anyway. read more for basic debunking of a few of the claims ive seen floating around on here. as always, i am an attorney but not your attorney. none of this constitutes legal advice.
"he says he wasnt read his miranda rights this will get the whole case thrown out!"
no it wont. thats not what that means. dont let anyone tell you thats what that means. thinking that's what that means can and will cause active harm to people put into police custody. the fifth amendment, which is where miranda comes in, means you have a right against self-incrimination until your sixth amendment right to an attorney attaches -- when you are officially charged with a crime.
miranda does very little to actually protect you. the fifth amendment does not prohibit the admission of all incriminating statements. new york v. quarles (1984). it merely prohibits the admission of coerced statements into evidence. the supreme court has held that merely being in police custody is not coercion. see ie brown v. mississippi (1936); spano v. new york.
simply put: police do NOT violate a suspect’s constitutional rights simply by not giving the Miranda warnings. the suspect’s rights are only violated if those unwarned statements are admitted at trial. suppression of unwarned statements therefore cures Miranda violations. united states v. patane (2004).
also -- it sounds like he knew his rights well enough not to make incriminating statements. so that unfortunately literally does not matter. not to mention that there's a 'balancing act' -- so even if he did make incriminating statements, they're likely going to be found admissible under hudson v. michigan (2006)
2. "there's insufficient evidence to convict! the police fucked up due to street contamination! all evidence is circumstancial! how can they prove --"
okay. so 1: 99% of the evidence presented before a court is circumstantial. i know suits or svu or whatever told you thats not "real evidence" but i can assure you. attorneys rely heavily on circumstantial evidence. the court relies heavily on it. again, if youre getting your legal information from cop shows/lawyer shows, youre not getting information. honestly? most of us cant define "circumstantial evidence" in a way the court recognizes. it's not in the federal rules of evidence. as long as we can authenticate it and its relevant, the court will take it under consideration. point blank.
2:"sufficient evidence" is determined by the jury. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is determined by the jury. as long as the judge thinks theres sufficient evidence to levy the initial charges -- which usually boils down to if the DA thinks theres sufficient evidence -- that hearing is happening.
3: if "the police fucked up the evidence" was a reason to throw a case out, most cases wouldnt be charged. its an argument to be made in court, sure. its not a reason for a judge to throw a case out. honestly? a magistrate wouldnt issue a warrant if there wasnt probable cause. and if they did? im guessing the good faith exception applies. se ie united states v. leon (1984)
but dont assume thats the full breadth of the evidence. evidence that would jeopardize the case, the suspect's rights, ability to try the case fairly, etc. are not shared with the public. it is the ethical obligation of court officers [attorneys, judges, police] not to disclose evidence publicly where it would harm the right to a fair trial. see, ie, federal rules of professional conduct 3.6; 3.8.
3. "they wont be able to find a jury that doesnt want him freed/convicted! no one will be impartial!"
baby there are people who live under rocks youve never even heard of. and honestly? the defense and prosecution each choose six people they think will be favorable to their side. if you think any jury is impartial, idk what to tell you. the jury is a game that attorneys play all the time.
youre right. jury nullification is dope. it's also not something that ... really happens. and you calling for it? presumes he's guilty.
remember: everyone is innocent until proven guilty. even your folkhero. dont convict him in the court of public opinion -- whether your intent is celebratory or not. the only person youre hurting is luigi mangione.
watch yourself, watch your friends, know your rights. and their limits -- because the police certainly do.
