Current Events > Judge Says DOJ Appears to Have Violated Luigi Mangione's Right to a Fair Trial

(+) Yeah! (+)

OH NO

https://truthout.org/articles/doj-appears-to-have-violated-luigi-mangiones-right-to-a-fair-trial-judge-says/

A federal judge has ordered prosecutors to respond to a letter from Luigi Mangiones legal team alleging that Trump administration officials recent social media posts about the case appear to have violated his right to a fair trial.

It appears that multiple employees at the Department of Justice may have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and this Courts order of April 25, 2025 specifically identifying the strictures of this rule, U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett wrote in her order on September 24 in response to the letter.
The rule stipulates that non-lawyer personnel employed by a lawyers office or subject to a lawyers supervision in a criminal case have a duty not to release an opinion that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if there is a chance that the opinion will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice.

This includes any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, Garnett pointed out.
The statements referenced in the [letter from Mangiones legal team] by two high-ranking staff members of the Department of Justice, including within the Office of the Attorney General, appear to be in direct violation of this Rule and the Courts April 25 Order, the judge continued.

On September 19, the deputy director of the Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs reposted a clip of President Donald Trump saying that Mangione shot someone in the back as clear as youre looking at mehe shot him right in the middle of the back instantly dead The DOJ staffer wrote, @POTUS is absolutely right. The chief of staff and associate deputy attorney general retweeted the same post. The original post was later deleted.
Future violations may result in sanctions, including relief specific to the prosecution of this matter, Garnett wrote.
The letter to the court from Mangiones lawyers includes numerous examples of Trump administration officials speaking about Mangiones alleged guilt in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City last year. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
During a White House press briefing on September 22, the White House press secretary said Mangione was a left-wing assassin [who] shot UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson right in the back in New York City.
The following day, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller said on Fox News that of course the healthcare CEO was brutally gunned down by another self-described so-called anti-fascist that was then celebrated by other self-described anti-fascists, so of course, really communist revolutionaries. The White House deputy chief of staff for policy reposted the clip on X.
Mangiones attorneys wrote that the government knows this statement to be false.
The Government has indelibly prejudiced Mr. Mangione by baselessly linking him to unrelated violent events, and left-wing extremist groups, despite there being no connection or affiliation, the attorneys wrote.
A recent, tragic, high-profile murder has only increased this prejudicial rhetoric, the lawyers continued, referencing the fatal shooting of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk. The attempts to connect Mr. Mangione with these incidents and paint him as a left wing violent extremist are false, prejudicial, and part of a greater political narrative that has no place in any criminal case, especially one where the death penalty is at stake.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/bb085e18.jpg

Friendly reminder, while president, Richard Nixon once apologized for making prejudiced comments about Charles Manson before his trial.

They were so determined to make an example of him that they might genuinely botch what would have been a layup for the prosecution on procedural grounds.

Murder shouldn't slide

But I mean...how bad can this case be fumbled?

Thats funny and all but it wont mean much since the regime has zero respect for the law.

Appears? They havent shut up about it since before the trial even began.

The whole ridiculous perp walk and terrorism charge literally shouldn't have happened. Seems remote, but I will be amazed if the muckery around this case causes Luigi to walk.

If they blow this case it'll go down in the history as a failure by the prosecution to such a degree it'll be studied in law schools

Womp womp.

HighSeraph posted...

it'll be studied in law schools

we're all being studied.

on topic, it shows what the future if Patel manages to fuck up the charlie kirk trial because that is leaning to go the same way if he continues poisoning it.

LightHawKnight posted...

Appears? They havent shut up about it since before the trial even began.

Judge has to do diligence before slamming down a ruling

appears means evidence leans that way so the prosecution has to argue why that is not the case

On September 19, the deputy director of the Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs reposted a clip of President Donald Trump saying that Mangione shot someone in the back as clear as youre looking at mehe shot him right in the middle of the back instantly dead The DOJ staffer wrote, @POTUS is absolutely right. The chief of staff and associate deputy attorney general retweeted the same post. The original post was later deleted.
Future violations may result in sanctions, including relief specific to the prosecution of this matter, Garnett wrote.

This is a warning, not "Luigi is walking" from what the article lists. Just temper expectations here.

The judge is absolutely right on the violations, but this is a "straighten up and fly right" warning.

LightSnake posted...

The judge is absolutely right on the violations, but this is a "straighten up and fly right" warning.

which will be discarded and thrown into the Trash if not provoke Trump himself to rant about it

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/ab4fd879.jpg

Okay, yeah, the judge is pissed and this is very clearly "stop it or you risk dismissing the case."

Though I should note the state case against Mangione is strong AF, but the federal case is much weaker

The most recent mugshot I saw. had no unibrow whereas the person in the security footage had a unibrow. That is suspicious. i know it's super simple but why didn't anyone talk about that one? It's possible they got the wrong guy, because they were saying he was gonna be in jail for a while and then all of a sudden he has a beard but no unibrow.

if people talk about it enough Pam Bondi will hear about it and make a statement provoking the judge further

If Luigi walks, he'll be dead within a week

UnfairRepresent posted...

If Luigi walks, he'll be dead within a week

Wow, you think he'd get Trump that fast?

Im no expert here, but wouldnt this just result in a retrial?

imagine606 posted...

Im no expert here, but wouldnt this just result in a retrial?

There are two cases against Mangione: Federal and State.

The state case is strong AF. They just dismissed the First degree murder and Terrorism charges (those were linked), which were overreaches.

This is the Federal case, which is much weaker, and the judge is getting really angry at the DOJ's carelessness. There is also no "retrial" because there's not a mistrial. A judge can dismiss a case if the prosecutors won't stop fucking it up./

UnfairRepresent posted...

If Luigi walks, he'll be dead within a week

Even if the federal case is dismissed, he has to face the state case.

LightSnake posted...

The state case is strong AF. They just dismissed the First degree murder and Terrorism charges (those were linked), which were overreaches.

Note: New York has a really weird first degree murder charge. It's almost entirely reserved for cop killers.

The court would rather repeatedly sanction or mistrial than dismiss a case.

imagine606 posted...

Im no expert here, but wouldnt this just result in a retrial?

The DoJ Nationally said he was guilty before the trial happened. Having a retrial doesn't reset this

WingsOfGood posted...

The DoJ Nationally said he was guilty before the trial happened. Having a retrial doesn't reset this

In the UCMJ the case would have already been dismissed. They're real uptight about that there.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Note: New York has a really weird first degree murder charge. It's almost entirely reserved for cop killers.

Post 9/11 they added other stuff, IE: the terrorism charges, which....fair.

But this is very much square peg round hole and the judge wasn't having it.
WingsOfGood posted...

The DoJ Nationally said he was guilty before the trial happened. Having a retrial doesn't reset this

The DOJ always says they think someone is guilty before a trial happens. That's literally what an indictment is, Wings.

The issue is how they've been regularly tweeting about it in violation of court orders

LightSnake posted...

The DOJ always says they think someone is guilty before a trial happens. That's literally what an indictment is, Wings.

It appears that multiple employees at the Department of Justice may have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and this Courts order of April 25, 2025 specifically identifying the strictures of this rule, U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett wrote in her order on September 24 in response to the letter.

The rule stipulates that non-lawyer personnel employed by a lawyers office or subject to a lawyers supervision in a criminal case have a duty not to release an opinion that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if there is a chance that the opinion will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice.

This includes any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, Garnett pointed out.

Did you just ignore a whole other sentence in my post?

LightSnake posted...

Did you just ignore a whole other sentence in my post?

multiple employees at the Department of Justice may have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1

Your post was incorrect. You are talking about the lawyers. The lawyers are allowed to say they are guilty the non-lawyers are not.

again

The rule stipulates that non-lawyer personnel employed by a lawyers office or subject to a lawyers supervision in a criminal case have a duty not to release an opinion that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication

Okay, this is gonna be another round of you just ignoring what I actually read and being unable to understand basic rules and concepts, isn't it?

You: THE DOJ NATIONALLY SAID HE WAS GUILTY!

Me: Yeah, that's literally an indictment. The issue is how they've been regularly tweeting about it in violation of court orders

You: BUT THE NON LAWYERS

Yeah that doesn't contradict what I said at all. You understand "The DOJ" encompasses a lot of people, right?

LightSnake posted...

Even if the federal case is dismissed, he has to face the state case.

That's not what they're talking about.

Xenogears15 posted...

That's not what they're talking about.

Isn't it? The wording certainly seemed to imply they believe he'll walk if the federal case is gone. I'm not sure TC understands that, either.

LightSnake posted...

Isn't it? The wording certainly seemed to imply they believe he'll walk if the federal case is gone. I'm not sure TC understands that, either.

My take is that the poster is saying that someone is going to sic a hired killer on him: "He'll be dead within a week".

Xenogears15 posted...

My take is that the poster is saying that someone is going to sic a hired killer on him: "He'll be dead within a week".

I got that, but it's in the context of the DOJ potentially dismissing the case.

LightSnake posted...

Okay, this is gonna be another round of you just ignoring what I actually read and being unable to understand basic rules and concepts, isn't it?

You: THE DOJ NATIONALLY SAID HE WAS GUILTY!

Me: Yeah, that's literally an indictment. The issue is how they've been regularly tweeting about it in violation of court orders

You: BUT THE NON LAWYERS

Yeah that doesn't contradict what I said at all. You understand "The DOJ" encompasses a lot of people, right?

you replied to this

WingsOfGood posted...

The DoJ Nationally said he was guilty before the trial happened. Having a retrial doesn't reset this

DoJ Nationally was Pam Bondi

is she the prosecutions lawyer in this case?

redoing the trial doesn't negate that literally Pam Bondi and others who aren't even involved in this case already said he is guilty when the trial has not found that to be so

this is NOT something people like her are legally able to say nor has there been in the past where the head of the DoJ speaks like that on active cases

and if I am wrong here in who the non-lawyers are then who was it?
who is the judge talking about

the judge says somebody at the DoJ is saying he is guilty and they legally cannot do that

Do you understand how this is different than what you initially said?

LightSnake posted...

Do you understand how this is different than what you initially said?

holy moly

are you unfairrepresent alt or something?

Oh my god, this really is another topic of you not grasping basic concepts.

the DOJ always says they believe someone is guilty because thats literally an indictment.

the issue is the repeated additional statements and violations of court orders. What about this is any way unclear to you? Why are you like this

Xenogears15 posted...

That's not what they're talking about.

thank you
idk why LS does this

LightSnake posted...

the DOJ always says they believe someone is guilty because thats literally an indictment.

WHO

at the DoJ

violated this?

It appears that multiple employees at the Department of Justice may have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and this Courts order of April 25, 2025

WHO?
WHO is the judge referring to

again if it is not BONDI then my mistake but please tell me who YOU think it is

While Light is somewhat politically pedantic, you (at least pretend to) immediately believe any literal nonsense you feel politically inclined with. Like when you wouldnt stop spamming the board about how capitalism is bigly stupid because medievel peasant working hours.

WingsOfGood posted...

WHO

at the DoJ

violated this?

It appears that multiple employees at the Department of Justice may have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and this Courts order of April 25, 2025

WHO?
WHO is the judge referring to

again if it is not BONDI then my mistake but please tell me who YOU think it is

oh my god, that was not at issue. Its clearly multiple employees engaged in violation, just as I said earlier.

the issue is your smug assertion the DOJ is not allowed to claim someone is guilty beforr trial, something by ridiculous on its face by the way of how the entire process works.

oh and you work less than a medieval peasant, btw. Thats just a historical fact

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

While Light is somewhat politically pedantic, you (at least pretend to) immediately believe any literal nonsense you feel politically inclined with. Like when you wouldnt stop spamming the board about how capitalism is bigly stupid because medievel peasant working hours.

what is your point?

who do you think the judge is talking about at the DoJ who is violating this rule?

WingsOfGood posted...

what is your point?

who do you think the judge is talking about at the DoJ who is violating this rule?

why are you so fixated on this? It is not a secret who the judge is referring to! Its in the order!

LightSnake posted...

the issue is your smug assertion the DOJ is not allowed to claim someone is guilty beforr trial, something by ridiculous on its face by the way of how the entire process works.

the DoJ is not allowed to declare someone guilty, the lawyers on the case and assigned the case are

that is to say very easily understandably the Attorney General is not supposed to go on live television and declare the person is guilty and that is not something done in the past

and that is what the judge is referring to is it not?

a lawyer assigned the case does not speak for the whole branch of government, Pam Bondi does

This conversation be like

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/f33954c6.jpg

you won't admit you are wrong

I know how you act from the past

but here read the a.i. overview so you can understand it

AI Overview

No, an Attorney General cannot declare someone guilty. In the U.S. legal system, that power is exclusively reserved for the judicial branch, specifically a judge or jury, after a formal trial process. An Attorney General, as part of the executive branch, is a prosecutor whose role is to argue a case, not to decide it.

The Attorney General's role

An Attorney General is a chief law enforcement officer at either the federal or state level, and their primary duties involve prosecution and legal representation. Their functions include:

• Deciding whether to file charges: The AG's office has the discretion to initiate or decline to prosecute criminal cases based on the available evidence.
• Investigating offenses: They oversee investigations to gather evidence and build a case against a defendant.
• Representing the government: AGs and their staff act as the "people's lawyer," representing the government's case in court.
• 
  

Who determines guilt

Guilt is determined through the following judicial process:

• Burden of proof: The prosecutor (including the Attorney General's office) must prove the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". The defendant is presumed innocent until this happens.
• Trial: During a trial, a judge presides, ruling on legal matters, while a jury evaluates the evidence to determine the facts of the case.
• Verdict: The jury (or a judge in a bench trial) delivers the verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty," marking the official legal determination. A verdict of "not guilty" is not the same as declaring innocence, but it means the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.
• 
  

Separation of powers

The separation of powers doctrine, a core principle of the U.S. Constitution, prevents a single branch of government from becoming too powerful. By dividing the government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the system ensures checks and balances. Allowing a prosecutor from the executive branch to declare guilt would violate this fundamental principle by combining the power of prosecution with the power of judgment