Summary

Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, has asked his supporters to limit the number of photos they send him to 5 at a time due to overwhelming volume and screening delays.

Charged with murder, he has pleaded not guilty. Mangione’s case sparked debate about healthcare, with supporters sending fan mail and donations.

His legal defense fund has raised over $615,000. He expressed gratitude for the letters, acknowledging support across “political, racial, and even class divisions.”

Mangione also faces federal and Pennsylvania charges. His attorney argues he’s being treated differently, held in federal custody.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    They will not argue that the victim deserved it

    That’s different.

    They’ll highlight the amount of resources and actions that were taken to apprehend him along with his treatment since arrest to show it is not normal treatment.

    But never give a possible reason why his treatment was/is unusual.

    It’s going right up to saying what I quoted, but stopping a sentence before the judge has to say “objection”.

    Like, that’s what lawyering to a jury is…

    Walking them up to the conclusion you want, and making them believe they “figured it out”.

    Some as running a con, that’s why the Venn Diagram of succesful lawyers and wealthy conmen looks like a solar eclipse.

    They “just ask questions”.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      That’s more likely, yes. That is still dangerous though. If the makeup of the jury is generally anti-vigilante justice, then bringing them to that point may backfire.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Yeah, but if they don’t need to get to that step

        Defendant was treated unusually and prejudiciually in public view prior to the trial.

        The defense doesn’t need the “why”, it’s just icing