The Luigi Mangione Case: A NY Defense Attorney Breaks It Down

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do It. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:56 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1099. That's right, tax fans. Form 1099 OA special. Big holiday here at the Smith House. How's it going, Matt?

0:01:09 Matt: Just joining you once again as an independent contractor, here to not acting under your direction or supervision.

0:01:15 Thomas: Glad you can recognize my holiday despite your feeling about numbers. You know, I do appreciate in the spirit of, I inclusion. We've Got a great show planned for you today, so much to talk about, and a very special guest someone that OA Gavel Gavel listeners get to hear a ton but OA listeners do not get to hear enough. That is, of course, Liz Skeen, real-life New York attorney working in the very courthouse that Trump was found guilty. And in addition, possibly the very courthouse that a certain alleged murderer might be in in the future. We'll see. I don't know.

0:01:50 Matt: This is a good Liz story. She's got some really good insight on this one, and I look forward to talking about it.

0:01:54 Thomas: So much to it, they're fighting extradition, um, what he might be charged with, how that might go, so many questions, and so glad that we have Liz here to help. So she'll be on in a little bit. That, I think we have some pretty special news. You know, a while back we did an episode about what Joe Biden should do with his remaining time. And we talked about some options and we also talked about maybe making some sort of video or something to share to try to get the word out. Cause it is, you know, time is ticking faster the lame duck period feels very long, but also every unit of time feels very short to me. So, so we're almost, you know, we were a month away pretty much. That note, someone reached out to us who wanted to help make a video on, on the, topic. The gentleman by the name of Bennett Moore reached out, his company, West Ghost LLC, that does video stuff, and he's amazing. He helped us make a video to really make the plea for Joe Biden to do some things with the power he still has to save his legacy. I mean, there's a lot he can do. There's a Lot he really should do, but also hot off the presses. There is some amount he did do this this very day, he pardoned, I think, a record number of people. But here's the thing. Of those people was, we were like, oh man, did he scoop us? Which would be good. Would be fine. We're due to release this video. It's out now. You can share it, link in the show notes. You can follow our social media, all that stuff. Like, it would have been interesting and funny news if we went to all that trouble and then he did the pardon the day we were going to release the video, but it seems like he didn't pardon or commute the people that we are asking him to do so. Correct?

0:03:26 Thomas: So how could he have?

0:03:25 Matt: Video yet so get it out to him yeah

0:03:27 Thomas: Yeah. We'll talk about what he actually did do and on. Lots of good stuff after this break. Please support the show. If you, want if to support our efforts, if you agree with what we're doing here, if we want to make the show happen, patreon.com/law is the space to go. The place to, uh, the way, turn off the ads, which is like a really good benefit. Get Uh, the bonus stuff and make the show happen. Please do so. It means so much to us. And, uh. We thank our patrons so much who do. Right. After this break, we're going to get into it. As I sort of alluded to, sort of teased, Biden scooped us a little by pardoning a whole bunch of people. Went down today?

0:04:05 Matt: This is a good one, this is a mass act of clemency, and clemency, of course, can include both commuting a sentence, where you end the sentence, and pardoning, which clears the record. And of course we talked last week about his controversial decision to pardon, uh, his son, his first major pardon of the post-election season. Today, he commuted the sentence of about 1 ,500 people who were in home confinement. And so there was a special provision in the CARES Act during the COVID era, allowed Department of Justice to send some people with non-violent records to home confinement so that they didn't have to be, obviously, serving out their term under conditions in COVID. As an act of clemency, commuted all of those sentences so they can all leave their homes now, including this one story, I hear about a woman who's going to be able to attend her daughter's wedding. Then he also pardoned 39 people, pardons for a number of what are called non-violent offenses here in the press release. So I just want to note this is actually a single-day record for a presidential commutation and pardon, so clemency all around. It's pretty close to the record for the number of commutations I believe Barack Obama had over 1,700. So he's still got time, but we can do this.

0:05:03 Thomas: That's a lot. I saw that headline. I wasn't sure. What do you think goes this decision about the commuting the sentences of the home confinement? I didn't really understand. It sounded to me like we've taken a group of people who already kind of had, like, better situation relative to the justice system than others. Like, they have this home confinement. Why does this make sense? Like, why did he do this exactly? Exactly.

0:05:24 Matt: DOJ got a lot of discretion under this final rule that was put out last year to manage people who were on home confinement under this CARES Act thing, and it allowed them to remain after the expiration of the emergency period, because obviously the COVID emergency ended some time ago. And Biden's making the point that the way this worked out, some people ended up getting longer sentences than they would have, because there's some flexibility about this, because it was kind of a trade -off. So, that's my understanding, is that about 12,000 people were put on home confinement uh of the time that they extended that rule so got

0:05:51 Thomas: Gotcha. Okay. That kind of makes sense. Hey, tune into our video and share it and all that stuff. You'd like to see Biden pardon some more people who really could use it, perhaps even more so than these folks, not to compare or anything, but there's still a lot Biden can do, but this is a good move. Of... Sorry,

0:06:07 Matt: About five weeks so let's get on it all

0:06:09 Thomas: Please, uh. Watch the video we made, share it, and most importantly, sign that petition. A way to kind of organize and to show the level of support and to put pressure on Biden to do the things we want and need him to, that he needs to do, um, to protect his legacy, uh, the incoming fascist regime. So, um. Big, thanks again to Bennett for putting this together. Uh. Could tell you it is a ton of work to to do something like that. And this was all volunteer, uh, amazing work by Bennett Moore. You so much, Bennett. Hey, share that video, everybody. Biden's got more pardoning to do, and we're, we've, we'll, we, we got more shows to do Matt. So I think we ought to jump in with Liz and talk about Luigi Mangione and what's going on there. I can't wait to ask her a bunch of questions.

0:06:49 Matt: Friend of the show, let's bring her on. Yeah.

0:06:52 Thomas: We're joined by Liz Skeen, uh, Gavel Gavel podcaster extraordinaire, how you doing, Liz?

0:06:59 Liz: I am doing pretty well, it's always a pleasure to hang out with you both and

0:07:02 Thomas: And uh, gosh, so much we want to talk about, um, keep... you're like the Forrest Gump of, of New York law stuff, you know, where you just always happen to be around the big news is

0:07:11 Liz: Benefits of my job maybe is that a lot of really, really interesting things happen at, you know, in Manhattan, in our court, in New York Supreme Criminal Term, 100 Centre Street. I mean, it's almost as though there's a show Law and Order about it. But yeah.

0:07:16 Thomas: It's the mother court.

0:07:18 Matt: Close enough. You want to remind us what your job is?

0:07:30 Liz: So I am a public defender. I defend people who cannot afford attorneys of all crimes, everything from petit larceny to attempted murder. And I do so at the courthouse at a hundred Centre Street, um, Manhattan. And that's the same courthouse that will be seeing this case prosecuted in, you

0:07:44 Thomas: I've heard of that one. Right. Not the mother court. I want to make very clear. I was Nephew court. Yeah.

0:07:51 Matt: Nephew court, niece court, little

0:07:53 Thomas: Mother -in -law court. I don't know.

0:07:53 Matt: Brother.

0:07:53 Liz: Mean, court that's seen in the Law and Order, um, introduction. Um, a different, prettier court. The court that I'm in is much uglier, but it's the same court in terms of substance and spirit.

0:08:06 Thomas: They gotten rid of the smell since the Trump trial? Well, they

0:08:09 Liz: God, the HVAC problems continue. It's either 90 degrees in any courtroom or like 60.

0:08:17 Matt: We're going to be talking today about somebody who will not need a public defender, as I understand it, but it's the biggest criminal case in the nation right now.

0:08:23 Thomas: Entire public is already defending him, really. Most of it.

0:08:26 Matt: Is true. We've all risen up as one. I've never seen anybody be defended this much for murder. It's really something.

0:08:31 Liz: Yeah, it's actually, it's really incredible. I've never seen sentiment like this, and even from people that I would not expect.

0:08:37 Matt: Yeah, of course, we're talking about Luigi Mangione, who was arrested earlier this week on the charges of shooting the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson. And he was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, just to remind everybody, and is now facing charges in New York. As we're recording this, he's being held in Pennsylvania facing extradition. But I wanted to talk to you, Liz, because this is your backyard. This is where you work and what you think about. And you, of course, have to do a lot of business with the NYPD. So I'm sure you have opinions about the NYPD.

0:09:04 Thomas: How did this go down from your view?

0:09:06 Liz: So this is a pretty interesting case. And I think it's worth noting just the outset, obviously, we're all talking about this because this person is very prominent and also the nature of the murder, which is right in front of a hotel in Midtown Manhattan. Notable to me is the really extreme amount of NYPD resources that went into catching this individual.

0:09:29 Liz: Not something that you see with respect to other homicides that are not as high profile. The way that he was identified, or the sort of series of events that at least got the one photo of him showing his face, was NYPD did what I would call a video canvass. And what I mean by that is, and I've seen them do this in one other case of mine. And, and that's notable because that case also was a high profile prominent case. What NYPD does is they go to every single business, hotel, church, building, whatever.

0:10:03 Thomas: So outhouse, inhouse, they do the fugitive thing.

0:10:05 Liz: Well, yeah, exactly. And we'll know that they, they ask for video surveillance. And the thing is, unsurprisingly, almost everywhere in midtown Manhattan has video surveillance and and the work that they do is, again, I've seen this in one other case, it is meticulous. It is painstaking. And it's actually pretty impressive as someone who oftentimes criticizes NYPD and they go through the video and they find, okay, at this time we saw him walking northbound this way. And then based on that, they kind of know what series of businesses or buildings to keep asking and asking. And so what they were able to do is more or less just like track his movements during the several day period that he was in New York City. And that's how they were able to get that one photo of him or that one still of him showing him unmasked. I remember that a lot of people were comparing that and saying, oh, this doesn't look like the guy or whatever. And I'm not one to normally give NYPD credit because they haven't always done the right thing in a lot places. But I knew that they had done painstaking, meticulous video canvassing.

0:10:07 Thomas: Henhouse. Yeah. I I don't know. I still can't explain the unibrow. I still, I'm, I'm not, I don't want to get all tinfoil hat, but he has a strong unibrow, people are pointing it out, a lot of people are saying he's got a strong unibrow in the pictures of him now, but in that surveillance thing no unibrow. If the, if the brow, what was, somebody said, like, if the eyebrows don't meet you can't you must acquit yeah someone had a a better one than that, but yeah, hard to explain.

0:11:38 Matt: Water

0:11:30 Liz: Don't fit, then you must to quit I mean if he hadn't, you know, been found with the gun on him, and there wasn't a manifesto and a DNA sample, I would have been, um I believe that they I believe that they procured a, that they've said that they they found it there was there was a water bottle

0:11:43 Thomas: DNA sample. I missed that. Oh man.

0:11:45 Matt: Bottle. Because he left a water bottle behind, right? And honestly, we were dealing with some kind of mastermind here, but to have the gun and the ID, the same fake ID that you checked into the hostel with on you, don't know, man.

0:11:55 Thomas: But no, it, it was a bummer to be honest with you. Can I say that? It was kind of a bummer when he was caught and I was like that, up a better effort.

0:12:03 Matt: Yeah, I think we could say that. Yeah.

0:12:06 Liz: Or at least a little more ambiguous but I I think it's I unfortunately.

0:12:11 Thomas: Let's talk about this amount of effort, but you've dealt with a lot of cases of people who, obviously, because they need you, they're not CEOs that you know, major healthcare organizations. So is there a tale of two NYPDs here? I I I mean, is there different, different response that you're seeing?

0:12:27 Liz: I mean, unquestionably. And I will say that I spoke to someone who is senior at NYPD at a holiday party over the weekend, and he said exactly the same. It's a completely, the amount of resources, man hours, time has been poured into this is, many, times more than what you would see in connection with the homicide of a less prominent, poor individual, which NYPD doesn't have particularly high clearance rates for.

0:12:50 Matt: Like sex workers and unhoused people. No question. I mean, we say the same thing here.

0:12:54 Thomas: It always seems disturbing. I mean there's, there's two components of it. I think, and tell me if I'm wrong, obviously there's the, the wealth component of it, but there's also the media component of it I feel like this can happen when there's a victim who perhaps isn't wasn't wealthy or something but when focus gets turned on them by media or a podcast or some crap that then all of a sudden there's like this there the seemingly the sky's the limit and it just does not seem like it's how justice should work it's one way or the other it seems weird that's like oh well if you're gonna watch us then yeah oh no we're we're looking real hard we're gonna we're gonna find him like shouldn't they do that all the time. I don't, is what, is one life worth more than another police-wise? It shouldn't be. Yeah.

0:13:34 Liz: Completely agree with you. And I think you're right about the media. I mean, obviously, you know, whether, you know... The fact that something gets more media attention oftentimes has to do with, you them being... It may not just be because they're wealthy, but, they you are white or college -educated or, you you know, things like that, like white women.

0:13:52 Liz: There are biases in what even gets media coverage. So it's, it's not like that is even, you know, a fair shake either, but I, I completely agree with you. And I think it's. I think it really exposes some of the biases in, in policing And, and, to solve crimes and, and who gets the short end of the stick there.

0:14:08 Matt: There's also the fact that this is something that was like a movie. Like, this is not even real life, the way this went down. You know, this guy that could shoot someone in the middle of Manhattan, escape to Central Park, and then just disappear. Think there was that extra level of, well, you've got to catch this guy because, you know, this can't go unsolved. Top of everything else.

0:14:22 Liz: I think that's right. And the other thing I would also note is NYPD has a brand new commissioner right now, Jessica Tisch, and she's within her, she's in, like, maybe the first month of the job. Is the first prominent case that has, you know, so she wants to, she came out there with a press conference saying that they were going to find this guy. And I'm sure she ordered, you know. It is exactly that, right? They don't want to look like idiots, I guess, you now, that they can't find this person. My other thought, you know, when this case first came out, I was like, well, like, not a great idea to murder someone in Midtown Manhattan for all the reasons I just said, murder a prominent person, which is to say you can just get video surveillance from almost everywhere. To say the thing he did that was really smart was running into Central Park where there are virtually no cameras and

0:15:04 Thomas: Just tons of murders there all the time he's like hi fellow murderers yeah

0:15:08 Liz: New York is not like London, which has a CCTV system, right? Which is like totally state controlled and everywhere. All the New York cameras, you're going to individual businesses and buildings stuff like that. And we don't have cameras in Central Park. There are a few NYPD cameras in sort of high crime areas of the city. But other than that, there's just no state system of it. So go to the place that is the most state controlled.

0:15:31 Matt: Crimes in Central Park. That's your advice to listeners.

0:15:34 Liz: No. Yeah, but kind of.

0:15:35 Matt: But also, yes.

0:15:34 Thomas: I'm It sucks that the park is unsafe or, at the same time, it is weird to think about like, well, do you want the dystopian mass surveillance system that the police use the way they want? I don't know. I feel like there's no good answers there perhaps. But another component, one thing just for, you know, for fun, I did find it interesting once more was known about him and the brain fog that he was having. And I was almost like, wait, does that explain this? Does that explain the super competent criminal? And then whoops, you know, like I, I genuinely wonder if that was like part of this story, this is just me speculating, but I do wonder if the very medical problems he was having that might've led to this could be the reason why he seemingly just forgot to finish the part where you like get away with it weird.

0:16:19 Matt: Get away with it. Yeah, it's very true. Yeah

0:16:22 Thomas: But anyway, that's just speculation.

0:16:22 Matt: And this also might go to his defense, which we'll talk to him. Yeah, so looking at the New York County court system generally, I just have to appreciate that they do everything in Garamond, including murder complaints. If I was ever charged with murder, I'd want to be charged in Garamond. It looks beautiful. It's a nice looking complaint.

0:16:25 Liz: That's a really good point. Really? Yeah. Big time Garamond place. I

0:16:41 Thomas: Wow, I hear the authentic sounds of paper.

0:16:44 Liz: I am holding the three-page complaint in my hands and I apologize.

0:16:47 Matt: Prints everything.

0:16:48 Liz: I know I'm a real lawyer. I print things out.

0:16:48 Matt: I really appreciate the commitment. Hard copy. So, what's with the second-degree murder charge? Can you explain that?

0:16:54 Thomas: It. Yeah, I saw this online. People were like, how could this not be first degree murder? You know, this is murder. This is premeditated. It's in cold blood. It's got all the things that you think about when you think about first degree murder. And there

0:17:06 Liz: So first degree murder in New York is a special class of people. So policemen, firemen, corrections officers, a few other witnesses to crimes, that's what's going on there. No way that you could get first degree murder from this

0:17:20 Matt: Interesting.

0:17:21 Thomas: You're saying there's like no way, just by nature of who the victim was, there's like no Way this could have been first degree murder?

0:17:27 Liz: Exactly what I'm saying. Like there is, as I say, special classes of people. Um, we have not reached the point where a special classes of people include CEOs.

0:17:34 Thomas: Yeah, we'll see. We'll see if we get there after this.

0:17:37 Liz: Also if it was part of a robbery, that sort of thing. So there's just no way we're getting to this. The highest conceivable charge would be murder too.

0:17:43 Thomas: OK. Matt, is that that that seems unusual, right? Is this kind of a varies by state sort of thing?

0:17:48 Matt: We don't have anything like that in Massachusetts, so that did jump out at me. I did want to ask you, too, about second-degree weapon possession. He's got two counts of that. I think one of those might be the silencer. So, there's a third-degree weapon possession as well. You know what that's about?

0:17:59 Liz: Do I? CPW, as I would call them, so it's a second degree weapon possession. We would call them CPW twos. And one of them is for possession of the gun. The other is for possession the silencer. New York, unlicensed any possession of a gun is CPW too. And by By unlicensed, we mean unlicensed under New York law. I have represented many a person who has come to New York, including people from Massachusetts, Matt, with their gun that is licensed in another state and seem to think that their license, their gun license, transferred to New York. It does not.

0:18:31 Matt: It's It's pretty hard to get a gun license here, so I could see how you might think that.

0:18:35 Thomas: I thought the Supreme Court ruined that. I think that was that whole case where they were like, well, a worker who's on the subway bus late at night needs a gun. What was that? Was that not this?

0:18:43 Liz: Bruen overturned New York's gun licensing scheme as being too restrictive for a number of reasons. However, New York is still entitled to have its own gun licensing scheme and doesn't have to respect the gun licensing schemes of other states that's

0:18:54 Thomas: For now. Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. Well, the gun wasn't a police officer.

0:19:02 Liz: That's just what the statute is, um I'm actually I think first degree is involving, um more or less, yeah, I've actually never, truthfully I've never seen first degree weapons charges, and I've done, I don't even, countless numbers of CPW2s, so I think First Degree is just, I mean I don't even know, like, like you have a missile or something.

0:19:03 Matt: I was just

0:19:07 Thomas: Tank. Now, does the ghost gun part of it matter, or is it just, that's the same as just any kind of unlicensed weapon?

0:19:29 Liz: Just the same. And that's actually what I oftentimes explain to my clients that range from clients that just have a straight unlicensed gun to whether they have a gun that's licensed in Massachusetts or a ghost gun. They're all just unlicensed guns under the New York statute. And it doesn't make a difference.

0:19:44 Thomas: Interesting.

0:19:44 Matt: Then this is kind of darkly funny the way it often is in murder indictments, but he's also being charged with possessing the New Jersey ID on top of everything else, so uh

0:19:52 Liz: Yes, so that's a good old criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, a.k.a. having a fake license.

0:20:00 Thomas: Do you do anything in the first degree over there? Can I get a first degree burn or is it only, yeah, that's not what I've heard.

0:20:05 Liz: We're low-key people in New York. What can I say?

0:20:11 Thomas: It's interesting though.

0:20:12 Matt: Have to appreciate the DA's office just not letting that slide, I'm gonna charge that too, uh

0:20:18 Thomas: Opening Arguments is brought to you by Rocket Money. Can you name every single subscription you have? Because on that I could probably name 30 of them, maybe, maybe. And I'm not alone, over 74% of people have subscriptions they've forgotten about. But but there's good news. With Rocket Money, I don't have to remember every subscription or worry about forgetting any because I can see them all laid out right in front of me. Because Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitor your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. It could see if maybe you signed up for the same thing on two different accounts. That's happened to me, where it's like one on a credit card and one on another credit card and you forget. It'll find that for you. When you think about it, everything seems to be a subscription now, so this really has the potential to save you money. Even better though, because Rocket Money will even try to negotiate lower bills for you, sometimes by up to 20%. They automatically scan your bills to find opportunities to save, and ask them to negotiate for you, something I will never do by myself, but I don't have to because I have Rocket Money. Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of $500 million in canceled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 a year when using all of the the app's features. Stop wasting money on things you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions by going to rocketmoney.com/opening. That's rocketmoney.com/opening, one more time. Rocketmoney.com/opening.

0:21:48 Matt: Anything else notable about this complaint for you do

0:21:50 Liz: The thing that I would say that's quite notable about it is that it relies on and details the surveillance footage that officers reviewed. It refers to at least three, three different surveillance footages, that were reviewed by different detectives. It's a little hint into how they conducted this investigation, which, as I say, was them probably following his movements in almost every direction during the few days that he was in Manhattan.

0:22:15 Thomas: I saw images of, and I don't know if this was just stock, whatever. Tell police officers just like strolling through Central Park. Is that part of it? Do they have this whole like fake part of it that is police officers strolling through Central Park, but then the real work is done by like one dude in a dark basement looking at a computer all day just

0:22:33 Liz: That, that's actually correct. The real work is done by, they'll have officers go to individual businesses and buildings and whatever, to see if there's a camera. And then they send it to the guy in the dark basement who's doing really, really meticulous video canvass, just watching that for every, every time they see a person in a hoodie that looks just like Mr. Mangione.

0:22:55 Matt: Must have been like 20 guys though, the amount of video they're looking at, I just it's amazing yeah

0:22:58 Liz: No, I think it was at minimum minimum 20 guys. Can't I even imagine, I'm sure over a hundred police officers were probably involved in this case because when I've seen kind of prominent shootings or things like that, it's oftentimes at least 20 to 30.

0:23:01 Matt: They sure so because it was 10,000 from NYPD and 50,000 from FBI. Is that right? I think that's what it was.

0:23:18 Liz: And that is totally, and this goes back to my point about just the resources put into this and things that were just really unheard of. New York has something called Crime Stoppers, which is actually not run by NYPD. It's run by a foundation that supports NYPD, and Crime Stoppers offers something like $3,500 max as a reward for anyone who gives information to the tip line leading to the arrest, right? And I think the standard reward is not $3,500, it's $2,000. In this case, and I think it's the highest they've ever been allowed to offer, they put out $10,000 for that. Then, FBI came in there saying, well, that's not enough, let's add in $50,000, and I can't remember the last time I've seen a case in New York, in New York state courts where FBI offered any reward money. I no idea when that's really ever happened.

0:24:09 Thomas: I didn't realize that's what it was, I thought, did the company do any reward money? That's yeah

0:24:13 Matt: Was just going to ask that. I don't think they did. And you'd think that they could put up a million, right?

0:24:14 Thomas: That's What I Had Seen yeah yeah Yeah. They

0:24:18 Matt: You'd think they'd want to.

0:24:18 Thomas: Could put up a gazillion.

0:24:19 Liz: 50 thousand from FBI and 10,000 from Crime Stoppers, which is affiliated with NYPD. I

0:24:25 Thomas: I mean, that was misreported, but, or at least, who knows if it was just by people on Reddit or something, but I absolutely saw that represented as the company having done it. Well, good to get the correct info.

0:24:34 Matt: But that is legal too, right. The company could have put up money. There's no reason that a private individual couldn't.

0:24:39 Liz: I mean, anyone, we could have put up, OA, um, money, you know?

0:24:42 Matt: Sure.

0:24:42 Thomas: Can I put up negative dollars? Negative $100,000 to whoever gives a tip.

0:24:49 Matt: To give us money.

0:24:50 Thomas: Yeah, exactly. It's a penalty. If I don't see anything in the rules that says a dog can't do that.

0:24:52 Matt: But course, now, legally, when that comes in, when the person who actually did call this in, believe that they still have to go through a whole process to actually get the money and it can come up in court that you're being rewarded for this, right?

0:25:06 Liz: Absolutely.

0:25:07 Thomas: There was some controversy. Did either of you look into that, where they're like, this McDonald's employee might not get the reward money because they called 911 rather than the tip line, I believe was what I saw. Do you know anything about that?

0:25:18 Liz: I saw that. I also saw, you know, the other thing is with, they didn't call the tip line. And then also for the Crime Stoppers money, you have to have an indictment. There's no indictment in the case yet. There's just a criminal court complaint. But it seems like, I don't know, maybe the tide has turned. From what I saw from reporting, it looked like he might not get it. And now the sort of turn has been like, he'll get it, but it might take a minute.

0:25:41 Thomas: That'd be pretty dumb. I mean, as much as I, you know, I don't necessarily support the narking in this situation. I don't know. It's hard to say, but that'd be like, if you offer a reward, it would be pretty stupid to like, well, actually would also be very fitting of the, sorry, that, that 911 line is out of network, we're not going to offer you the, you know, would be very sitting

0:25:58 Liz: Mean, it is incredibly, incredibly fitting. Yeah. That's, I mean... Yeah. Welcome Welcome to late -stage capitalism. Do

0:26:08 Matt: As we're discussing, of course he was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania in a McDonald's, and he's being held right now for extradition, and he's fighting that. So do you have any thoughts about that?

0:26:17 Liz: Extradition is a funny thing. I've done extradition the other way, where I've represented a client who was going to be extradited over to Pennsylvania. I've dealt with extradition a few different times. Extradition is governed by a couple of different federal laws, which are all more or less administered by the state. So the main thing is there's the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act that's been adopted by New York State. It's also been adopted by Pennsylvania. What it does is it gives the state, the respective state, about 90 days to obtain a governor's warrant, the state that wants to do the extraditing. So in this case, New York needs to get a governor's warrant, needs to get it over to Pennsylvania. Once they do that, he can be extradited. I've handled a number of extradition cases. Sometimes we waive, sometimes we don't. Generally, it's my advice to waive.

0:27:07 Thomas: To not fight it, you mean?

0:27:08 Liz: Because the reasons why, I mean, they may not apply here, but the reasons you want to waive sometimes is just in general terms, right, is you kind of want to get to where the other state is going to be able to get a governor's warrant, almost certainly. It is very rare to have victories in these types of cases. So you sometimes just want to guess where you're going. And it's also not clear that the jail time that you're spending in the state that doesn't want you, the state you're being held, as opposed to the state, that does want you actually is going to count toward any jail time credit.

0:27:36 Thomas: That actually kind of makes sense. If it's like, if you're fighting extradition, it makes sense that you wouldn't get credit for, you know, part of it for your sentence.

0:27:43 Liz: Yeah, it's a it's complicated. Some states will do it. Some states won't, but it's never really that clear. And kind of our attitude is like, listen, if New York wants you, why would you want to wait around three months in New Jersey courts for New York to get a governor's warrant, which they almost certainly will do. And that jail time might not count for you. Sometimes, again, most of the time it does, but you kind of just want to get that going. That being said, in cases there's a death penalty, someone's going to a death penalty state, we oftentimes will not waive extradition. The idea being you don't really need to get to

0:27:44 Matt: Being out of state, yeah.

0:28:17 Liz: That state anytime soon if you're facing a potential death penalty. And also in other cases that are very serious, you might want to consider whether it makes sense to not waive extradition and try to have like a criminal defense team set up for you on your arrival, give you a little more time. It might also be able to negotiate some sort, sometimes what you might do is say, I'm not going to fight extradition if you can kind of help me with certain conditions of custody, use it as a bargaining chip. I don't think there's a lot that he has to use it a bargaining ship here though, because it's not like they're going to say, oh, we'll release you.

0:28:41 Thomas: It as a bargaining chip okay yeah they're not gonna be sympathetic yeah

0:28:52 Liz: We'll let you out on bail if you don't fight it. So, there's not a lot here for him to do.

0:28:56 Thomas: Let me shoot one more CEO if I come yeah, I was going to say you get to pick. Yeah. We're, we're reasonable. My client is willing to be reasonable here, but hold on. It has to be a major cut. Can't be some dinky thing. They have to at least be making 10 million a year. We'll say 12 million was okay. 10 million, at least 10 million a day.

0:29:01 Matt: Your pick. Yeah.

0:29:18 Liz: That they're not added to, you know, the murder one, uh, New York statute. Pretty

0:29:20 Thomas: Get

0:29:23 Matt: You're not a Pennsylvania lawyer, but just to establish this, what would they have to prove in an extradition proceeding to bring him back to New York?

0:29:27 Liz: So what his attorney is going to want to do is file something called a writ of habeas corpus and say that he's, which is what he sort of implied that he was going to be doing via conferences, and say more or less that you've got the wrong guy. So the scope of review of the writ that his defense attorney would be filing is something like, exactly, I'm not the guy.

0:29:42 Thomas: That eyebrow eyebrow examined, get that eyebrow evidence in there. Eyebrow print, dip, dip his brow in ink, print it on the, you know, like eyebrow print it.

0:29:53 Liz: So I would exhibit that in any writ of habeas corpus. It's very clear this is not the same person, you want to say, I'm not the guy. You want to say, I wasn't in the state at the time, the papers aren't correctly done, I'm not substantially charged with a crime. So it's just, it's not, you know, they just didn't really get the charging instruments right, or, you know, other kind of problems with the paperwork. These very, very rarely succeed unless there's just been a total manifest mess up on the state that's doing the extradition, that wants to extradite. Then normally the governor's warrant is just a more formalized instrument, contains information about the charges. Signed by a magistrate as to kind of the nature of the arrest, the charges, it'll probably exhibit the criminal court complaint. That's the idea of what it is.

0:30:38 Thomas: It's interesting, they did charge him with some things in Pennsylvania. They don't, the way it works is going to sound obviously basic to YouTube, but they don't charge him with the murder there though, because it didn't happen there. Right. So, and, to me that they don't have to necessarily charge, like imagine, imagine they had nothing to charge him with there. They can still probably hold him, depending on how the state works, just on the suspicion that he's wanted for this thing. Right. But it seems like they charged him with like some ID stuff and some other stuff. You know, maybe that's just like to be able to hold him better or or

0:31:05 Matt: Weapons charges. Yeah,

0:31:09 Liz: To To concretize what you're saying about the suspicion, the suspicion that he's being charged for the murder is more than that. It's that there's an arrest warrant that's been issued in New York and, ergo, he is a fugitive. I think that's just worth noting because once in a while you'll see fugitive cases where someone didn't know that an arrest warrant was issued against them. So they have an encounter with the police in a different state and they're, you know, police are like, oh, you're a fugitive. This person has no idea. Mr. Mangione probably knows there's an arrest warrant. Yeah, no, they don't have to charge him with anything. They could just hold him simply on the basis of the arrest warrant from the other state, which makes him a fugitive. And that's something, again, that falls under like the Uniform Act. The other thing that I would also note is that the different states do things differently. You know, Pennsylvania could conceivably hold him until he resolves the Pennsylvania charges, which could take any amount of time. And they've said no, no, New York's good to take him.

0:31:35 Thomas: Probably knows. Yeah.

0:32:03 Liz: In a lot of cases that I have, New York refuses to release, to send the person to the next state until they resolve any pending New York charges, which can cause a lot of issues because oftentimes people, it takes a long time to sometimes resolve certain state charges.

0:32:18 Thomas: Dumb question, why can't they just take him? Why can't Pennsylvania be like, here, we're just giving him to you, New York. Have to wait for like the governor, like what has to happen, the, the New York side has to like ask for him via the governor? Yeah.

0:32:30 Liz: A very good question. The basis of extradition and right of a state to extradite someone actually comes out of Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, and what it says is that any person who's charged in any state with a crime who flees justice and is found in another state shall, upon demand of the executive authority from the state that they fled, be delivered and removed to the state that has jurisdiction. And that's there in our Constitution. So it says upon demand. And what happened was Congress passed a series of different rendition and fugitive acts to actually just implement that. And the one that is the sort of current governing one is what I've referred to before as the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. And then each state has sort of adopted that act into their own state penal law. And so New York has adopted it. It's literally in our penal law, it's in Pennsylvania's penal law and the Criminal Extradition Act just concretizes what does, going back to the phrasing in the Constitution, a demand of the executive authority of the state. So the demand of the executive priority of the State is what we're now hearing referred to as the governor's warrant, which is this warrant that Kathy Hochul literally needs to sign, by the way. Of my clients who did not waive extradition, I got a governor's warrant from Florida in his case, and it was literally signed by I can't remember if it was Santos or Scott,

0:34:01 Thomas: Scott.

0:34:02 Liz: But it was signed by the governor of Florida.

0:34:04 Thomas: Some asshole.

0:34:04 Liz: So that's one of the reasons why it's quite a lot of work to put together a governor's warrant, because you have to actually put together this document that's legally correct that the state's actual governor will sign.

0:34:14 Thomas: So my question was, why, once it happens, except the person, the defendant or whatever, the suspect, why can't they just do it? But it sounds like it's within those rules that, just you say, you know, it has to be upon, you the executive. So it's interesting.

0:34:28 Liz: To be a demand by the executive. And at least based on the federal law that every state has adopted, Hochul tweeting, I demand you give us this person, is not a legally sufficient demand. It really has to come in the form of this governor's warrant.

0:34:43 Matt: As I understand it too, even if he'd been unlawfully arrested, which I don't think he was unlawful I mean, it was unfortunate, but I think the way it went down was pretty lawful. Think they could still extradite him from what I understand, from what I remember from, at least internationally.

0:34:54 Thomas: Like if he had been unlawfully arrested.

0:34:56 Matt: Yeah, if they just kind of swept him up. I know that internationally there's some really disturbing case law about how you can, there's a case where somebody was drugged and kidnapped snapped, illegally extradited.

0:35:03 Thomas: Yeah. I was going to say that would create bad incentives there.

0:35:07 Matt: I think from what I understand, this was a pretty standard. Spotted the guy. They thought there was a killer. The cops showed up. They saw it was him. He gave the same fake ID. I did not identify any issues with the arrest unless he saw something.

0:35:16 Thomas: But to tie this out, the best that this is going to accomplish for Luigi is just delay. I mean, 90.

0:35:23 Liz: Just 90 more days of jail in Pennsylvania.

0:35:25 Matt: Not being in Rikers.

0:35:26 Liz: Yeah. So they have 90 days.

0:35:28 Thomas: And not being in Rikers does sound like perhaps a good reason to. Yeah.

0:35:31 Matt: That's something, right?

0:35:33 Liz: No, but it's not as though his case is proceeding without him. Think of it as more just 90 plus days, not 90 fewer days. Yes, 90 extra. Yeah, there's a word for that, not plus. 90 extra days, not 90 less days in Rikers.

0:35:39 Thomas: Like extra days. Yeah.

0:35:49 Matt: Okay, makes sense. Assuming that he does end up in your neighborhood, you're on his defense team, what are you thinking at this point?

0:35:55 Liz: He's charged with murder two. Murder two has a defense that if the defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse, use, the reasonableness to be determined from someone in the viewpoint of the defendant's situation under the circumstances the defendant believed them to be, you can knock the case down from murder to manslaughter.

0:36:26 Thomas: Who makes that decision? Do you need a reason to go for that logic, or is it that all about, like the prosecutor or the, how does that work?

0:36:34 Liz: You have to. I mean, you could try to advocate. You could try to cut a deal with the prosecutor. What you would want to be doing is ultimately, in a case like this, you're going to be arguing it to a jury.

0:36:43 Thomas: Just wasn't sure if that was in like the sentencing phase. It's not, okay. So, it's like you're charged with murder two and the the lesser included, and then you're trying to get one of those lesser included rather than the murder too.

0:36:54 Liz: Effectively, I mean, you may not be charged with the lesser included because judge at trial to add it because you can ask them, you as defense counsel would ask the Judge to add it. Prosecutors won't want to have the lesser included because they don't want to give the jury the option.

0:37:01 Thomas: Interesting. Yeah.

0:37:09 Liz: You would the defense attorney. And then you'd be arguing that to the jury. Would consider the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. That would knock down the crime to a manslaughter. What's interesting though, is it's a, it's, I keep calling, I refer to it as an affirmative defense. What I mean by an affirmative defense is this is an example of the sort of thing where the defense actually has a burden of proof. Colleague

0:37:34 Thomas: Right, right. That sounds interesting. That sounds like something to go for. Is it the kind of thing where having a thought out plan and a manifesto and stuff like that, Is that going to hinder the ability to say I was caught up in this emotional distress? You know, what kind of things does this work for? Do you have any experience with this? Does it need to be the in the heat of passion kind of thing? Or could be the kind of think where this premeditation and this stuff we usually associate with being methodical, being rational kind like those steps of planning, will that count against them, I guess, in this effort?

0:38:07 Liz: That tried a case and had an extreme emotional disturbance defense. And what he presented was effectively this person had just been beaten up that day and then saw, unfortunately, the decedent, the person who died and for no reason beat him up to death.

0:38:30 Thomas: Someone unrelated to the thing? It wasn't like he found his attacker is what I was saying.

0:38:32 Liz: Well, it didn'T work. No,

0:38:35 Thomas: Like, yeah, yeah. Okay.

0:38:36 Liz: I mean, it didn't work, but it can really be anything, right? You want to, would want to present, you now, this was not in, in that case, that was not well thought out. So that, that. I mean, I think that was part of his argument. I think if you were the prosecutor, you'd want to argue how meticulously well thought out this is. How could that really be extreme emotional disturbance? A defense attorney, maybe you would want to talk about back pain. I'm not trying to be flippant, right? Back pain, right.

0:38:59 Thomas: No, no, no. As a

0:39:00 Matt: Not at all.

0:39:00 Liz: Back pain. Extreme frustration.

0:39:03 Thomas: It makes me insane.

0:39:04 Liz: It's like. I meantime, you've been on the phone with your health insurance company. Yes.

0:39:07 Thomas: Yeah. We should be allowed a free murder just if you have to talk to your insurance company, I think.

0:39:13 Matt: Well, that brings up... So people have been throwing around the idea that there might be jury nullification in this case because there is such popular anger at this point. We've spent a lot of time, the three of us, talking about people v. Trump, and we've learned a lot about a Manhattan jury over the months that we've been talking. And just the other day on Gavel Gavel, we were just talking about how the entire Trump jury was professionals. They're not a single working class person on the jury. And is that typical of a Manhattan jury? So that's what we should expect here, is people that might empathize more with the victim than the defendant.

0:39:42 Liz: I think that jury nullification is a fun thing to talk about. Very, very hard to achieve. I don't think that – mean, there's been a lot of talk about how could there ever be a guilty verdict, and I'm just kind of shaking my head thinking, do any of these commentators realize what a Manhattan jury is? Like it's, you know, it's a lot of professionals. I would also say Manhattan juries are real rule followers. Um, might be sympathetic to some situations, but they are kind of like, well, this is the law. It's, it's really hard to get nullification. I'm not really aware of a circumstance where I think a colleague of mine has gotten nullification

0:40:21 Thomas: You always tell though? Though? I mean, doesn't it look like just one juror not agreeing?

0:40:25 Liz: A full nullification so getting when we say nullification, like what we mean by that is, yes, let's define what we mean here. When we say nullification what we mean, what I mean is a not guilty verdict despite the evidence and the jury's belief that the defendant was guilty. What you might get is a hung jury because there's a holdout juror or number of jurors. I had a colleague who tried a case where defendant was very clearly guilty and it was his understanding that one juror basically held out saying, I will not ever convict him.

0:40:28 Thomas: Maybe define what you mean. Yeah. Would you count that as nullification or no? That's kind of what I was thinking it was, I guess.

0:41:02 Liz: I guess what I'm trying to say is I think you could get a hung jury with one juror effectively acting to nullify the verdict, but I consider nullification a full return of a not guilty verdict. That's generally how it's understood.

0:41:13 Thomas: Because a hung jury, you can, can try again? No, you can?

0:41:15 Liz: Retry it. You can retry it forever.

0:41:17 Thomas: Oh that makes sense, gotcha. Okay,

0:41:19 Matt: And will. And from what you were just saying, it seems like manslaughter, if they reduced it to that, would be a form of nullification at this point. So, I mean, maybe that's a win.

0:41:27 Liz: Right. I think there are real arguments for the extreme emotional disturbance defense. That

0:41:31 Matt: I think they could develop that, it seems Like. But you said, it was also extremely premeditated. So sure.

0:41:35 Liz: That's a very real defense here. I mean, mean, it is premeditated, but there's nothing that says that something be premedicated for it to be, you to still be, I mean, you could be extremely emotionally disturbed for six months, which is what news stories are suggesting about him.

0:41:49 Thomas: You could almost point to how he was caught as maybe evidence of that dichotomy you know like he he it was really sloppy yeah

0:41:58 Liz: Was caught with a manifesto on him.

0:42:01 Thomas: And with all the evidence and with all that yeah very weird

0:42:04 Liz: Oh, sure. I mean I'm just, you know, that's like very Ted Kaczynski manifesto. Like that's emotionally disturbed. Would a boy who went to Penn do such a thing? That's emotionally socially disturbed. Kidding. That's a joke.

0:42:14 Thomas: Well in seriousness I could see again a defense attorney perhaps making use of that a little bit like there's no this this is hard to explain Other than by the extreme distress of going through the U.S. health care system, you know, do

0:42:27 Liz: Think that would be a great, I think that would a credible line in closing. Can you explain what this person did, double degrees from Penn, a promising future ahead of him, young, handsome, smart, but for the extreme distress that the healthcare system can cause?

0:42:44 Matt: The other side of it, there could be a straight mental health defense as well. We don't know enough yet, but he might actually just not be competent.

0:42:49 Liz: That is true. And I should introduce introduce that. So there could be a straight, so there is, you know, there's a insanity defense under New York law, also known as a NGRI, not guilty by reason of insanity. That's also an affirmative defense. And you also have to prove essentially that, I for the period of time, not having substantial awareness, all these other factors. And it really involves quite a lot of work, involves bringing in a psych expert. Very hard to win on that defense in particular.

0:43:17 Thomas: Does that happen before the trial or part of the trial?

0:43:20 Liz: Part of the trial and you have to actually serve notice of any psych defenses under New York law within 30 days of someone's arraignment. So we'll probably know if they'll be going that route relatively soon.

0:43:30 Thomas: Interesting.

0:43:30 Matt: Seems it seems like it would be hard given how methodical this was, least in carrying it out. Be that methodical and still be NGRI?

0:43:38 Liz: The New York Law doesn't talk in terms of premeditated methodical. What they talk of for an NGRI is whether someone understood the nature or consequences of the conduct, probably understood that, that the conduct was wrong.

0:43:40 Matt: Well sure okay yeah sure sure sure yeah uh

0:43:50 Thomas: That's it. I think there's if the if all the writings we've we've seen are, you and all that, I feel like that's going to be a tough one because he wrote like, hey, sorry, I know this sucks, but got to do you know. I feel the stuff he wrote would make that pretty difficult, but I could I'm not the lawyer.

0:44:05 Liz: I think that's exactly right. Right? I mean, you would have to argue that he lacks substantial capacity for either of those. Yeah. Nature and consequences of the conduct, that such conduct was wrong. And then they also go further to say that substantial capacity to know or appreciate the wrongfulness of conduct doesn't mean that you have a total incapacity. So I think full NGRI is very hard here.

0:44:28 Thomas: You still be thinking about trying that if you were the attorney here or

0:44:32 Liz: Any case where you're facing a huge amount of time, like this case, case, right? Any murder two case, you're going to be looking at NGRI and you're gonna be looking at this EED defense, extreme emotional disturbance, and you are giving them a really, really hard look. I would probably serve psych notice within 30 days of arraignments and just to preserve my ability to potentially use this defense. I mean, you know, you are throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks when a case is going to so heavily evidenced as this one. I

0:44:58 Thomas: Is this lawyer and how did he get the lawyer? Do we know that?

0:45:01 Matt: One in pennsylvania do you don't know the new york one is

0:45:03 Thomas: Yeah, he's going to have to get a different one for New York probably.

0:45:05 Liz: Going to have to get a different... Yeah. I mean, I'm very interested to his New York lawyer. I haven't seen any press as to any New York lawyer being retained. Will say that I haven'T been particularly impressed with his Pennsylvania lawyer.

0:45:07 Thomas: I forgot about that.

0:45:19 Matt: He said some weird stuff

0:45:20 Thomas: Seems showboaty.

0:45:22 Liz: Name is Thomas Dickey, and he's an Altoona-based defense attorney. He's apparently death penalty qualified, which means that he's probably tried a number of cases. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he knows what he's doing here. And I think what really disturbed me about the behavior of his Altoona defense attorney was this sort of ridiculous press conference he pulled. And that in it, he was asked whether he thought that Mangione understood what was happening. And he said that he did. And I just want to make a point that that could pose problems to either an extreme emotional disturbance defense or an NGRI defense.

0:45:58 Liz: His lawyer should not be making statements about his mental state, about Mangione's mental state because it could preclude – not preclude, but it could not help his defenses in New York. Maybe he could be subpoenaed.

0:46:10 Thomas: Can he say like, hey, he was talking out of his ass? You know, can Mangione get kind of distance from that or no?

0:46:17 Liz: Opened the door a bit. So he can – if he could be subpoenaed to New York, he could ask to testify at the trial by the prosecution. And he could asked substantially the same questions that he opened the door to in the press conference, which is questions about his mental state. If they pushed a little further and things went more to the core of attorney -client privilege that he hadn't already divulged, he can probably defer answering them. But he would have to stick to his answers that he already gave back in Pennsylvania. So I thought that was very poor behavior. And I don't really do many press conferences. And by not many, I mean I don't do press conferences. So I just don't have a high regard for some lawyers who get a high -profile case and they just start, you whatever they want when a mic comes in front of them. And that's what Thomas Dickey looks like to me.

0:47:03 Thomas: Weird. Do we know how he ended up with this lawyer or no?

0:47:06 Liz: Lives in Altoona and he's a criminal defense lawyer. That's what I can say. I mean, do we know anything about Altoona?

0:47:10 Thomas: Interesting. A great point. You make a great point, it does sound like that was a bonehead move, but we'll have to see who he gets in New York. Maybe one Liz Skeen. No, probably not.

0:47:29 Matt: I found a clip of the lawyer I think it might be worth playing just very quickly yeah I'll send it to you I just I I was watching it on silent with subtitles and his face is just very funny to me uh

0:47:37 Thomas: Guy definitely seemed Coen Brothers-esque.

0:47:40 Matt: But some of the things he's saying I think are worth playing. So

0:47:42 Thomas: Let's check out this uh hyper chicken freaking lawyer, small town Altoona lawyer. Let's see what he has to say.

0:47:49 Clip: Haven't seen any evidence that says that he's the shooter. So that's, you know, like I said earlier, and I wasn't kidding around, a couple of things. If you're going to report something, report it accurately. And remember—and this is not just a small thing—the fundamental concept of American justice is the presumption of innocence and until you're proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And I've seen zero evidence at this point. What are his feelings right now?

0:48:12 Thomas: Zero.

0:48:13 Clip: He seems outspoken.

0:48:13 Matt: He's not reading the paper?

0:48:14 Clip: Well, you know, I said earlier, use your common sense. If you put yourself and you or a loved one in that position, it's natural, I think, to go through many emotional stages. As far as him not talking, as long as I'm going to be the lawyer, I'm gonna do all the talking. You really feel that your client should be out in the public. You do not feel that he's a threat to you. Yeah, now you gotta understand, when you set bail, the judge could set a million dollar bail. Bail. It could be $5 million bail, but damn it, you get bail. That's what you do. And like I said, anytime you look at the criminal justice system, pretend you're that one in that spotlight. You're going to want to be out. And, you know, so yeah, I think he was entitled to bail and the judge makes it $100 million or $10 billion or $100,000. He's entitled to mail, but to simply say no bail in all due respect to a judge, I believe bail should have been set. If you charge a person, if the The government charges a person with a crime. They have to prove that, okay? And they have to have some evidence, all right? So, you know, we got it. Like I said, you can look on this table, and here's all the evidence I have right here.

0:48:33 Matt: Apparently. No. Well, that's insane. He is a fugitive and a high -profile murderer with lots of money.

0:48:55 Liz: This is so weird.

0:49:21 Matt: The evidence table.

0:49:21 Liz: Yeah,

0:49:22 Clip: Zoom in. Zoom in as close as you want to. Nothing. I've seen nothing. I have nothing.

0:49:31 Liz: It's it's really not confidence inspiring.

0:49:33 Matt: Could really just not talk. His face too, it's well worth watching. But yeah, you don't have to say anything.

0:49:36 Thomas: You but that's why I wondered if, if, this lawyer latch onto this for the public kind of thing yeah

0:49:42 Matt: He's standing right in front of a giant Logo's firm, so I'm going to go ahead and say yes.

0:49:46 Liz: Honestly, yeah. I mean, he could have just been the first guy to run to the courthouse. Really? That that could also be it.

0:49:53 Thomas: Because I don't, I'm not sure how much his Mangione's family is like supporting him, I actually don't know um

0:49:59 Liz: Well, that's why I mean it's possible that Mangione does end up with a public defender because I mean I don't know. Nope.

0:50:04 Thomas: Liz skeen baby oh my god that's going to be huge for gavel gavel uh please let us know

0:50:12 Matt: You've given away your whole strategy today, so good.

0:50:13 Liz: Exactly. I mean, there's not to in cases like this. You just have to look at basically the two things, EED or NGRI. If it's not a case that's triable on the evidence,

0:50:26 Thomas: About timeline? I mean, this kind of thing I imagine usually takes a while. But you said they have to do that thing within 30 or 90 days. I forget which of

0:50:32 Liz: Have 90 days to get him to get a governor's warrant. That once they get him over to New York, um, they haven't indicted him while he's out of state and they haven't indicted him, they can indict him while he's out of state. They can wait until he gets to New york. Normally they, they tend to wait until it gets there. So once he gets into New York he'd be arraigned in what's known as criminal court. He's held, uh, bail or he's remanded to Rikers. Way, Either they have five days after he first appears in criminal court to file an indictment. So they have 5 days to do what we call grand jury action, take grand jury action. That, his case from gets New York criminal court to New York Supreme Court, which is not actually Supreme Court. It's a trial -level court, criminal term. And in court, he'll be rearranged on the felony indictment plead, presumably not guilty. Then the will write any sort of motions they want to write as to potential suppression of any statements, any evidence, anything like that. That's when they also have time to file psych note, what we call psych notice, which is like notice of an NGRI defense. The prosecution will be responsible for providing the defense with a lot of discovery. That whole process will take several months at least.

0:51:42 Thomas: Well, any other thoughts? I mean, this has been great, we've covered it so completely. I love having Liz Skeen with with the New York centric, the very specific experience. It's been fantastic. Anything else you want to tell us about this case?

0:51:55 Liz: It. I mean, I think, you know, watch the space. It's going to be really interesting. It'll be interesting to see who his lawyer is. It will be interesting see how the Manhattan District Attorney's Office chooses to prosecute this. And it'll be really interesting to learn, I think, and I think we will, about the NYPD investigative techniques, the video surveillance canvas that led them to figuring out who this individual was. And also to the extent, the one thing I would really watch for is whether any sort of facial recognition technology was used. Really interesting field, really problematic, and we'll learn more about that.

0:52:29 Thomas: Right. Well, thanks so much, Liz, for taking the time. We really appreciate it. This was fascinating.

0:52:34 Liz: You. Always a pleasure.

0:52:35 Matt: Times.

0:52:35 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

0:52:53 Thomas: Ready? Is Walter ready that's

0:52:54 Liz: I'm ready I Walters is ready as he's gonna be pop

0:52:59 Thomas: I'm not hearing bone noises give

0:53:03 Liz: I gave him his boat and then he just came running back I don't know I yeah, that is a very good question. What is the... Why can't New York...

0:53:07 Thomas: Him another bone quick no wait for wait for your wrestling to stop and then yeah

0:53:13 Liz: I'll stop wrestling. I will stop wrestling That a a very good question um sorry that's my faucet talking give it a second yeah that's my faucette talking it's

0:53:23 Thomas: We got a haunted heater for matt and a haunted faucet for you this is yeah oh my

0:53:27 Matt: And a talky faucet.

0:53:30 Liz: Like a whole it's a whole New York is I mean New York apartments are truly something um and the dog's talking I mean like everyone's just to hear it it's so crazy give it it I

0:53:42 Thomas: Is so funny what what the hell is that like

0:53:45 Liz: Googled it and it's like not good it like doesn't speak well to the faucet you know it was like if your faucet makes weird noises like this it's not it doesn't Speak like okay oh my god what is this do you hear that it's so crazy

0:53:55 Thomas: Not great news oh holy shit my god what being visited by a ghost of

0:54:03 Matt: Is your apartment falling apart?

0:54:07 Liz: My God all