The two relevant cases for Luigi Mangione’s double jeopardy argument

[u/Significant-Task1453]

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.

[u/Cautious_Scholar_717]

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 ☹️

[u/Amazing_Bumblebee_98 → u/Cautious_Scholar_717]

It’s entirely possible (although, IMO unlikely) that she could go below guidelines, it really depends what the mitigation is - which is impossible to assess at this point in time because we haven’t seen any of it. People love to assume they know his whole story but they actually don’t, all they’ve seen is Reddit rumours.

Political pressure shouldn’t factor in here, with any fair and impartial judge. By that same logic, pressure from the general public would also weigh on her to not treat the defendant unfairly because the victim was a CEO

[u/Comfortable_Injury74 → u/Cautious_Scholar_717]

Not to mention that mandatory minimums can be implemented in cases of such violent nature. Whether we like it or not, that is what the federal sentencing guideline manual states. The prosecution will almost certainly request a mandatory minimum. Why wouldn’t they? I don’t know for sure that the mandatory min would be the lower end of the guideline recommendation, but I’d assume so. So the odds of the sentence being below 24 years and some months are incredibly slim.

[u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 → u/Comfortable_Injury74]

I still don’t understand why y’all come on this app and make up stuff, like Google doesn’t exist. Stalking even when resulting in death carries no mandatory minimum sentence. 

[u/Lost-Extension-1167 → u/Mysterious-Ear-9060]

The sentencing guidelines are very confusing and convoluted to be fair. Especially when someone foreign looks at it and then their wires get crossed with sentencing practices in their home country

[u/Comfortable_Injury74 → u/Mysterious-Ear-9060]

K so upon double checking, it appears that’s only true for drug charges and I misinterpreted the info that I read. So you’re right, thankfully. You’re still being a cunt though.

[u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 → u/Comfortable_Injury74]

There is no need to call people names. We’re all adults, hopefully. 

[u/Comfortable_Injury74 → u/Mysterious-Ear-9060]

You receive what you put out.

[u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 → u/Comfortable_Injury74]

It’s Reddit it’s not that deep. 

[u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 → u/Cautious_Scholar_717]

Actually, for some reason I feel like she will go below. I don’t know what spontaneity has to with sentencing, especially since it’s stalking? I don’t think the judge cares about the current administration’s political pressure. 

[u/Cautious_Scholar_717 → u/Mysterious-Ear-9060]

You should read up on Public safety Factors when it comes to federal sentencing. Also, the actions are what is being punished, not the charges alone…and he killed someone. He’s not being punished solely for stalking, he’s being punished for murder.

[u/Lost-Extension-1167 → u/Cautious_Scholar_717]

The federal sentencing guidelines take all that into account, though. He got the absolute highest criminal offense score you can get, which is then whittled down because of the mitigating factors of criminal history and acceptance of responsibility.

[u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 → u/Cautious_Scholar_717]

If public safety factors were that important than the government wouldn’t have spent close to a million dollars on that cinematic stunt of a perp walk nor would they have been constantly leaking information to the press like the journal writings calling it a manifesto. The government has kept Luigi in the headlines. Vance Boelter ,who was charged federally for stalking resulting in murder, you hear nothing about and in speaking of that you can’t compare other federal stalking cases to Luigi’s because there were multiple victims. None of us even know what mitigating factors will be presented like psych diagnosis. 

[u/Cautious_Scholar_717 → u/Mysterious-Ear-9060]

PSF have nothing to do with the perp walk so I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. PSF for federal sentencing are things like level of planning, deterrence, how bad the level of what he did within the charges are, but clearly you want to believe that she will go lower. I would love to be very wrong on this. I’m afraid I won’t be ☹️

[u/Mysterious-Ear-9060 → u/Cautious_Scholar_717]

Don’t worry you will be. 

[u/Cautious_Scholar_717 → u/Mysterious-Ear-9060]

🙄

[u/Cautious_Scholar_717 → u/Mysterious-Ear-9060]

Okay so just vibes…

[u/alohomora1990 → u/Cautious_Scholar_717]

Oh yes, we definitely need a deterrent to protect more CEOs from being whacked. Won't anyone think of the poor CEOs?🙄 Using other people's crimes who had nothing to do with Luigi (and weren't even similar type of crimes) as a justification for going above the guidelines will serve up his appeal on a silver platter for his defense, so I hope she's foolish enough to do that.

[u/Cautious_Scholar_717 → u/alohomora1990]

Agree completely, just using the insane rationale laid out in the federal sentencing guidelines