this post was submitted on 06 May 2025

4 points (100.0% liked)

News

38060 readers

1579 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Judge cautions prosecutors in healthcare exec murder trial to refrain from public comments (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250506120551/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/05/luigi-mangione-trial-proescutors-public-comments

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] gabbath@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] aphlamingphoenix@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

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.