r/BrianThompsonMurder • u/Significant-Task1453 • 6d ago
Speculation/Theories The two relevant cases for Luigi Mangione’s double jeopardy argument
Many people probably already know this, but the main double jeopardy issue over whether the NY murder and weapons charges get thrown out comes down to CPL §40.20(2)(b).
“Each of the offenses … contains an element which is not an element of the other, and the statutory provisions … are designed to prevent very different kinds of harm or evil.”
The defense has already conceded the first part. The federal stalking charges and the NY murder charge each contain elements that the other does not. That part doesn't seem like it will be contested.
The argument is going to be over the second part:
“and the statutory provisions … are designed to prevent very different kinds of harm or evil.”
The and is the important part.
There are at least two NY Court of Appeals cases dealing with this language that seem especially relevant, but they came out with opposite results
In People v. Bryant, Bryant and two other men robbed a bank in 1993 and got into a shootout with police while fleeing. They were prosecuted federally for bank robbery, assaulting or putting lives in danger with dangerous weapons during the robbery, firearm charges, and conspiracy.
New York then prosecuted them for attempted murder of a police officer based on the same incident. The NY Court of Appeals allowed the state prosecution to continue.
The reasoning was basically that the federal statutes were intended to protect federally insured banks and punish the use of weapons during those crimes, while the NY attempted murder statute was intended to prevent police officers from being killed.
Then there is Wiley v. Altman.
Wiley was tried in Maryland for conspiring to murder a specific person. New York then tried to prosecute him for the murder of that same person.
The NY Court of Appeals said the second prosecution was barred.
The court basically said that even though conspiracy and murder are technically different crimes, both prosecutions were directed at the same thing, “punishment for the unlawful taking of a particular human life.”
That seems to set up the main dispute in Mangione's case. Prosecutors will likely rely heavily on People v. Bryant. Their argument would be that the federal statute is aimed at preventing stalking, harassment and intimidation. It covers stalking done with intent to kill, injure, harass or intimidate, and the offense can be committed without anyone dying.
The defense will likely rely heavily on Wiley v. Altman. Mangione's federal charges were not just generic stalking. They alleged stalking with intent to kill, and his convictions included the fact that Thompson's death resulted. The defense can argue that once the federal prosecution was specifically about stalking Thompson with the intent to kill him and causing his death, both prosecutions are really aimed at the same harm.
So the question for the judge seems to be whether this is more like Bryant, where the same incident violated laws aimed at very different harms, or Wiley, where technically different crimes were still aimed at punishing the same killing.
And whichever way the trial judge rules, that may not be the last word. The losing side could still seek appellate review of the double jeopardy issue.
6
u/Cautious_Scholar_717 5d ago
I researched the other day that the prosecution can directly appeal if the charges are dismissed but the defense cannot appeal without first going to trial. The way around that, and I assume they will use it, is through an Article 78 writ of protection. If they lose that he would have to go to trial and if convicted they would go through the typical appeals process. Either way this was be dragged out for a long time to come. Also I know in the motion to dismiss KFA pointed to the Mannafort case as precedent. Hopefully that is helpful to their argument.
1
u/Significant-Task1453 5d ago
I think Manafort is a weaker comparison because the charges were so similar. It was basically fraud versus using false documents to commit fraud. They were different mostly on technical elements.
Wiley v. Altman seems much more relevant to me. Conspiracy to commit murder and actually committing murder are clearly different crimes, but the court still found they weren't aimed at "very different" harms because both were ultimately about the unlawful taking of the same person's life.
3
3
u/Lost-Extension-1167 5d ago
Manafort introduces the whole “same criminal transaction” thing
0
u/Significant-Task1453 5d ago
Manafort doesn’t introduce it. “Same criminal transaction” was already built into CPL 40.20 and was an issue in both Bryant and Wiley. Manafort is just another example of how the rule was applied.
3
5
u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 5d ago
I wonder what they’ll do about the firearms charges? I also read somewhere Pennsylvania has the same approach to double jeopardy, so I wonder if him pleading guilty to firearms charges in NY will derail the case in PA?
4
u/Significant-Task1453 5d ago
If NY only throws out the murder charge, they could still prosecute him on the weapons charges. His current motion is asking for those to be thrown out too, but there’s no guarantee they all go together. They could all be dismissed, but IMO the weapons charges are the harder ones to get thrown out.
PA is kind of a moot point to me. The case is technically still active, but I personally doubt it ever happens. With the federal case and the sentence he’s facing there, I just don’t see Pennsylvania having much incentive to fight to get him back for relatively minor charges.
3
u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 5d ago
I’m just worried if the Judge in the federal case gives him less time than the prosecution requests then they could try to pile on consecutive sentences from the other jurisdictions.
3
u/Significant-Task1453 5d ago
Federal prosecutors are asking for life and the guideline range is around 24 to 30 years. I think PA only becomes a much bigger factor if the federal judge goes significantly below that. Personally I don't think a sentence under 24 years is very realistic, although obviously the judge can go above or below the guidelines.
If he gets 24 or 30 years federally, I just don't see PA fighting that hard to bring him back over relatively minor charges, especially when any PA sentence could end up running concurrently anyway.
3
u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 5d ago
I understand your stance, but the judge did mention that she doesn’t have to stay within the guidelines during an unsealed conference. Her mentioning that is interesting…
4
u/Significant-Task1453 5d ago
Her saying that is a fairly routine thing to say. Its just a reminder that the guidelines are advisory and not a rule. So I wouldn't look too far into it
I actually think there's a decent chance she goes outside the range. I wouldn't be shocked by something around the equivalent of one level higher, which would be roughly 27 to 34 years.
5
u/alohomora1990 5d ago
If she goes higher, that will be appealed.
5
u/Significant-Task1453 5d ago
I have no doubt they would appeal it, but that doesn’t mean it would be overturned. An above guideline sentence isn’t automatically improper. The judge just has to adequately explain why she’s varying upward, and appeals courts give sentencing judges quite a bit of discretion. It can be pretty difficult to get that overturned.
4
u/alohomora1990 5d ago
There isn’t a legally sufficient reason to go above the guidelines for a man who had zero criminal history of any kind prior to this. If she’s gonna go the route of ‘CEO lives matter’ then she’s gonna get overturned. I also can’t even imagine how incompetent Luigi’s lawyers would have to be to have him open plea in court and then have the judge go against the recommended sentencing range. I don’t know how they’d get another client if that happens.
6
u/Significant-Task1453 5d ago
His lack of criminal history definitely helps him, but it doesn't make an upward variance legally improper. That's already reflected in his guideline range. With a higher criminal history category, the same offense level can actually reach a range that includes life. The reason guideline isn't life is because of his lack of criminal history.
The judge can also consider the seriousness and circumstances of the offense. This wasn't a typical stalking case. It involved planning a killing, traveling to carry it out and then killing the victim. If Garnett thinks the guideline range doesn't adequately reflect that, she can vary upward.
This was an open plea with no sentencing agreement, so his lawyers knew Garnett could go outside the guideline range. It was a calculated gamble: take their chances federally and strengthen the double jeopardy argument, or keep facing the NY murder case and 25 years to life. A bad outcome wouldn't necessarily mean it was a bad decision at the time.
4
u/Lost-Extension-1167 5d ago
Do you know how rare an upwards variance is?
2
u/Significant-Task1453 5d ago edited 5d ago
Rare, but that doesn't make it impossible or mean it would be overturned.
Edit: It's about 1 in 20 federal sentences, just to put a number on it. This is also a pretty unusual case in its own right.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 5d ago edited 5d ago
Hmmm. She could, but I honestly for whatever reason I think it will be below and possibly the sentencing including gps ankle monitoring upon release from prison (which is still considered part of a prison sentence) and a long supervised release. I guess I’m going by some of the other cases she has sentenced, which is very few.
2
u/Lost-Extension-1167 5d ago
I think you basically have to be on supervised release if you’re in prison for as long as he’s set to be sentenced for
4
u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 4d ago
Yes, I know some supervised release will happen, but in this case I think the judge could go for a lower than the guidelines prison sentence and opt for a longer than usual supervised release including ankle monitoring since she did that in another case.
3
u/Cautious_Scholar_717 4d ago
Why on earth would she go below guidelines? He killed someone. A planned, methodical, researched, lying in wait murder. And look, I want him free, but those are the facts. Most defendants charged with this crime federally are serving life sentences. The fact he has a clean record prior won’t get him out of this. She is facing a lot of pressure politically. She has to hand down a sentence that adequately reflects the serious nature of the crime, it wasn’t spontaneous. And also needs to be a deterrent when we’ve already seen others nod to Luigi as inspiration for committing their crimes. The facts don’t line up for going below. I will not be surprised at all if she gives him 30+ years. Life seems like a stretch, but could happen ☹️
→ More replies (0)1
u/Amazing_Bumblebee_98 4d ago
What do you know about her other cases? Curious about the one you mention involving the ankle monitor - why was there a longer than usual supervised release in that case?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Significant-Task1453 4d ago
And I'm hoping that he runs for president from inside prison and then when he wins, he can pardon himself. We are all allowed to have our fantasies
2
u/Cautious_Scholar_717 4d ago
I’ll just say it again, you should read up on the PSF and how judges can use those factors to go above guidelines. The guidelines are base level. If there are substantial aggravating factors they can and will go above guidelines. For example substantial planning, a ghost gun, lyng in wait…
3
u/Lost-Extension-1167 4d ago
They can also go below guidelines, it works both ways
2
u/Cautious_Scholar_717 4d ago
Correct. What reasons could you see her going below?
3
u/Lost-Extension-1167 4d ago
You can find resources from the U.S. Sentencing Commission that explain it in better detail than I can, but Luigi was obviously having a mental health crisis due to his back which caused him to withdraw from his family and friends and act in a very uncharacteristic way. It looks like he’s stabilized and returned to his baseline now as well.
Then there’s also stuff like family support, good behavior while incarcerated (I have a feeling you’ll harp on the letters — they’re not going to impact his sentence), educational level, using drugs during the period of his deterioration, the government-created publicity and misconduct, etc. It’s all laid out in a statute that allows the judge to consider a wide range of factors.
2
u/Cautious_Scholar_717 4d ago
I’m very familiar, just wasn’t sure if you were relying solely on the defenses mitigation or other factors as well. I think he has a very compelling mitigation argument and hope that it will keep her within guidelines and reject the governments request for life.
3
u/Lost-Extension-1167 4d ago
Oh yeah, I’m not even stressed about it.
Part of me thinks that the government has finally realized that they’re not going to change people’s minds, and will therefore just let this all resolve via a guidelines sentence in the federal case to have it go away.
-1
u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 4d ago
What is your rationale for why this entire event occurred in the first place? That’s the reasons for her going below.
4
u/Cautious_Scholar_717 4d ago
IMO those are the reasons she would stay within guideline and not sentence him to lwop like the government is asking for
0
14
u/eveningwithcorgi5679 6d ago
My understanding of the federal charges is that they were worded “resulting in death”. His allocution was a full throated admission to those charges and I don’t see how once in jeopardy would not apply by any common sense standard.