839
The CEO killer watching from his hidey hole as authorities try to pin everything on some random dude named Luigi
(media1.giphy.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
839 points (96.1% liked)
Memes
45912 readers
1007 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don't get me wrong. After all of this high drama, it would be extremely funny if Luigi Mangione can prove he was in Rochester on the day of the shooting.
I think that's exactly where it's going. Get convicted, real killer confesses and the state can't pursue a crime they've convicted someone for.
Why not? The double jeopardy clause is about prosecuting a single person twice; it says nothing about prosecuting a second person for the same crime. Heck, convicting a second person wouldn't even automatically invalidate the first conviction. (SCOTUS has ruled that innocence is not a sufficient reason to overturn a conviction.)
Remember, we have a judicial system. Calling it a "justice system" is inaccurate.
WHAT
Here's an in-depth article from Slate.
They can once they release that conviction but it goes to show ineptitude and malfeasance which casts doubt on any further attempt to convict someone. And yes it would, shadow of a doubt is a high standard and a second conviction is a huge amount of doubt.
Factual innocence is different, it's a positive defense for literally any criminal charge.
There's no mechanism to release a conviction. Usually, if prosecutors have convicted somebody for murder, they won't pursue a case against a second person only for reason of not wanting to admit that they may have got it wrong. But there's no legal barrier, and it has happened for other crimes. The Ninth Circuit even ruled that it's legal.
Reversed, released, overturned are all the same thing and happen literally daily. Where did you get your information that a conviction can't be changed?
Ed: reading your source it hinged on the crime technically being capable of being committed by multiple people and this one clearly can't be.
Sure, a conviction can be overturned, but what I'm pointing out here is that it doesn't have to be in order to convict somebody else for the same crime.
Sure. But you said there isn't a mechanism for it, there clearly is.
And there isn't. If prosecutors file a new case against a second person for the same crime, and get a conviction, there's no mechanism by which that second conviction overturns the previous conviction. Depending on the circumstances, the first person convicted may not even have grounds to have their case brought before a court to be re-examined.
Automatically? No, almost nothing but enhancements are automatic.
What I hear you saying it is not just possible but probable.
Then I don't know what I can say more clearly. If they convict Mangione, and the real killer confesses, they can convict the real killer, too. They wouldn't even have to free Mangione to do it.
They can't in this case.
In your example they essentially used the same basis as felony murder (which I don't agree with but whatever) in that they do not know who did pulled the trigger and made the enhancements threat but there's no argument both were there.
In this case there's only one person there during the shooting and that's on video, it physically and logically could not be two people and therefore two convictions are unlikely to hold.
I see what you're saying. If they convicted Mangione, and the real killer confessed, they'd likely just ignore it and double down on his guilt out of vanity. That's what usually happens in reality.
But it would not be a good idea for the real killer to confess. Yes, the video shows that one physical human wielded the gun, but as I am pointing out, that doesn't matter. That's the fucked-up part here: The legal system would allow two people to be convicted for it, unless somebody took deliberate action to overturn the first conviction.
It might go like this: The NY prosecutors get a conviction, and send Mangione to prison. Then, the real killer confesses. Being the real killer, the confession is very, very credible. The prosecutors can't brazen it out, and decide to charge and try him. If he pleaded guilty, wham, bam, done. The matter would go right to sentencing. If he pleaded not guilty, the judge might rule that the conviction of Mangione for the same for crime is not admissible evidence, as it might bias the jury. Even if the previous conviction was brought up at trial, they have a very credible confession; it's clear the real killer did it. And, even without a confession, the jury in the second trial is supposed to consider only whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. And if the evidence is strong enough, they probably would. The conviction of Mangione for the same crime would be a matter for another court.
Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that innocence is not grounds to have one's case heard before an appeals court, this scenario could easily result in two men in prison for the same crime. The outcome of both going free is highly unlikely.
Yes, in reality, the NY prosecutors probably would at least have enough integrity to move to overturn Mangione's conviction if they had a credible confession from another man. But they don't have to.