Since Luigi Mangione was arrested on cold-blooded charges of murdering Brian Thompson, I have been asked many times how I would represent him if I were his lawyer.
During my 60-year career, I have been involved in more than 30 murder and attempted murder cases, some involving high-profile defendants like O.J. Simpson and several death row inmates. Yes, this question is natural.
The honest answer is, I don't know, at least not yet. Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a great lawyer today, has not had the opportunity to sit down with her client yet, so she shouldn't.
It is important to remember that a criminal lawyer is just a representative. It is up to the defendant to decide which defenses to raise, whether to take a plea bargain, whether to testify, and especially whether to raise defenses such as insanity.
The first thing a lawyer must do is talk to his client, assess his competency, present a realistic assessment of the case, and analyze the options available. If a lawyer disagrees with a client's opinion, he or she may withdraw from the case, but he or she may not impose on the client a strategy that is not in line with the client's approval.
In this case, the client may have a defense to insanity but may choose not to raise it. He may want to defend his actions as a reasonable response to the insurance company's business operations. This is a bad legal strategy, but it may be consistent with what he wrote in his manifesto.
Similarly, he could litigate the case in state rather than federal court because federal court proceedings are not televised, whereas some (but not all) state court proceedings are. you may prefer.
Then there's the issue of the death penalty, which applies to federal convictions but not states.
Of course, Mr. Mangione could have argued that he did not do it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Although some criticized Simpson's defense team for refusing to plead guilty in the face of what prosecutors called a “mountain of evidence,” O.J. maintained his factual innocence and the jury found in his favor. .
The Mangione case cannot be compared to the OJ case because his manifesto effectively admits that he committed a crime. Just as OJ has challenged the admissibility of some physical evidence, his attorney could of course object to the admissibility of the documents. But even if the manifesto is excluded, there appears to be more than enough evidence to convict.
Mr. Mangione may seek a plea deal that would exempt him from both state and federal trials in exchange for a prison sentence with the possibility of parole after a certain number of years. Given the reality of the evidence and the positive publicity a trial would bring, it is unlikely that state or federal governments would accept such an agreement.
Of course, there's always the possibility that one or two sympathetic jurors will slip past the prosecution's questions and hang the jury, but the defense cannot rely on this.
If Mr. Mangione insists he didn't do it and rejects the insanity plea, his lawyers will be in a difficult position. If she vigorously argues that he was not the one who shot Thompson, she will lose credibility with the jury. Her best tactic would be to acknowledge that the forensic evidence shows he committed what is called a “criminal act,” an element of first-degree murder. That would give her credibility to argue that he lacked “men rea,” the mental element required for a conviction for first- or second-degree murder or terrorism.
If the manifesto were to be admitted as evidence, this would be difficult as the document strongly suggests rational but perverse thinking. But a sympathetic jury would conclude that, despite its ostensible rationality, it was the product of a diseased mind that transformed him so quickly from a good student to a deranged murderer. or may have reasonable suspicion.
That is the only realistic option, albeit a slim one, that could save Mangione from the death penalty or life in prison without parole.
The enviable role of a criminal lawyer in such cases is to follow the client's instructions while avoiding the worst possible outcomes. I think his current lawyer is the right person for the job.
alan dershowitzHe is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of numerous books, including:10 Big Anti-Israel Lies: And How to Counter Them with the TruthHe is also the host of “.DashoAt Rumble.
