Latest / NO FILTER / Man faces death penalty for slaying pregnant mistress_ Luigi Mangione avoids terrorism charges(MP3_160K)

Transcript

Man faces death penalty for slaying pregnant mistress_ Luigi Mangione avoids terrorism charges(MP3_160K) · NO FILTER

• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Sidebar presented by True Crime News,
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter.
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: I'm a criminal defense layer based on Los Angeles and
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. You
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: can find me on all social platforms at Joshua Ritter
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: EESQ or at Joshua Ridter dot com. We are recording
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: this on Wednesday, September seventeenth, twenty twenty five. In this
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: week's episode, terrorism charges are dismissed against suspected CEO shooter
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: Luigi Mangioni, plus a man facing the death penalty for
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: the murder of his pregnant mistress, but first prosecutors announced
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: charges against the accused assassin of Charlie Kirk. Today we're
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: joined by Rich Schoenstein, an attorney and legal analyst you
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: can catch on Law and Crime Network, Core, TV News Nation,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: and many many other outlets. Rich. Welcome, how are you,
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: my friend?
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: I'm well, good to see you, Joshua Slow Newsweek.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: So yeah, right, we'll.
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: Try to slog through this, huh yeah.
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: We'll we'll try to find something interesting to talk about
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: in all of this. I'm so glad that I know
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: how busy you are aside from covering all these cases,
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: So I'm appreciative of your time with us, and I
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: always love hearing your thoughts because I think you have
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: such unique insights, and especially in one of the cases
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: today is out of New York, so I'm going to
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: really call upon your expertise in that case. But before
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: we get to that, let's first go to Utah County, Utah,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: where police have formally charged a Utah man in the
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: assassination of Charlie Kirk less than one week after the
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: fatal shooting. Tyler Robinson faces seven criminal counts in the
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: conservative activist slaying, which prosecutors indicate they intend to seek
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: the death penalty against the alleged gunman. Kirk shooting, which
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: unfolded at a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University, dominated
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: headlines in social media, with speculation about the shooter's identity
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: and motives spreading rampantly. Robinson was eventually turned in by
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: his own parents, who allegedly recognized him from images released
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: by police. According to authorities, Robinson also disclosed a potential
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: motive to his parents, saying, quote, there is too much
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: evil and the guy speaking of Kirk spreads too much hate.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Robinson also allegedly disclosed his actions in a discord chat,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: and the FBI announced that they are investigating more than
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: twenty members of the chat to determine what the individuals
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: knew prior to the shooting. It doesn't appear that Robinson
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: has obtained representation as of the time of this recording,
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: but his next court date is scheduled for September twenty ninth.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: All right, rich, this is a case that obviously has
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: the entire nation watching. It's an incredibly disturbing and heartbreaking case.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: But I want to talk to you about We've learned
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: a lot in the last few days, especially during that
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: press conference given by the DA there in Utah. Was
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: there anything I'll just let you jump in. Was there
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: anything that stood out to you in particular?
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: So I'll start by acknowledging that he is innocent until
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: proven guilty. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: just like everybody else in the system in this country.
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: The evidence against him, as it has been described is staggering. Yeah,
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: you have a confession potentially to his parents, you have
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: written confessions on text messages to his friend or lover.
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: I'm not exactly sure how to characterize that person, but
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: you have written and they're fully written out. They're not
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: in code, they're not in game or chat. They're like
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: in full sentence, is with punctuation right about acknowledging that
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: he did it. You have we're hearing DNA evidence on
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: the gun. You have the gun, of course, and you
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: have other physical evidence against him that they said he
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: got a palm print. I assume they're going to match
• 4:16
  Speaker 2: that other DNA evidence that puts them at the scene
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: of the crime, which is the roof of a building.
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: So that all seems pretty overwhelming if it's true.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I agree with you, and I appreciate you
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: saying we are still talking about allegations. But it was
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: a fascinating press conference to me because usually you do
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: not see the DA kind of lay out their case,
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: and I think they wanted the public to know that
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: they definitely have a strong case to begin with against
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: this man, and they outlined everything you just said, including
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: that text exchange, which was notable to me because of
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: how much it described it. I we're if my understanding
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: is correct. The text is obviously before he's apprehended, but
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: even before certain information was to disclose to the public
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: concerning where the rifle was located by police, the inscriptions
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: that were written on bullets, and he's referring to these
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: things in these text exchanges, which to me is you know,
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: this is now a person with inside knowledge of how
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: this crime was committed and essentially saying yeah, I did it,
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: really damaging stuff, which brings me to my next point here.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: I know this is so early on, but what does
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: the defense start to do. How are they going to
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: start crafting a defense at this point?
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: Yeah. So, by the way, I want to say, when
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: I think about the confession, when you think about confessions,
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: you want to know did the person actually make it,
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: was it voluntary? And is it at all ambiguous? Okay,
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: let's talk about the defense. If all of this is true, right,
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: I mean, if they have an alibi, they would put
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: on an alibi if the DA if the DNA doesn't match,
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: then they'll put on DNA experts all of that stuff.
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: If someone broke into his email and texting and sent
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: those confessions on his behalf, he'll put on that. But
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: let's assume none of that is true. Then to me,
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: the task of a defense lawyer is to keep them alive.
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: You don't have a path to freedom, you don't have
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: a path to an acquittal. Really, you're not getting jury nullification,
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: even if there are some people out there who didn't
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: like or many people who didn't like Charlie Kirk. So
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: your only goal here is to avoid the death penalty,
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: and the two ways you do that are either you
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: try to negotiate it out of the death penalty or
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: you try to put on a case a trial to
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: avoid the death belty.
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree with you. In fact, I would not
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: be surprised. And again this is so early on. We
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: don't know how things are going to change. We don't
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: know what challenges to warrants and everything else there might
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: take place. But assuming all the evidence we've heard, plus
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: some ends up at trial, I wouldn't even be surprised
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: if it was one of those cases where they go
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: into the guilt phase of the trial, if they're not
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: able to negotiate a plea and just kind of do
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: a he did it. Ladies and gentlemen, we're here to
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: say he did it. We're asking for you to wait
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: till the end where we have arguments to talk to
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: you about when they get into the penalty phase to
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: kind of save some credibility with the jury, and then,
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: just like you said, beg to spare his life. But
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: we're putting the cart before the horse a little bit,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: as it were. Let's stick to what we know right now.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: One of the things that was surprising to me is
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: how many people he may have been talking to. All
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: that familiar with Discord. Maybe you are, but it sounds
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: like he was chatting, according to the FBI director Patel,
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: with far more than twenty people and may have been
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: discussing his plans. We've not heard that yet, but if
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: he was, were you surprised that there were no discussions
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: during that press conference about conspiracy charges or other people
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: being involved.
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: I wouldn't be surprised that there was no discussion. If
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: they're looking at other people, they're not going to talk
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: about that at a press conference. Why would you alert
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: those people. So if there is something there on discord,
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: if there's a possibility that somebody else encouraged him, incited him,
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: or assisted him in some way, then they're going to
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: look at that and try to find those people and
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: deal with it, and they're not going to tell you
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: in advance that that's happening. I'm sure that that discord
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: chat and I still write on a typewriter. I mean,
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: I don't use that stuff, so I don't know about
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: it that well, I'm sure that they are going through
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: every last post to see where it leaves.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and that kind of dovetails into my next question,
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: which I've been asked quite a bit about this, But
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: everybody wants to know, are the Feds going to jump in?
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Can they jump in? Under what theory would they be
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: able to jump in? What are your thoughts on all
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: of that.
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: Well, the Feds could jump in, I mean they could,
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: I guess try to bring federal murder charges. Although this case,
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: compared to the next one we're going to talk about
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: where someone crossed state lines to commit a murder, this
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: one doesn't check that box of crossing state lines. Also,
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: Utah is a death penalty state, so there's not necessarily
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: a reason for the federal government to do it. But
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: if it expanded into some sort of interstate conspiracy by
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: way of just making up an example, then yeah, that's
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: a federal government. That is classic federal government topic and
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: they would look at it.
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think that's why they've been so at
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: least from like I said, the FBI director has been
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: so vocal about their interests in the people he was
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: talking to over discord because if there are people outside
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: of the state, outside of the country, that would certainly
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: open up an avenue for federal jurisdiction. But I think
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: you and I feel the same that most people watching
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: this are saying to themselves, why why would they need
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: to when the state of Utah is perfectly qualified and
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: has the death penalty and has already indicated even this
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: early on that they intend to seek it. So, like
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: I said, in case, I imagine we're going to be
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: talking about for some period of time. It is a tragic,
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: tragic case and obviously affects our entire nationwide community, and
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: we will continue to follow it.
• 11:02
  Speaker 3: Covering true crime for a living means that I've heard
• 11:04
  Speaker 3: it all stories of break ins happening in the middle
• 11:07
  Speaker 3: of the night, burglaries while people are at work, even
• 11:10
  Speaker 3: cases where the victims were home when it happened. It's
• 11:15
  Speaker 3: one thing to tell these stories, it's another to imagine
• 11:18
  Speaker 3: them happening to you. That's why I'm so glad my
• 11:21
  Speaker 3: house is protected by simply Safe. Simply Safe isn't just
• 11:25
  Speaker 3: about reacting when something goes wrong. With active guard outdoor protection,
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: it can actually stop crime before it happens. There AI
• 11:34
  Speaker 3: powered cameras alert monitoring agents the moment somewhat suspicious approaches.
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: Agents can talk with them in real time, trigger alarms
• 11:44
  Speaker 3: and spotlights, and call for police before the intruder even
• 11:48
  Speaker 3: gets inside. I love how I can manage everything from
• 11:51
  Speaker 3: the simply Safe app, arming the system, checking camera fees,
• 11:55
  Speaker 3: and getting alerts no matter where I am. Plus, you
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: can add small and co two detectors to protect your
• 12:02
  Speaker 3: home and family from more than just intruders. No long
• 12:07
  Speaker 3: term contracts. Plans started about a dollar a day, and
• 12:10
  Speaker 3: they've been named best home security system by US News
• 12:14
  Speaker 3: and World Report five years straight. Save fifty percent on
• 12:18
  Speaker 3: your simply Safe security system when you sign up for
• 12:22
  Speaker 3: a professional monitoring plan and get your first month free.
• 12:26
  Speaker 3: Visit simplysafe dot com slash true crime to customize yours.
• 12:31
  Speaker 3: There's no safe like simply Safe.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: Let's move to Saint Lucy County, Florida, where a man
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: is facing the death penalty for the murder of his
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: pregnant mistress after she allegedly refused an abortion. Prosecutors alleged
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: that Jose Antonio Soto Escalera was the father of Tanya
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: Wise's unborn child. When the eight and a half month's
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: pregnant mother was found dead in a drainage ditch. Soto Escalera,
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: who was married at the time, allegedly gave money to
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: Wise for an abortion, and prosecutors claimed that he was
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: angered when she kept the money and moved forward with
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: the pregnancy. Why suffered blunt force trauma, which fractured her skull,
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: along with a cut across her neck which severed her
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: jugular vein before nearly reaching her spinal cord. The victim's
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: mother told jurors that Wise was excited about the prospect
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: of her second child, who she had already named Josiah,
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: and examiners determined that the baby was fully formed and
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: would have been delivered healthy if not for Wise's tragic death.
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: So Escalera's trial is ongoing and we will continue to
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: update you as it progresses. Rich This is a rough
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: one for anyone to even consider, but particularly from the
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: perspective of the attorneys trying to mount a defense on
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: this person's behalf. So I'm going to ask you to
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: kind of put on their hat for a moment. It's
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: highly disturbing circumstance. Is the emotional impact of this case,
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: I imagine with jurorsy has got to be tremendous. What
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: do attorneys do in that situation. I'm not even talking
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: about this case entirely specifically, but just cases where it's
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: just so horrific. How do you approach that?
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: Well, the first thing you do is you harken back
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: to what I said earlier, that everybody's presumed innocent and
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: the state has a burden of proof before it can
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: convict somebody. And part of the duty of a defense
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: lawyer is to test that burden of proof and to
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: make sure the prosecution meets their job. And we have
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: to do that in every single case for the system
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: to work. So the defense lawyer always thinks they are
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: doing and they are doing important work by testing that proof,
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: making sure that the government comes forward with sufficient admissible
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: proof to lead to a conviction. All the more in
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: case like this where if found guilty, he potentially faces
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: the death penalty or at a minimum, is never going
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: to see the light of day again. So that's what
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: you're trying to do. And in the first instance, you
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: are putting the prosecution to the test. What evidence you
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: have on your behalf as a defense, again varies from
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: case to case. I don't really know what they're going
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: to try to do in this case. I don't know
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: if they're holding any cards at all or if they're
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: just playing defense.
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: Now, talk to us about we've already kind of referenced
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: it in the prior case that we discussed, but talk
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: to us about the penalty phase of a death penalty case.
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: What kind of evidence can that include? From the defense perspective,
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: we know from prosecutors they're going to go back through,
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: you know, how horrific the crime was. They're going to
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: go through maybe criminal history that that person had. But
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: what is the defense, What opportunities do that have?
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: So most states have aggravating and mitigating factors that a
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: jury has to consider when thinking about the death penalty.
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: Aggravating factors are things like risk of harm to others.
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: So we were talking about the Charlie Kirk situation. If
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: you're firing into a crowd, you're putting a lot of
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: people at risk. That is risk to others being a
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: particularly heinous or cruel crime, which I think slitting the
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: throat of a pregnant woman might qualify at would be
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: another aggravating factor. But each state will have a list
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: of aggravating factors and may also permit that you can
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: have non enumerated aggravating factors. Most of the laws that
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: I'm familiar with say the defense can present mitigating factors
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: really without limitation. You can present anything you want as
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: a mitigating factor. So what do people present? The defendant
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: was young, the defendant was misled, the defendant was influenced,
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: the defendant had a a motive that isn't as bad
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: as other motives. I don't know what that might be.
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: A heat of passion can kind of be a mitigating factor,
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: I guess, although that also goes to what level of
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: murder you're being convicted for in the first place. So
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: there are all of these things that you can present
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: as a mitigating factor. But I got to tell you,
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: she took my money and didn't get an abortion is
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: not much of a mitigating factor now, Like, I don't
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: how is that going to work to a jury?
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's it's awful stuff. I mean again, just
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: the just the just take it. Take a moment to
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: think about the idea that a woman who is essentially
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: ready to give birth was was beat over the head
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: and then had nearly cut off and then left in
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: a drainage ditch. I mean, it just doesn't get more
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: horrific when those jurors start to think about that situation.
• 18:10
  Speaker 3: I have.
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: I gather the defenses, trying to make some noise with
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: the possibility that it wasn't really his child, or he
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: didn't think it was really his child, he thought he
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: was being misled about that. Yeah, that would be that
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: would be more effective to me with a less violent murder.
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, Yeah, you're absolutely right. Yeah, the circumstances
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: of the murder itself too are just kind of hard
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: to get around. I've worked on a couple of death
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: penalty cases, and I will say it is kind of
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: a remarkable shift when you go from the really kind
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: of rigid, rule oriented presentation of evidence during a guilt
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: phase and then you get into the penalty phase and
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: it's kind of like you said, it's like open game.
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: Anybody you've got, you know, family members coming in and
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: crying on the stand and on both sides and you've got,
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: you know, the defendant's grade school teacher saying what a
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: great guy he was when he was twelve, you know.
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's just kind of this bizarre circus environment
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: with just really playing upon the motions of jurors. So
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: I imagine, given the evidence in this case, it will
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: go to a penalty and we will keep a close
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: eye on it. Again, another very disturbing case. Let's leave
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: it there for now and turn to our final case
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: out of New York, And this is the one I'm
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: most curious to hear your thoughts on. A judge dismissed
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: terrorism charges facing Luigi Mangioni, the alleged shooter of the
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, which could lower Mangioni's exposure dramatically,
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: and a ruling Judge Gregory Carro determined that the killing
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: could not be deemed an act of terrorism, even if
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: the alleged murder was motivated by ideology. Specifically, carl opined
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: that it could not be proven that Mangioni's goal was
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: to quote, intimidate, or coerce a civilian population, and said
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: there was insufficient evidence that the killing was an attempt
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: to influence or affect government policy by intimidation. This was
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: a huge loss for prosecutors who theorized that the twenty
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: twenty four killing of Thompson was intended to evoke terror.
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: Mangioni will still face a second degree murder charge, though
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: the terrorism element will be removed. However, Mangioni is also
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: facing a federal death penalty prosecution, which his defense has
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: argued violates double jeopardy protections, but that argument was rejected.
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: Mangioni is due back in court on December first for
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: the staycase, and will appear in federal court days later.
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: In the meantime, he remains behind bars without bail. Explain
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: for listeners, how does this work in New York? At
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: what point are we in the case that allowed the
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: judge to make this kind of a dramatic, impactful decision.
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: So we're in these pre trial proceeds. He was indicted
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: under state law, and the defense filed what the judge
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: referred to as an omnibus motion seeking Huntley map and
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: Moseley hearings. Those have to do with the admissibility of
• 21:19
  Speaker 2: supposed comments he made, the admissibility of evidence that was
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: found like his backpack, and admissibility. I think has some
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: video evidence, and those can lead to the kind of
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: pre trial hearings we see sometimes where the evidence is
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: displayed for the judge out of the presence of the jury,
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: and any argument is made about, for example, was the
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: confession obtained legally. The defense also moved to dismiss the
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: terrorism charges as legally insufficient, and moved to dismiss the
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: indictment for alleged violations of double jeopardy, arguing that they
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: couldn't pursue the state federal case, and the judge decided
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: to consider all of that. I wasn't expecting him to
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: dismiss the terrorism charges. I was surprised. Who went on
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: TV the day before and said I didn't think he
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: was going to do that, and whoops, I'm not always
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: So he did it. He put out this twelve page,
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: well written, well reasoned decision, and he just took on
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: the double jeopardy and the terrorism aspects of the case.
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: So he granted the defense motion to dismiss the first
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: degree murder charges, and he denied the defense motion to
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, meaning both the state and
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: federal case go forward. Now just for a little context, right,
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: a reminder or refresher. New York state law, premeditated intentional
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: murder is only second degree. Right, you need something extra
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: to get you to first degree. For example, you kill
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: a judge, that's extra that gets you to first or
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: you're already convicted of a crime, that's extra that gets
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: you to first degree. The only thing they could have
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: got to get Mangioni to first degree was this terrorism aspect.
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: And the reason the prosecutors are trying to do that
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: is because first degree you can put someone in prison
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: for life without the possibility of parole, whereas second degree
• 23:29
  Speaker 2: is always the possibility of parole. Last thing I'll say
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: on that point, if you think about it, Mark David Chapman,
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: who murdered John Lennon in nineteen eighty. He was convicted
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: for second degree murder. He was sentenced to twenty years
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: to life with the opportunity for parole. It is forty
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: five years later. He has not gotten out on parole,
• 23:54
  Speaker 2: and I suspect won't. So it doesn't mean automatically that
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: Luis juman Gione will see the light of day, but
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: it is an important win for his team.
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: Yes, and I'm glad that you made that point. I
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: feel like when people hear those numbers fifteen to life,
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: twenty to life, they figure, oh my god, he's getting
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: out in fifteen years. No, it's a life sentence, but
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: they get the opportunity to have parole, a potential for
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: parole after a set amount of years. But in my view,
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: this is a colossal win for the defense because they
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: were looking at a charge that would have landed him
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: just on the state side of things, putting aside the
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: federal side for a moment, life without parole, which is,
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: you know, the idea. I am sure the opportunity for
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: a young man like him to have the potential of
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: parole one day is a huge, huge win, and I'm
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: glad to hear you say that you were surprised. I
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: was shocked because I I thought that the terrorism and
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: some people felt differently that it was overreaching. I felt
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: that the terrorism charge here, though not traditional when we
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: think of as terrorism, were certainly applicable and at least
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: survivable of the judge making this type of decision. In
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: other words, most judges, in my experience, would have left
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: this up to a jury saying, hey, this is a
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: close call. But I think it's close enough for a
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: jury to make that decision, not for me to take
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: it even out of the hands of a jury. And
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: that's what shocked me the most. But share your thoughts.
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: So I agree with you, and I also agree that
• 25:34
  Speaker 2: I think there are a lot of commentators who are
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: out there saying the opposite, that this was overcharging from
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: the beginning, that this was foolish, that this is a
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: bad stumble by the prosecution. You know, the judge said
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: in his opinion, the court will note that the term
• 25:50
  Speaker 2: terrorism has been famously difficult to define. Right, it's famously
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: difficult to define. We harken back to the staff in
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: New York that talk about being intended to intimidate or
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: coerce the civilian population, influence the policy of a unit
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: of government, or affect the conduct of a unit of government.
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: And the judge says, he wasn't really trying. There's no
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: proof he was trying to affect a unit of government
• 26:19
  Speaker 2: or to terrorize the population. And to that, I say,
• 26:23
  Speaker 2: then what was he doing? I thought there was enough
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: to carry a terrorism charge, And I agree with you totally.
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: Let the jury decide. I mean, I leave open the
• 26:33
  Speaker 2: possibility that a jury, especially since he apparently has fans,
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: which I still can't believe. I leave open the possibility
• 26:41
  Speaker 2: that a jury would have said, no, it's not terrorism.
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: But that's who I feel should have decided it.
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: I completely agree, and I'm just bought in my mind,
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: is just kind of blown that this judge took this
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: away from them. I just if this, if somebody acting
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: in this way, making a symbolic gesture through a murder,
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: is not committing to act of terrorism. I believe it.
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: Terrorism is famously difficult to define, but if anything, that
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: would define it for me. But that's my soapboxing rant
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: for the moment, and it does dramatically affect the case
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: about that so too.
• 27:22
  Speaker 2: Actually two things. Number one, it makes the state prosecution
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: a lot easier. Yeah, like your burden of proof has
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: just dropped down significantly, And in a way it's a
• 27:33
  Speaker 2: blessing for the prosecutors. They don't have to deal with
• 27:36
  Speaker 2: any of that. They just have to prove that he
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: did it, and he did it on purpose, and then
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: their case is done, and he did it with a firearm.
• 27:43
  Speaker 2: It makes it a really easy case to prosecute. And
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: the other thing is it's only going to make the
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: federal people more interested in pursuitness right because and that
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: one has the possibility of the death penalty. So I'm
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: interested to see how those two prosecutions. I had the
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: feeling the state one was going to proceed ahead. Now
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: I'm not too sure, because the federal government and the
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: administration seemed to believe that this was reprehensible conduct that
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: needed to be dealt with.
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: It's interesting just to kind of go into the weeds
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: on this one step further. When drawing parallels between MANGEONI
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: and Robinson. In looking at the statutes both in New
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: York and Utah, I was surprised that there isn't something
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: more clear cut on the books to address this kind
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: of conduct, like in Utah. The way that they were
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: able to get to the death penalty in that case
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: was through this theory that the murder was committed while
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: putting the lives of other people in danger. In other words,
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: there's not something on the books in Utah to say
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: a targeted assassination of somebody based upon their First Amendment
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: expression is eligible for aggravated murder. It was an entire,
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: very long statute, and only one clause in there seemed
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: to fit the facts, and the same thing with Mangioni.
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: You're saying that this kind of a targeted attack on
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: a person based merely on who they are, what they
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: stand for, what they're saying, does not qualify for first
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: degree murder in New York. Those outcomes seem like they
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: may not have been entirely contemplated by the respective state legislators.
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that people are probably gonna think a
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: little more about the New York statutory murder framework, even
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: though it's been around a long time. And in New York,
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: of course, we don't have the death penalty, and by
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: the way, I'm no fan of the death penalty. Right.
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: One of the arguments I have against the death penalty
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: is that it completely depends on where you live. Right,
• 29:54
  Speaker 2: It's different from state to state. It's different state and federal,
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: it's different in every trial. It's just arbitrarily applied, and
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: you go for it here, you don't go for it there.
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: It's inequitably applied for the most part. Although we're both
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: we're talking now about both white male defendants, so that's
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: not as much of an issue, but the lack of
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: consistency and the way we deal with it in this
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: nation on top of all the other arguments against the
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: death penalty. Puts me where I am on that issue understood.
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: And I don't think you're alone. I think a lot
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: of people would would, especially when we're talking about such
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: a serious, the most ultimate of penalties, that there would
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: be a little more consistency and clarity on the issue.
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: But that's where we're going to leave it for this week. Rich.
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: We can't figure out everybody's problems all in one episode,
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: but I appreciate you coming on. Where can people find
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: out more about you?
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: Sure?
• 30:54
  Speaker 3: So?
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: I practiced law in New York at the law firm Tartar,
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: Krinsky and Drogan. We are a full service law firm,
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: main office in Manhattan, also Long Island, New Jersey. We
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: have in a Los Angeles office now and we do
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: a sort of general practice in all different areas. Linky fence, matrimonial,
• 31:18
  Speaker 2: all that stuff. On social media. I go by the
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: name Lawful Riches because that's easier to spell than show
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: and steam.
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: And check it out. It's worth a follow. Rich has
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: always got very interesting and clever insights, as was evident today.
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: So thank you again, my friend. I'm your host, Josh Ritter.
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at Joshua
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: Ritter e SQ. And if you want to hear my
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: thoughts and coverage on even more true crime cases, please
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: check out my own YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential. And you
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: can of course find all of our sidebar episodes wherever
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, and we would love to hear
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: from you. If you've got questions or comments you would
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: like us to address, please twet tweat us your question
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: with the hashtag TCN Sidebar, and thank you for joining
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: us at the True Crime News Sidebar