A Jury of His Peers

The only Americans who’ve not heard of Luigi Mangione have been resting in the nation’s cemeteries for some time.  

So there’s no need to rehash here the events of that December 4 morning in New York City when young Luigi shot a health insurance CEO dead in the street (allegedly) because Luigi was really P.O.’d (allegedly) about the outrageous (allegedly) health care system in the Greatest Country On Earth (allegedly).

By now, readers have seen the handcuffed, orange-suited Luigi being perp-walked to jail by a police escort only slightly less numerous than the audience at a Taylor Swift concert. In a city numb to frequent murders of ‘nobodies,’ every cop in New York wanted in on that photo-op. 

Yes, Luigi might be the most popular accused since John Dillinger, a bank robber of the Depression-era when banks — like today’s health insurance carriers ? — were decidedly unloved. 

DISCLAIMER:  Journalism ethics and holy scriptures of countless religions require your correspondent to state here –  unequivocally – that killing people is an unacceptable way to settle disputes (e.g., see Crusades; Gaza; Civil War; George Floyd; death penalty; etc).

Charges filed, the focus now shifts to Luigi’s upcoming trial(s). And suddenly the mediascape, titillated by the vast outpouring of affection for Luigi, is talking about ‘jury nullification,’ a phrase unfamiliar to many. Googling it produces this AI-generated explanation: 

“Jury nullification is when a jury finds a defendant not guilty even though the evidence suggests they are guilty, and in spite of the judge’s instructions. This happens when jurors use their own sense of justice, morality, or fairness instead of following the law.” 

Jurors may nullify for a number of reasons, including: 

• They disagree with the law.
• They believe the law shouldn’t apply in this case.
• They believe the penalty is too harsh.
• They want to send a message about a larger social issue.

Jury nullification is technically a discretionary act, and not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. However, some view it as a right. 

Prosecutors are always concerned that even if they present an air-tight case, jurors could decide there is no way they will vote to convict, the evidence be damned.  

The concern is heightened here because the Constitution’s 6th Amendment entitles Luigi to a “jury of his peers,” an impartial panel chosen from the community, a community where Luigi is already in danger of being hounded to death on dating apps. During the jury selection process, judges and prosecutors will try to disqualify jurors who might find a defendant “not guilty,” despite clear evidence otherwise. 

So New York and the Feds also charged him with other related crimes, such as stalking and using a silencer. Maybe they want a shot (pun intended) at convicting him of something in case the murder charge gets ‘nullified.’  

What’s more, if Luigi beats one murder rap (state or federal), the Constitution’s 5th Amendment would/should protect him from being tried for the same offense a second time. If there’s a second trial, expect prosecutors to contend that the state and federal murder charges are somehow ‘not the same.’  

Nevertheless, when all is said and done, readers can rest assured: No One Is Above The Law!  Except, of course, the President when (per the Supremes in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593) he is performing his ‘official acts.’  

And – if tried by a “jury of his peers” – just maybe Luigi Mangione.