked a bit like him dropped a wrapper in the trash, and then transported it to the scene of the crime. For a killer that seems to have planned things to such a level of intricacy, planting a false trail of evidence really doesn’t seem unlikely.
I could absolutely see the NYPD convincing themselves, “well, we got Luigi’s DNA near the scene. We have a video that appears to be him putting it in the trash can. This is almost certainly our guy, but he’s a crafty one and knew what he was doing. Let’s just fabricate some additional evidence to really seal the deal.”
It’s telling that Luigi is just the kind of target that the NYPD would pick out if they were going to frame someone for this. Yes, he is from a wealthy family, but he’s been completely no-contact with them for the better part of a year. His family was actively looking for him. Luigi personally was not someone of high social status. He appears to have been living as a drifter and living in hostels and homeless shelters for the last year.
If the NYPD was going to try and frame someone, who better than some random homeless queer kid?
Do I think Luigi actually did it? Probably. But we don’t convict people on “probably.” At least with the evidence we’ve seen in public so far, I would vote not guilty for Luigi. I would want to have a lot more info on the provenance of the weapon and manifesto they had on him before I would vote to convict.
For example, here’s what I want to know. Where is Luigi’s workshop? You’re not making that kind of 3D printed gun in a shared bedroom of a youth hostel. You need space, tools, and privacy. And no maker space is going to let you make and prototype guns on their printers. Where exactly did that gun come from? Where is Luigi’s workshop?
As someone who ran a 3D print farm, even with the latest 3D printers, you will have a ton of trouble printing a ghost gun. The amount of infill, the type of nozzle, the heat and the materials all play a role in making a successful print.
I ran a print farm for a couple of years before closing shop during the pandemic. Even with my knowledge, I would have trouble printing a successful ghost gun.
Exactly. There’s a huge prototyping process. I would expect to make, at an absolute minimum, a dozen prototype stages. And each will take hours to print. This is not some covert process you’re doing in a hostel or homeless shelter. And even if you have access to a makerspace, they’re going to notice and immediately kick you out. No maker space wants that kind of heat on them. And you’ll also need access to a firing range that will let you test your sketchy home-made gun there. And again, no gun range wants that type of liability.
So again, I ask. Where is Luigi’s workshop? Unless you have an owned or rented space, that only you have access to, it is virtually impossible to make a ghost gun without someone finding out.
You almost need to own or rent a large piece of rural land if you want to actually do this.
Tolerances get wonky the larger the thing is and even wonkier when you scale on infill. The more material in your infill, you start to need an enclosed printer which brings in the element of environment.
I don’t know if Luigi did it, but the state and feds gotta come up with a whole lot of evidence for a murder 1 conviction.
removed by mod
All the other crimes didn’t involve the owner class.
Or a judge’s weed wacker.
I was talking about this the other day. I hope he has an airtight alibi to just rub in all of their faces.
removed by mod
“He’s bound to have done something,” Nobby repeated.
In this he was echoing the Patrician’s view of crime and punishment. If there was crime, there should be punishment. If the specific criminal should be involved in the punishment process then this was a happy accident, but if not then any criminal would do, and since everyone was undoubtedly guilty of something, the net result was that, in general terms, justice was done.”
But just think of all the Luigi memes that would need to be replaced
removed by mod
I mean, if he actually were convicted, executed, and later proved innocent…
That is one of the few circumstances that an official “Saint Luigi” could literally happen. Despite the memes, it is an understatement to say that it is extremely unlikely that the Catholic church would ever beatify someone for shooting someone else in the back with a silenced pistol. But to be falsely convicted and executed for the crime? That would make Luigi a completely innocent martyr for the cause of the sick and injured. That’s the stuff sainthood is made of.
What really moved me to the camp that “Luigi might actually be innocent” was what Luigi said in perhaps his only public statement after being arrested. His lawyer has wisely since told him to shut up, but he did make one shouted public statement to the cameras.
He shouted, “this is extremely out of touch; this is an insult to the intelligence of the American people!”
To me, that doesn’t really sound like the proclamation of a John Brown-type figure. Here’s what John Brown’s words were.
Luigi supposedly planned this elaborate killing down to a T. He even wrote his message on the shell casings. And he wrote a hand-written manifesto. Yet in his one chance so far to speak to the media, did he say, “I apologize for nothing!” Did he say, “Robert Thompson murdered thousands of people; I just brought him justice!” Did he say anything of the sort? Do his words sound like those of a revolutionary, boldly willing to die for his cause?
No. He sounds like a scared kid, caught in over his head, who knows he his being framed and facing potential capital punishment for a crime he didn’t commit. That is how I would sound if I were being charged for those murders. I would probably be shouting something very similar if I were currently being framed for some high-profile murder. It would be an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and I would be rightfully scared and infuriated.
Now, it’s certainly possible that this whole thing was an act. Maybe Luigi just planned that statement to garner public sympathy. IDK. But at least in terms of publicly observable demeanor, he really doesn’t seem like some wild-eyed revolutionary. He seems like a scared kid who knows he’s being framed.
removed by mod
Why the hell is CNN charging a subscription now? Are people really stupid enough to pay it?
Press the button that makes all that stuff go away so you can just read the article…
do you prefer ads?
I prefer quality journalism, not paying for the shit CNN generally churns out. Are you really suggesting it’s worth paying for CNN? We’re not exactly talking about Deutsche Welle here in terms of journalistic integrity and serious reporting just because they have the occasional decent article.
I think it’s a reasonable response to the ‘why the hell they’re charging a subscription now’ part of your question. Probably not a question you actually wanted an answer to, but regardless of opinions about the quality of their journalism I think it’s important that publishers are investigating alternate ways to monetize their work — publishers want to rely on ads for revenue about as much as readers want to see them. A fragmented subscription model across the whole industry being the right answer seems doubtful, but at least it gives them a revenue stream which doesn’t come with advertiser strings attached. And who knows, maybe it will positively change the content they put out if they garner enough subscribers with high enough expectations to pay.
CNN still has ads.
Yes, because they can be blocked.
Keeping in mind that I am not debating the merits of CNN specifically — unfortunately in a reality where there are no subscription or similar means to pay for professional journalism, and everyone is blocking ads, these services die. Both the ones you approve of, and the ones you don’t.
Which then results in sites charging money for subscriptions…
Works fine on my machine
Jury nullification is an important logical conclusion of American jurist rules. This post will stay up.
Based
deleted by creator
It’s literally the reason to have juries. It’s the last line of defense against unjust laws.
Thank you, Based Mod. Not every day, we see one.
https://lemmy.world/comment/14404101
A very important explanation
