It may seem apostasy for someone in my profession as a criminal defense attorney to speak so arrogantly about such a sensitive issue. But here we go.
Too many of us somehow allow our inner voices to convince us of the words of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Did you come? — that Thompson deserved to be killed because he was either directly responsible for some form of insurance denial, or because he was a clear agent in the case. A ruthless industry that leaves you uninsured..
And secretly I'm rooting for Luigi MangioneHe is now charged with murder, but that is not enough, and too many people have publicly protested Mr. Mangione's prosecution or made deposits into Mr. Mangione's prison commissary account. help fund his defense. So we shouldn't be surprised if Mangione's admirers manage to sneak onto the jury scheduled to try him for murder. Do we find ourselves in a new stealth juror moment, and if so, what are the aftermath?
At the heart of a criminal defense attorney's toolbox is a search for jurors' deepest thoughts, especially the elusive nullifier: their most intimate motivations to strive to acquit a defendant in a trial, regardless of the facts. He is determined to find the most effective way to pry into the jurors' deepest thoughts. Even in the face of strong evidence of guilt. Of course, it is the prosecutor's duty to exclude them. Despite my heresy, it is certainly the legitimate duty of the defense attorney to identify these nullifiers and seek to release them.
There has never been a time in recent history when the media has been so obsessed with arrests and indictments, and when the possibility of nullification has loomed as a real potential threat to prosecutors in jury selection. That is, a defendant like Mangione, faced with overwhelming incriminating evidence, can escape a virtually certain conviction if he succeeds in hanging the jury by deftly refusing to follow the evidence and the law. That means there is.
Despite the growing mountain of evidence against Mangione, jurors who remain resistant may explain themselves to other jurors over burnt coffee in a dusty jury deliberation room. “11 Angry Men” Or, another woman says, “I just can't believe he shot Thompson. No matter how hard I try, I can't make anyone think he did.'' That is, if the nullifying party even feels the need to provide some sort of defense for their resistance.
So why is this scenario more likely with Mangione? Perhaps it's because the defendant is young, handsome, and healthy, which doesn't matter in this context given the social media explosion. The topic of his appearance. He is a self-anointed gladiator who corrects the public's belief that America's health care industry actively exploits payers. Delays and Denials of Coverage For legitimate medical insurance claims.
The anger that many Americans feel about the denial of insurance claims by insurance companies may lead to jurors being so sympathetic to the motives of defendants on trial for murder that they may actually vote not guilty. This raises serious concerns for prosecutors. Furthermore, given the victim's status as an executive at a medical company, does it follow that he is also a proper victim because he is somehow a proper representative of the industry?
Don't get me wrong. Like it or not, jury nullification is as American as apple pie. Courts recognize that juries certainly have the power to nullify, if not right.
In this context, the Manhattan jury recently acquitted Daniel Perry is accused of strangling a mentally ill passenger to death on a New York City subway train who may have posed a threat to other passengers. Some may argue that the Perry jury included invalidationists who chose to ignore important evidence against the defendant in the face of New York City's sometimes dangerous roads and subways. . Perry became a hero to some New Yorkers (and to the president-elect as well). I invited him to my suite for the Army-Navy football game. (considering his acquittal), but he comes across differently than those who seem to be looking for a fight like this: bernard getz years ago. Or, like Luigi Mangione, he was reportedly planning a murder.
But no one disputes that Perry's jury was a bunch of thugs with a selfish annulment. Instead, many New Yorkers, including those who supported his conviction, say the verdict is a quiet reminder that if they were to suffer the same fate on the subway, someone brave would protect them. They see it as the result of the citizens' wishes. There is an argument that the public brought not only their life experience but also common sense to that jury room. And in theory, there might have been one or two jurors who wanted to hear the Perry case precisely for the purpose of a nullification.
And here lies the difference between Perry and Mangione. It is the concept of a plan, a detailed, comprehensive, philosophically and diabolically motivated plan.
Jurors have no express right to overrule, but once seated they do have the power as a practical matter. The presiding judge can dismiss a juror if he considers the jury's purpose is to “nullify” rather than follow the law after considering the evidence. The judge could even declare a mistrial if the juror had already tried to preach the gospel to his fellow jurors. At the same time, defense attorneys are not allowed to overtly encourage jurors to vacate the case.
It would be a dereliction of duty for a jury to nullify in a case like Mangione's, meaning, “no matter what the evidence presents, I will not vote for conviction.'' The concrete facts already in the public record should make that clear.
No matter how unsavory Mr. Thompson's role in the health care system may be perceived to be, at the end of the day, we are a country that believes in the rule of law. Annulment of a possible murder verdict by a jury, especially when accomplished by deception during the jury selection process or simply because the victim is disliked and the murderer is liked; It's more dangerous than it seems.
And the prosecutors here are not at fault for providing sawmill materials to candidates for nullification. They share some responsibility for soaring public sentiment against Mangione. denounce terrorism and Increase crime level to murder 1 In some jurisdictions, Possibility of death penalty Another jurisdiction is engaged in a food fight over who will bring him to justice first. Guards piled up, equipped with bulletproof vests and rifles, person walking And overcharging would strengthen his folk hero status and add fuel to the fire of latent invalidation that was already burning brightly.
A firestorm fueled by social media, medical outrage, and a somewhat short-sighted prosecutor ultimately focused on rehashing the vacated verdict rather than having a chance to reflect on Brian Thompson's death. I hope it never happens. By all accounts, he was a good father from the Midwest, and he didn't deserve to be murdered in cold blood.
And it would be far more honorable for would-be Mangione nullifiers to try to avoid jury duty altogether.
Joel Cohen, a former prosecutor, is a senior consultant at Petrillo, Klein & Boxer in New York, where he focuses on white-collar criminal defense law. He is the author of Blindfolds Off: Judges On How They Decide and teaches at Fordham Law School and Cardozo School of Law.
