1/20
@Luigi_Archives
BREAKING: Luigi Mangione's federal prosecutors say that DOJ personnel's prejudicial statements about Luigi didn't break the court order, because they are not "associated" with prosecutors. They also say these statement weren't prejudicial because the trial hasn't started yet.
2/20
@Luigi_Archives
Prosecution's response comes after the Judge ordered them to explain why DOJ personnel made/reposted prejudicial statements, such as those made by President Trump. Prosecution also included a sworn declaration by Sean Buckley Deputy United States Attorney for SDNY:
3/20
@Luigi_Archives
Prosecutors' argument hinges on 1 word in the rule they're accused of breaking - "associated". They say it doesn't apply because statements were made by DOJ personnel they don't work with. However, the court's Apr 25 order told them to inform highest levels of DOJ of this rule.
4/20
@Luigi_Archives
Though, in the footnote prosecution does admit that its their "interpretation" of the rule and that they did not "clarify" this during Apr 25 hearing when the Judge issued this order.
5/20
@Luigi_Archives
Contrary to prosecution's own claim that the rule has not been broken, DOJ directed the post made by DOJ staff, not "associated" with "Mangione matter", to be deleted. Reminder, the Judge asked to explain what's being done to prevent this from happening again-prosecutors.
6/20
@Luigi_Archives
Prosecutors' examples of what's being done to ensure it doesn't happen, came from before the prejudicial posts were made. E.g. they quote DOJ's new policy to "control messaging by Department employees" issued on Sept. 2. The posts in question were made on Sept. 19-20.
7/20
@Luigi_Archives
Luigi's prosecutors go on to say that defense hadn't shown that any prejudice occurred or that prospective jurors were "exposed" to these posts. "...prejudice should be presumed only in truly exceptional cases." Reminder: these posts had U.S. President say that Luigi was guilty.
8/20
@Luigi_Archives
Luigi's persecutors' say that defense didn't "establish" a connection between the posts in question & how they may affect Luigi's right to a fair trial. They say that "relevant factor" for this is the time between when the prejudicial statements were made & the start of trial.
9/20
@Luigi_Archives
They say that because the trial hasn't started yet, the statements can't be found prejudicial. This goes in contradiction with what they said in the previous sentence, where they admitted that the Local Rule treats such statements on guilt as "presumptively prejudicial".
10/20
@Luigi_Archives
Prosecutors also try to allude that "reposting is "not necessarily an endorsement of the original tweet." However, there is no question that one of the quote retweets in question made by DOJ staff member does explicitly endorse the original tweet:
11/20
@Luigi_Archives
Prosecutors conclude that as such no sanctions are warranted. Which is extremely worrying because it would create a precedent where any member of DOJ, not directly involved in Luigi's case, could continue to make public statements that he's guilty, prejudicing potential jury.
12/20
@clubcillian
isn’t the DOJ literally the governing body behind the “people” noted in “people v mangione” like ???
13/20
@Luigi_Archives
"People v Mangione" refers to Luigi's NY state case, as in "People of New York". It's an old tradition for prosecutors to call themselves that. PA prosecutors call themselves "Commonwealth". Feds - "United States of America". Other states may say "the State v Defendant".
14/20
@GoldwinMeribel
So they are gaslighting the federal judge? Cool cool.
15/20
@Luigi_Archives
To be fair, in a way, that is what most prosecutors/lawyers try to do. Prosecutors are just not doing it very well here.
16/20
@lonesomebirdie
do nawtttt piss me offf
17/20
@Red_Pill_Ape
And The Curt not starting yet is not prejudging when you prejudging ?
18/20
@hellena_swan
19/20
@albcipo123
Same old story , They’re useless as ever. Freelulu
20/20
@McHiggs
Basically they do not have a response
newrepublic.com
