News

This guy lawyers!

He needs to cultivate mass

If the jacket doesn’t fit then you must acquit.

Showing the initial picture they released of the suspect should be cause enough for aquital

My guy, never ever represent yourself in court or give legal advice. Most of what you've said is completely incorrect.

If they did not read him his Miranda rights, that could be enough by itself to basically throw everything out.

Sorry, but this is not correct.

First, Luigi has consistently maintained his innocence. Which obviously means he's not admitted to any wrongdoing. If he was interrogated without being properly mirandized during a formal custodial interrogation, any statements he made during that interrogation could potentially be excluded from evidence because his constitutional rights would have been violated--but it's not like he admitted to committing a murder during that interrogation. The evidence against him was not derived from his testimony or statements during interrogation; it was gathered independently, outside of that process.

The exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. If no evidence was gathered during the non-mirandized interrogation, there is nothing to exclude. While his rights may have been violated, the exclusionary rule cannot be invoked to exclude evidence that does not exist. The only scenario in which this issue would significantly impact the case is if his statements during interrogation were central to the prosecution's case—which is not the situation here.

Furthermore, since there are no statements or testimony to exclude, even if a miranda violation occurred, it is highly likely that the court would deem the error "harmless." This means the violation would not result in the dismissal of the case, as it does not materially affect the prosecution's ability to present evidence or prove guilt.

Despite popular believe, not being mirandized does not immediately mean that your case gets dismissed. You have to prove that statements or evidence gathered during the offending time frame were used to convict you.

also mistreating him while he was in a county jail to humiliate him will probably be brought up too.

If they did not read him his Miranda rights, that could be enough by itself to basically throw everything out.

Matey, stop commenting on things you've only seen on tv. Reading someone their rights is only done under specific circumstances, and only applies to certain evidence associated with those circumstances.

Anyone who cares to learn can read about it here in the excellent illustrated guide to the law.

Slight correction. If that arrest and search were the only means to get that evidence, then it is thrown out. If there were other legal means they could have gotten that evidence, it becomes admissible again. Cops can illegally arrest and search you. Then if they are able to show at a later point a legal route that would have caused a legal arrest and search. It's fine.

That was another thing his lawyers were arguing, actually - that since his arrest was over-publicized and spun in a particular light (for instance the widely circulated photo with him being escorted by an entire precinct worth of police) that they skewed public perception and created a presumption of guilt.

Really, though, this is important largely because of the jury is even the least bit sympathetic, points like this could go a long way towards getting them to acquit him, even if they believe he did it. "Well, I think he's guilty, but the judge said we had to ignore all of this evidence, sooo..."

Who's this Luigi guy people keep talking about?

dude's about to get tried by the amish, i guess

The jury doesn't have to be ignorant, they have to be able to take the information they are given during the trial and render a generally unbiased decision based on that information. And that decision is made by the Judge, Prosecution and Defense teams. That's the entire reason for the Voir Dire process, it's designed to weed out biases on both sides that can compromise the trial.

Of course the defense will bring up things like the state of US healthcare, specifically United Healthcare and their processes, etc. so jurors having a bias solely based on that won't matter, as much because that's going to almost surely be introduced during the trial anyway.

That being said... good luck finding 12 jurors who both sides trust can be unbiased enough, and can render a unanimous decision in the current societal climate. And if the first is a mistrial, finding a second set will be even harder.

This reminds me of the sketch SNL did saying it's impossible to find jury members for the OJ trail. The only difference is it will be impossible to find anyone willing to say Luigi is guilty

They had a reason to suspect him, but that reason wasn’t obtained thru legal means, so they have to invent a plausible second reason and call it a parallel investigation if they want to keep any evidence gained since he was apprehended.

I think it is exactly this.

The 'Anonymous tip' thing is also used when they have absolutely no other way to get illegally obtained (think, Snowden) evidence to the police.

The story from the police is that a person saw the pictures on the news showing his chin and nose and somehow managed to recognize him and also decided to call the police. Alternatively, they have better video footage of his face and have access to McDonalds (and probably most corporation's) video feeds to run live facial recognition then they called in a hit as 'an anonymous tip'.

We already know that law enforcement/intelligence can compel companies to share live access to their stored data. Snowden's leaks showed that they could access, for counter-terrorism purposes, any gmail account through a web interface. There's no reason to think that video camera footage (which is an absolute goldmine for intelligence purposes) would be excluded from these sweeping domestic spying powers.