Gavel Gavel - Liz Skeen on Luigi Mangione's Case WITH 1/30 RULINGS UPDATE

Transcript

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

0:00:14 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Gavel Gavel. I'm Thomas Smith. This is, well, it's episode 55 of Gavel Gavel. With a chaotic weekend, Matt and I weren't able to connect to talk about his travel to Minneapolis, but I believe we're going to be doing that for Wednesday's show, and if not, Friday. Either way, this week. But that's okay, because I had a backup plan, which is to publish this fantastic episode of Gavel Gavel with Liz Skeen about Luigi Mangione. Now, this was recorded a little while back, but it gives a really excellent breakdown of sort of the pending issues in the case. And then it turns out, you might have seen in the news, the judge issued some rulings that I will be able to tell you about after the episode. I'll come back for a little update on what happened. It's really interesting. And so even if you heard the Gavel Gavel episode already, you Might want to check out the update at the end or, you know, just listen to the whole thing again. It was really fun. It was good. This is great. Either way, I'm excited for you to hear it. I'm excited to tell you the update and sort of do a scorecard almost of Liz's predictions if you'd like. So we'll go to our first break and then I'll be on with Liz. Support the show, patreon.com/gavelpod. Thanks so much to those who have. Makes the show happen. Allows us to continue to bring you this coverage. Alright, I'll be on with Liz and then stay tuned after for an update. Gavel in, gavel heads. Just Thomas here for this intro. Got a bit of a change up today, but still staying in the New York court area. I wanted to get an update on the Luigi Mangione case, because that's certainly also a case that we very much will want to follow and keep track of, at least if not as in-depth and like transcript level as other stuff, at least keeping an eye on it, because it's a really important case and very interesting. This was just going to be like a gavel gavel bonus, but it's such good info. I just wanted to do it for everybody. And I felt bad because it took me too long to get this up. Liz and I recorded this a bit earlier, but it has such great information about the Luigi Mangione case. There's a couple of them actually, turns out. I didn't even realize that. And some of the evidence issues and some of the fights that are going to be happening. There was some recent hearings as well. This was before them, but explains them very well. It's not like we have rulings either. So it's a really good catch up to kind of where we are. Liz is going to tell us about why Luigi's probably going to prevail on some evidence stuff and some Miranda stuff, but what exactly will that mean for the case? How exactly does that work? I was just remembering "there in lies" — who was that? Colorado lady. Oh my God, guys. I knew it was the Colorado representative. And so I Googled it real quick to remember her name. And the thing I'm talking about is from 2021. Ah, boy, that hurts. Her tweet that was like "there in lie" is the problem. I just, Just, I can't, that was like five years ago. There's no way, there's no Way. Anyway, this is a simulation. I hate it and I'm old. Point is, even if Luigi prevails on some of these things, what exactly will that mean? There's the rub. There's another way of saying it that avoids me Googling Lauren Boebert. Either way, this was a great explainer. So grateful to Liz for coming on. Very soon, we'll be back with some more lively Baldoni after this. And the sandwich trial is waiting in the wings as well. So much to cover, so much to talk about. So I'm glad you're here with us. We'll take a break, which you can avoid at patreon.com/gavelpod. Hey, this was going to be just for patrons, so that's where you could have gotten this. So that's a terrible sales job. But patreon.com/gavelpod if you want to get the next thing that maybe I'll only keep for patrons. All right. After this break, I'll be on with Liz.

0:04:16 Thomas: Everyone's favorite New York attorney, Liz Skeen. How are you doing? Been way too long.

0:04:20 Liz: I am so excited to be back here. I am doing as well as anyone can be doing in the year of our Lord 2025. Exactly. I posted a meme on my Instagram that I do think summarizes this year,

0:04:28 Thomas: The last remaining moments of the year of our Lord 2025. We're recording this on New Year's Eve.

0:04:38 Liz: Which is just 2025 was the year that said, well, you didn't die. So that's where things are at. But a lot of interesting things to talk about. And I'm very, very excited to be on this show. And, and I've, I've been looking forward to talking about all this stuff. Exactly. Oh, yeah. Okay. So where are we with Luigi? There are two cases, two New York cases.

0:04:54 Thomas: Yeah, I keep seeing headlines here and there about Luigi, our one true lord and savior and our king, Luigi Mangione. Sorry. And I was like, there's got to be plenty enough for a Liz episode. And it's been so long. And I can't wait to find out what's going on. I mean, where are we? Update us who haven't maybe been paying close attention. Where are we in this process? What's going with Luigi? Oh, yeah.

0:05:23 Liz: There's actually a Pennsylvania case that I think is about mostly just kind of like kicking around, which is just for the illegal firearm. But there are two causes that are happening in New York. One is the federal case and one is the state case. And they're both proceeding on sort of more or less the same timeline and interesting updates from both. And it's funny, actually, Thomas, Thomas, because I was thinking when you asked about this, would there be enough to say? And honestly, I could probably talk. I won't do this for five hours, but lots of really interesting stuff in both. So yeah. There's a Pennsylvania case that's just about the fact

0:05:50 Thomas: Well, I already didn't know about a Pennsylvania case. What are you saying that is? Was that where they caught him or something?

0:05:57 Liz: That he had an illegal firearm on him. The idea being that's where they caught him. Yeah. So what happened was he shoots Brian Thompson, allegedly. He allegedly shoots Brian Thompson. And perhaps there will not even be a murder weapon, but we'll get there with respect to some of these hearings, on December 4th. So it's a little past a year ago of 2024. I know. I know it's been a year. People ask like why criminal cases take so long. And I can now tell you guys all about the process. But he shoots him allegedly. And then about five days later, he gets arrested in the great named town of Altoona, Pennsylvania, which we'll be talking about quite a bit in the McDonald's. So what's going on here? So a couple of things to think about that are happening here. So in the first instance, again, a couple reminders. New York State files their case. Not too long after New York state files their case, the federal government comes in and says, we're going to do our case as well.

0:06:00 Thomas: I don't remember. Okay yeah allegedly oh okay oh holy crap it's been a year geez wow all right yeah yeah right yeah did Scalia have something to do with this? There's a precedent for that, right? Yeah.

0:06:52 Liz: And this is sort of an interesting thing because this involves an interpretation of the constitution, the double jeopardy clause, which has been decided, which is to say the Supreme Court has been very clear that the federal government can prosecute someone for the same state conduct that's already been prosecuted. If someone gets acquitted at the state level and the federal government takes an interest in the case, they can re-prosecute the case. It's, in my view, actually a total misreading of the intent of the founders when they wrote the double jeopardy clause saying you can't be prosecuted effectively for the same crime twice. What the Supreme Court said was these are two different sovereigns, the state sovereign and the government sovereign, and you can. This is a very interesting Scalia moment in in terms of how he looked at the double jeopardy clause. So Scalia is not our best justice. But I mean, honestly, these days I'm like, well, I would take a Scalia over Alito any day of the week. Let's put it that way. Sometimes Scalia was such a committed textualist that he actually did come to the right answer. And he wasn't bad in criminal cases. So, Scalia was actually one of of the dissenters saying that the double jeopardy clause prevents double prosecution for the same offense. And so he said that, you know, the same offense is something that requires proof of the exact same elements. Andso it's not the best test. Yeah, it is. The actual wording is, I know,

0:07:55 Thomas: Yeah god I would I would too I'll be honest I would do mm-hmm mm-hm oh nice mm-mm what's What's the actual wording of the frigging, because it's just like a sentence in the constitution, right? And then like pretty quick, thou shalt not. Yeah, that seems, I mean,

0:08:36 Liz: Exactly. Nor shall any person for the same offense be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. I think I think it's very clear. Yeah. No, he was not perfect. His view was, okay, if it's the same

0:08:47 Thomas: Pretty straightforward. I would imagine that if it were you and I inventing the law, like I'm sure there could be cases where it's like, well, the federal law is like about a kind of a different element of it. I could imagine it. Like if, like, let's say just for an example, there was a armed robbery and the state's charging with robbery and if the federal charges are about like the gun or It's like, I could kind of see maybe, but like when it's literally just like, nope, two different thingies, sovereigns or whatever for the same exact set of facts, it does seem hard to imagine how they came to that conclusion. So, wow. One does in fact have to hand it to Scalia once in a while that he was like, none of this nonsense? Of course. Yeah. Okay. The element of surprise. No, I'm just kidding. Yeah, yeah.

0:09:28 Liz: Elements, you can't do double jeopardy, as opposed to overlapping conduct, which is the bigger one. The thing is, is that like, to have the exact same elements of, you know, maybe like a gun charge under New York law versus a gun charge under federal law, those are going to be substantially the same idea, frankly, like an illegal possession of a gun. But maybe the New York one has an additional element that you have to, yeah, anything like that. So I mean, well, I mean any number of things, especially with lawyers where we're just constantly looking to distinguish things. So that was his view on it. Point being, you are good to go for a double prosecution on the federal side. However, and this is like why I'm noting that it's also happening on the state side, New York state takes a much more progressive and I would view correct view of their own double Jeopardy Clause, which is the New York State Constitution is substantially based on the U.S. Constitution with a few additional things. And so our Court of Appeals has basically said, no, like you cannot engage in this prosecution for any sort of overlapping conduct. That's exactly

0:10:02 Thomas: Yeah. Hmm. Wow. Yeah, that makes sense. I didn't think about the fact that the state could like if one of them was going to do it, the state makes more sense. But like if the federal government and the Supreme Court is going to ruin that law, the State can be like, all right, fine. I guess you do it then. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Well, shit. When does that trigger? Like what actually triggers? Oh,

0:10:46 Liz: It. I mean, one of the things that's worth noting, and unfortunately we note during this time, is that the floor is the federal constitution, right? But states can have more protections. So that's the situation here. And the reason I kind of bring this whole lead up is one of of the things that you see in some of the filings and some of the activity that's going on in the state and federal case is Luigi's defense attorney is complaining that New York State is trying to work doubly fast to bring their case to trial first. And why are they doing that? Because if New York goes first, then the feds can always go second, right? I think it's

0:11:26 Thomas: Wait, I think I've had a bar question. Is this isn't it when like the jury like sits down kind of thing or something like that? Like when the double jeopardy actually triggers like when is is that? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's more of a bar thing than a real thing. Yeah. Wow. Speed it up.

0:11:36 Liz: When the jury sits. I mean, I've never had a case that involved a real issue of trouble, double jeopardy, but it's something Yeah. In some of the filings that I've seen, there's a lot of complaints of, oh, New York is trying to like artificially hurry up this case and some frustration on their account. And I will say the federal case was filed somewhat later, a couple of weeks after the state case, but it is going a bit slower. And so I'll tell you kind of the big updates that have happened.

0:11:51 Thomas: Yeah. Right. Well, yeah, I remember that perp walk thing, right? That was pretty stupid. They

0:12:04 Liz: There are two interesting motions that happen on the federal case and there are two interesting motions that happen on the state case and the federal case. The first interesting motion is there's a very long motion to dismiss the case that is, I think, a little bit kind of showboaty. It's not something that they're going to win, but it just goes through all the ways that Luigi frankly was mistreated and really a lot of like deplorable conduct on the part of like the Department of Justice. Yep. Yeah, yeah, exactly, so

0:12:34 Thomas: Had like 400 officers, like every single law enforcement officer available, like walked him to a car or something or van or something. What was that? That yeah ridiculous hmm really right yeah yeah yeah well is it sort of like the trump trial where

0:12:44 Liz: So a lot of stuff on really prejudicial behavior, you know, going to the extent of he can't get a fair trial. The other thing that they put into that that I thought was really interesting was they really go through how the federal government's decision to seek death penalty is totally not following proper procedure. They argue that they're seeking this for political ends. They're They're not using the appropriate sort of DOJ. I mean, of course they're not. Like Pam Bondi absolutely is not. She's basically just showboating this whole thing herself and saying, like, we're getting the death penalty for this guy. So they also are trying to dismiss the case on the basis of the fact that the sort of DOJ manual and how to go about seeking the death penalty has not been properly filed. Right. And they're all correct on that. I just don't think that any judge is going to dismiss a case on that basis. And there's not really a penalty, you know, where that's going to be the case. And so that's one of the interesting motions. And it's a really interesting, it's just a very long, really good piece of advocacy. And I think none of what's going to happen in that motion to dismiss is going to win, but I think it sets the stage for the judge to see kind of some of the unfair treatment. The second motion that's been an interesting motion that's being filed on the federal side, and you basically see a similar one on the state side. There are two parts to this motion. One part is that it's it's a suppression motion. Suppression motion relates to when statements and other items have been potentially unconstitutionally obtained from a defendant, so elicited statements in violation of Miranda or an illegal search, and the state seeks to use those as evidence. So the remedy from the defense perspective is called suppression. So there's a Suppression Motion, motion. And there's also an additional motion to dismiss counts three and four of the federal indictment. And that's really interesting. It hasn't gotten a lot of attention. And so I just want to preview this all on the federal side. So the first two counts of the Federal Indictment are both stalking charges. And count three is the actual sort of homicide charge. And And count four is a gun charge. The particular homicide charge that the federal government chose to pursue requires a sort of a predicate crime of violence. So the idea is that you killed someone with this other crime, this being the stalking charge. And they're arguing that the stalkings charge is not a sufficient crime of violence. And they are trying to dismiss it on that basis. I realize that's a bit complicated sounding. Yeah, it's exactly that.

0:15:22 Thomas: They were trying to do the like they're upgrading the the misdemeanor to a felony because it was in service of another crime and that crime was a kind of a misdemeanor and it was a little bit weird but is it that kind of thing hmm yeah that's interesting can you give us a a definition of

0:15:32 Liz: What's really interesting about this is the latest update on the federal case is that the judge put out an order back in December saying, in advance of this conference, the court requests the parties be prepared for oral argument and answer the court's questions regarding the defendant's motion to dismiss counts three and four. I mean, that's really big. The court is questioning whether stalking can be considered to be a crime of violence for the purposes of them elevating the homicide charge. It's really interesting. And I think it's going to be really interesting to follow what happens. Yeah, it doesn't. And according to the statute, the federal statute, which is section 924C, what a crime of violence is, is a felony offense that, and I quote, has as an element, excuse me, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or the property or another.

0:16:09 Thomas: Of a crime of violence. That might be a dumb question, but I'm trying to free myself of not thinking in a biased way of what I want to happen. If this were a case where some creep is stalking a woman, would I think like, well, that's a crime. You know what I mean? I'm trying to think like what's the definition that they use legally for a quote crime of violence because stalking, it doesn't seem like a crime of violence just like plain language wise, right? Yeah. Right. Did they really F that up? These idiots? Like, come on. It's like cop

0:16:57 Liz: Other. And I think you're right. Stalking does not per se have that. I think they have some really good arguments here. And not only that, but the judge certainly thinks that they do enough that he actually has ordered them to argue that particular portion of their motion and dismiss or be prepared to. And there's lots of other stuff that they've been filing that he is not telling them to be prepared. So I mean, like that is a takeaway. It's not like he's doing that to be polite. So that's the interesting thing going on in this. And I'd be really curious to see how this gets resolved and curious to see those arguments. And as I say, that'll be in on January 9th that those arguments are going to happen. The other part of this motion is one, they're trying to dismiss those charges on a very good argument that stalking is not a crime of violence. But two, they're also moving to suppress the items that were found in Luigi's backpack. And they're moving to suppress the statements that he made to the police because he wasn't read his Miranda rights. Oh, they 100% messed it up. Like not even a... Yeah,

0:17:56 Thomas: 101. Oh my gosh. Refresher for those like me who'd, I honestly, I don't remember those details. I'd heard something about it, but I don' t know the specific details. Like what happened? They really did forget? Right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Oh, really? Wow. Right, right. Okay, hmm. I got

0:18:08 Liz: Yeah, I mean, they really did. They basically didn't read him his Miranda rights until about 20 minutes into talking to him. And here's the thing. There wasn't really much that he said that is particularly bad or incriminating. When we did a Miranda episode, I think a couple months back, you know, I have won suppression. I've won statement suppression. But oftentimes I'm like, yeah, I got a bunch of useless statements suppressed. And when I say useless statements, I mean, useless to the government. The stuff that he said that he wasn't Mirandized for is not particularly bad. He gets asked what his name is, stuff like that. But it's not as though he says, I'm coming from New York and I shot and killed the UnitedHealth CEO. I think that the Miranda stuff, he will unquestionably win. Oh, yeah. I mean I think the statements that he made before he was read as Miranda rights will definitely be suppressed. The problem is none of them are that interesting, you know, that he gets asked apparently if his name is Mark Rosario and he says no. He gets asked for his real name. He get asked for date of birth. Originally he lies about his name, by the way. So I guess like, you, know, it is like bad that he lied about his name. Like that's the sort of worst extent of the statements, but they're not incredibly inculpatory.

0:19:22 Thomas: Gotcha. So it would allow him to kind of not, in case that matters, like in showing that he's doing something fishy, I guess they don't maybe get to use that. But remind me, the rule is that he has to be, I'm just surprised to hear the certainty on the Miranda thing.

0:19:31 Liz: So the way that it works is in order to kind of make a, make a claim that your,

0:19:37 Thomas: If they talk to him and kind of didn't actually, quote unquote, arrest him yet or whatever, like, aren't they free to do that? Or what's the details on that again? How's that work?

0:19:51 Liz: Your statement should be suppressed, you have to be, in the first instance, considered to be in custody. In this instance, he was very clearly, I would argue he was fairly clearly in custody, he was, one police officer comes, kind of corners him, keeps asking him questions. I don't think any person would have felt that they were free to leave in that circumstance. That's why, by the way, sometimes if you like see like TikTok lawyers and they tell you like the thing to sort of ask, and I probably have said this to people is, am I free to leave? Because that establishes a bright line of whether or not you're in custody. I think it's just fairly clear that he is in custody, yeah, because he's being surrounded by the police. Fair enough. So that's part one there.

0:20:25 Thomas: Even if he never asked that, like even if it's just because it seems like he is.

0:20:38 Thomas: Right. I just, I'm surprised our law is that chill. I just feel like it's usually so bad on this stuff based on the Supreme Court.

0:20:50 Liz: The other part of it is whether the police questioning is going to be constituting in some form or another, like an interrogation. And the rules on that are going to being, are the police asking this person questions with the intent of eliciting basically statements that are inculpatory, right? And so asking him questions like, because initially he lies about his name, asking him being like, well, why did you lie about your name? I mean, this is just clearly. And also all the police there, they weren't just like chatting up some guy in the street. They 100%, and there is testimony to this effect, they 100% believe that this person was Luigi Mangione. Like they thought this was the shooter. And so that's the other thing. It seems that like both basically the interrogation and is this person in custody? I think it's pretty clearly met. I think It's not going to be very hard for them to win on suppressing the statements before he gets Mirandized about 20 minutes in. Yeah. Oh yeah. And on this incredibly prominent

0:21:29 Thomas: So I think that'll be good for our audience to know because I bet what's going to happen, if you're right, I bet What's Going to Happen is a whole lot of news coverage and headlines of like, Luigi gets a statement suppressed, violation of blah, blah, blah. And I bet you everyone will think he's free to go. Essentially, like, I bet you, like that's kind of what's going to happen. So I'm glad that like, you know, our audience will know, like. That's probably not going to be as big a deal as you might think. But I mean, still interesting that they still fuck that up. Like, it's such an important case. It's such basic police stuff and they still fuck it up. It's incredible. Yeah, that's what I mean.

0:22:21 Liz: Case, like on top of it, like this isn't, it's so important and they all have their body worn camera or many of them at least have their body worn camera on. Like it's wild. Yeah. I mean, that just happens all the time. And I will say it just, I mean I guess the banal happens even in the most interesting cases, which is like this happens all the time on my cases, which is to say, yeah, there are a bunch of statements kind of upfront that do get suppressed and they're not particularly bad, but, and you know, I'm never going to say no to a win. So that's what's going on there. And you're absolutely right in terms of like what the headlines might be. I have clients all the time and not just clients, my friends saying to me all the time like, oh, like their Miranda rights were violated. Like, I mean, sure, but the remedy is not dismissal. It's just suppression, right? And that's what you just need to contextualize things. And now sometimes suppression can sort of be – exactly, right. It just depends on like what the

0:22:23 Thomas: Mean yeah like it's so important right yeah yeah right sure if that if all they have on you is like the statements you made yeah right that seems important uh I also feel like maybe why are you

0:23:20 Liz: Power it is, like the evidentiary power of what actually is being suppressed. So let me get to the other thing that is also, they're also moving to suppress, which is much more interesting, which is the stuff that's in Luigi's backpack. And that's two sets of things. It's the manifesto and it's the gun. No, I mean, mistakes were made. Let's put it that way. Let me like half shift

0:23:39 Thomas: Traveling with a manifesto you know like if you're trying to get away with it I don't I don't know that that's the the right move I'm just saying

0:23:59 Liz: Gears to talking about the state case as well. So this is, I was describing the federal case, but it's same motion to suppress fundamentally on both the state side and the federal side, but there's going to be some different laws at issue. The other thing I just want to mention about the state case, because I think we're going to spend the rest of the time delving into the suppressions issues, is they had charged him. And if people remember, I don't think people necessarily remember my podcast from a year ago, but my podcast From a Year Ago, I said there was no way that New York State could charge him with murder one because murder one requires some sort of aggravating factor.

0:24:28 Thomas: Right well in an effort to you know go crazy hard on on this uh defendant yeah ah okay right

0:24:31 Liz: And none of the aggravating factors under murder one could ever be used here. But of course, the district attorney's office of New York, in an effort to spite me, did figure out a way to charge him with murder one, which is in an effort to get him life without parole, to be clear. They sort of twisted his conduct and came up with this theory that what he was doing was terrorism. And so that's one of the aggravating factors that you can get to murder one for. So they got him indicted on that. And there's some very good litigation on the New York side, where the defense attorneys file some motions, and the court agrees, and the court dismisses the murder one charges. They say that this is not terrorism under New York law. So that was awesome. That's great. I don't know if you and Matt covered that, but it's really cool. Yeah, it's totally stupid. I

0:24:59 Thomas: That's right hmm so wait did we cover that are you saying we covered that or or not oh man I hate that my memory is so bad that I can't so that's awesome if we didn't cover that hip hip hooray that's cool because that's stupid I mean like it's not come on yeah yeah

0:25:35 Liz: Really like the judge in the New York case, Judge Caro. I also like his court attorney. Hopefully neither of them are listening to this, or maybe they, hopefully they are. But he's a great jurist, and his court attorney who helps them with writing opinions. Also a great, really intelligent individual. And they write a really good reasoned decision going through the New York law on what constitutes terrorism, looking at the legislative history of why you would actually be charging something as terrorism and so on and so on. And they basically just say that this is not like terrorism under our law. This idea of making a broad swath of people feel terrorized. As I say, there aren't so many healthcare CEOs walking around New York City. There are a few, but not so many that you can really call this terrorism when you look at the language of the statute, the legislative intent and everything. So they dismiss that. I mean, I think that was basically the government's argument. Yeah. More or less. I think it was basically a government's argument. I don't know more or less, I mean in like a probably less like obviously class stratified way, but yeah. So that gets dismissed. That's cool. That is the first thing that happens on the state side. And the second thing is they file, as I say, more or less a different but similar version of the suppression motion that I was just describing as to the statements that he makes to the police before he's Mirandized 20 minutes after they're called into this McDonald's and also to suppress the fruits of the illegal search, which is to say the gun and also the manifesto.

0:26:19 Thomas: But it does make the privileged you know a little bit more afraid of the proletariat so I'm sure they tried that argument yeah do you think or do we know if the same thing's going the other way where like the feds are like

0:27:11 Liz: And the reason you saw some headlines about Luigi in particular in December is, as I say, the state case proceeding a little bit ahead of the federal case with the state prosecutors really trying to make sure that it goes and any trial goes before the federal case, then you don't have to worry about double jeopardy. I'd be curious to know that.

0:27:32 Thomas: Agreeing to kind of slow down to make that also facilitate that.

0:27:38 Liz: I think there is a lot of like, I really think it is kind of a little bit like the movies sometimes on this where there's a lot of like intra-agency or intra-prosecutor snobbery. So I'm sure that there are phone calls between both of them. My friends who are state, not my friends. I have no friends who are prosecutors, but I know people who are state prosecutors and, you know, always feel that the feds are kind of a bit snobby to them. And I think, you know, the feds feel that state prosecutors are idiots and maybe not that bad.

0:27:56 Thomas: And we do know that

0:28:06 Liz: But yeah, yeah, exactly.

0:28:06 Thomas: Specifically this federal government has tripped over its own genitals sometimes trying to be too hard on something and blowing their case because of it. Interesting.

0:28:18 Liz: So I'd be curious. I'm sure that they are absolutely having conversations with each other. I'm, sure they said, like, listen, let us go first and the fed are like, okay, fine, you, know, something like that. But I wonder to what extent. I do think, like, conversely, though, I do think that the New York state prosecutors were probably kind of annoyed when the feds brought their case because it kind of takes the wind out of the New York case, right? Because it's this big, flashier federal case that's going to get more press attention, that sort of thing. So in both of these motions, both suppression motions, the suppression motion filed on the state side, the suppression motion filed on the federal side, both of them are arguing that it should just be suppressed. The statements and gun and manifesto should just be suppressed, you know, evidence that can't be used just on the basis of the motions or in the alternative grant me hearings. And New York hearings were granted. And those happened in December for about it was about like two or three and a half weeks or so. And I actually decided to stop by one day, not even knowing I'd be on this podcast. So I practiced in that same courthouse.

0:29:18 Thomas: Sure. Did you get backstage passes?

0:29:20 Liz: I'm in 100 Center Street and I heard that the hearings were going on and I thought that there were probably some pretty interesting legal issues. So I stopped by. I have a few non-legal observations that I think are worth sharing. The courthouse was pretty full, but I was able to get a seat. I explained also to the court officers that I actually worked there and I used to work in there. There are a large number of women there who appear to be fans. That is definitely

0:29:43 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. And they got they probably got to camp out to get those tickets. Right. I mean, that's not not easy. Yeah. Hey, look, this happens with a lot of criminals. And I'll just say that, like, this one's a better one than many of them. Sometimes it's like some awful killer that killed a woman or something. And somehow people are still throwing themselves at them.

0:29:49 Liz: The case and I think they do. And they seemed honestly like a really cute crew. I stayed until the end of the day and I rode down in the elevator with some of them and they were sort of like catching up on life and like exchanging Instagrams and talking about family plans for the holidays. I think that there's a crew that shows up pretty on the reg. Yeah. Luigi's a babe. Let's just be

0:30:27 Thomas: At least you know this is like one of the better ones I'll say he's a babe he's so much so that

0:30:33 Liz: Be clear. He's a babe. Wait, really? That's actually hilarious. Yeah. Well, there you go.

0:30:34 Thomas: Yeah uh I forget if we've covered it but he has to have like procedures on his website for how to send him nudes because it's like all right we're getting too many nudes and the guards are seeing those so if you'd like like there's actually like a notice on his web site yeah oh for real oh maybe it was on a different show I don't remember where it was but like for real

0:30:53 Liz: Like how to send nudes to Luigi and like, yeah, there You go. So So yeah, so that was like,

0:30:55 Thomas: There was a thing on like the website that was set up well or I can't remember it was like yeah but it was definitely like hey just know like guards are seeing that like because they process everything obviously through the mail like it was there's something about that so that's an indicator you know nice whoa yeah it does seem like when's the trial date oh okay not even okay

0:31:14 Liz: I thought, you know, I gotta say, I thought the vibes were good. And I enjoyed swinging by and watching it. And so those those hearings concluded sometime toward the end of December. Judge Caro apparently said that he won't rule until May, which seems like a long time. There's no trial date at this juncture. But both sides want to submit post-hearing briefs as to why suppression is appropriate. So I think he's allowed for an extended briefing schedule. Certainly on the defense side, they're not anxious to get a speedy trial here. So they probably asked for a longer one. He also realizes, no doubt, that this is a case that is closely watched. And for him to do a really rich and written decision is going to take him some time. So that's kind of where the where the schedule is at the moment. And so those hearings happen and there was testimony on those issues. And I think the particularly interesting thing is some of the arguments as to the suppression of Luigi's, the items found in Luigi's backpack. So what happens here is the police officers essentially secure and move Luigi's Backpack away from him. And in the process of arresting him, while they're also sort of at the McDonald's arresting him, they also search the backpack. And the issue here is whether or not that's considered to be something called a search incident to arrest or whether or Not there is something called

0:31:33 Thomas: Okay, I gotcha. Yeah, do they get to say like, well, what if there's a bomb in it and it's dangerous and we got to like, or something like that?

0:32:43 Liz: Exigent circumstances that justify exactly exactly the issue. And so, you know, the first instance, a search incident to arrest is, I would say, what it sounds like, which is okay, so you are being arrested. The police are probably going to want to pat you down and make sure you don't have a weapon on you, right? Or something, you know, just very basic sort of precautionary search. The point that the defense makes is, well, frankly, a few different points. One, the police at that point have secured the backpack and it's away from him. So it's not like he can just like, it's like he's being arrested holding onto the backpack across his his chest. So it's not a fair search incident to arrest, right? Otherwise, if you could extend it to that, then like search incident into arrest could be like they're in your home and they get to search your entire home. Like that's not what it's about. It's really supposed to be about what's on your person or your immediate – like you're in your immediate – the term they use is grabbable area. The other thing and then the sort of exigency thing is, you know, what they're saying is like, okay, like more or less, like if this was supposed to be a bomb in here, then they they would have behaved like a hell of a lot differently, right? And I think they're right.

0:33:59 Liz: I mean, I think the defense makes some really, really good points here. And New York has, and we're going to talk about the federal stuff in a second, but New York had a really good law on, in particular, the search of closed containers. Absent an exigency, you can't just go searching a closed container. Like, go get a warrant. And it's a particular line of case is called Gokey, which I've always liked because, or the particular case is called Gokey and then its predecessor's called Jimenez, but I've always liked it because Gokey is just a funny name, like G-O-K-E-Y. And it's one of the really good areas of New York law, which has this added idea of protection for these kind of closed containers. Another thing that's worth noting is, of course, this search happens in Pennsylvania, but New York's view is like you don't really get to just like, in general, it seems like New York law is pretty strong here. You don't get to just like go violate the constitution in a different state. And then you say it's fine back in New York. So that's kind of the issue there. And I think there's a really good chance that the manifesto and gun might be suppressed. No,

0:35:08 Thomas: Question. Was it New York police or does that matter? Okay.

0:35:12 Liz: It wasn't. It was Pennsylvania police and it doesn't really matter. It's going to be New York saying like, this is our law and we're not going to permit something that contravened our law, law being brought in as evidence. Exactly. Yeah, exactly that. And the idea of all this,

0:35:21 Thomas: Cause you wouldn't want to incentivize police, state police, just swapping people and abusing their rights like, or something. Yeah. Yeah.

0:35:30 Liz: By the way, is also just at the end of the day, it's like, you guys should have just gotten a search warrant. Like, that's, just do it right. You didn't have to do that. Exactly, right. Yeah.

0:35:33 Thomas: Just do it right, man. Just all they have to do. They, all they Have to do is do their fricking job, right? It's so funny. It's like, you don't want Luigi or this beautiful man to get away with it. We'll do your fucking job. And so that's interesting because how big of an effect do you think that might have?

0:35:56 Thomas: So in that case, as far as the trial goes, like when they're doing the trial, let's say the gun and the manifesto are out, that means essentially that as far as the jury is concerned, if they, you know, assuming they can find a jury that doesn't know these details already, the jury will just not know that that happened, right? They'll just have no, they'll have to try to prove it out with no, now it's kind of weird because when you get that suppressed, does the defense get to argue like, well, there's no murder weapon, you Know, like, do they get to like like, actually proactively say that? Yeah, you don't want to mess that one up.

0:36:17 Liz: Yeah. You have to be really careful because it could be opening the door. What good defense counsel would do is sort of discuss with the judge in advance what sort of statements would would be considered to be opening the door. And so it would probably be unfortunately like a more legalistic version of the statement, which is the like something like the government has not presented to you with evidence of the murder weapon, something like that. Right. As opposed to they didn't even find the murder weapons. You say that and that opens the door? Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Right? I think it's pretty unrealistic, unfortunately. I mean,

0:36:57 Thomas: Yeah, right, right. That makes more sense. Yeah. And you can't just, like, as a lawyer, kind of, that would be kind of a lie to say that. So, yeah, it's like, okay, but they don't present evidence of murder. Well, then, all right. You know, it is interesting, like if we assume that there is going to be somehow a jury of people who don't actually already know all these details, else I feel like a random jury of people is not really gonna parse that that well I don't think they'll be like wait a minute he said that they didn't present evidence you know I think they'll probably just think like no murder weapon but I just don't know how realistic is it to find people that just don'T already know like this story yeah yeah I just know humans and I just feel like we've

0:37:39 Liz: Basically impossible, right? You're not going to find 12 jurors that way. Maybe there might be a random one who doesn't, but that's also just not really the test. The test is going to be like, based on what you know, are you going to be prejudiced? I know. I don't think there is. I mean,

0:37:53 Thomas: Covered this enough times like I know legally what happens there it's like they'll probably know there was a gun, but they're supposed to like, quote unquote, not use that. But I just, people just don't work that way. Like, I just really don't. I just think that's a particular weakness of the system that I don't know if there's like a great answer to that, but who knows?

0:38:13 Liz: I think the sort of best chance that the defense attorneys are going to have on this case is some version of nullification, jury nullification. So the jury, although agreeing that this person is guilty, maybe in their hearts. They all sort of, you know, find a not guilty verdict. Jury nullification can be assisted by just like a bare bones or kind of pathetic government case. Right. Exactly. I will say my Manhattan juries, we kind of joke about like differences between

0:38:27 Thomas: Yeah. Cause then it really gives them cover. If the jury is wanting to maybe not find someone guilty, it gives them a lot of cover to be like, there's no murder weapon, man. Like there's There's a lot missing from the case. A lot was done wrong. It gives them a little cover.

0:38:55 Liz: The different boroughs, but like Manhattan jurys are real rule followers. And so if they're heard, the government has to carry this burden. They have to do this. They kind of want to hold the government to their burden. And I think if there's a little hint of nullification in there, the other thing is also you just need one juror to hang the case also. So of course, then you can retry, but it's a real nuisance for everyone involved. And it's just like good thing.

0:39:14 Thomas: Interesting. Yeah. Sure.

0:39:21 Liz: Listen, any day that Luigi is not convicted or any outcome that is a not like hung juries are a good outcome for defense attorneys unequivocally and a bad outcome for prosecutors unequivocally.

0:39:30 Thomas: Yeah. Very interesting.

0:39:32 Liz: So that's kind of what's happening over in the world of the state case. And I'm just going to switch back to the federal case for a second, because one of the things that they're arguing all the same stuff in the federal case. The thing is, is that the federal rules on some of this stuff, again, federal constitutional suppression is the floor, but states can always build it up a little bit. On the federal side, there's the doctrine of inevitable discovery that may damn Luigi.

0:39:51 Thomas: Yeah. If they can be like, well, we would have found the bag. We would have searched the backpack properly eventually.

0:40:03 Liz: Exactly. And that's more or less what they're saying is that, like, we would have searched the backpack eventually as part of what's known as an inventory search. And an inventory searches, you know, say I'm arrested holding three big bags. Right. And they don't search those incident to my arrest. But what they do is back in the precinct, it's the practice of you look through the bags, you itemize the items, you say, OK, Liz had a laptop. She had a cell phone.

0:40:03 Thomas: Yeah. That's... Yeah. Yeah.

0:40:28 Liz: Own this. The idea of an inventory search is actually supposed to be, it's like one of those sort of things that was supposed to be a good procedure, but now has become like a terrible thing, which is originally it was like you were just supposed to be taking inventory of arrested person's items to make sure that they got everything back. But now they've used it as a way to kind of like go around the search warrant requirement. Absolutely correct. And

0:40:48 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it's like on one hand, I get the idea that they were going to find it OK, but it just seems like that very incentive could be why the policing is so lazy in this case. You know, like maybe if they didn't have this backstop of like, well, if we violate rights and kind of mess up like, yeah, whatever, we'll be able to just kind of like get it anyway. It's like, Well, maybe that's the reason they're violating people's rights and maybe they should be held to these constitutional rights a little harder. Ooh. Oh, wow. Hmm. Hmm, yeah. Dang. Well, screw you, federal law. I'm trying to think, I don't know how important it is, but what's the thing that would, like, if it's the same evidence, so is that leaving the door open for like, oh, they grabbed one thing out of the backpack early, they can't ever get that, but maybe other things in the backpack they could get? Is that kind of what that leaves the door opened for? Just hypothetically.

0:41:16 Liz: You could basically be the New York Court of Appeals in saying this because the New York Court of Appeals looked at the doctrine of inevitable discovery. And what they said was more or less what you said, right? And what They said was permitting its admission into evidence affects what amounts to an after the fact purging of the initial wrongful conduct. And it can never be claimed that a lapse of time or the occurrence of intervening events has attenuated the connection between the evidence ultimately acquired and the initial misconduct. The illegal conduct and the seizure of the evidence are the same. What the New York Court of Appeals says is inevitable discovery is not going to apply. They reject the doctrine where the evidence that is sought to be suppressed is the evidence that was obtained in the illegal search. I mean, they basically say, like, there's no trap door here. Like, come on. And federal law doesn't recognize that. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Seriously. I mean, they've really cabined the world of inevitable discovery, right? Like it's just not, the New York courts have, I don't really know how much is really gets in there, but I think that's basically it. Like inevitable discovery is just really not a big

0:42:40 Thomas: You mean the New York court in a good way? Nice. Just do it right.

0:42:49 Liz: Issue under New York law because just do it right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah it totally,

0:42:52 Thomas: Do it right, cops. It's not that hard. I feel like I could do it. It's like, how often are you making big, high profile, like how often is this happening that they can, oh, I got too excited. I blew, you know, it's like just do your job. It's the main thing you do. Just do It. This isn't like, if it was a super technicality thing, it'd be like, all right, but it's like pretty basic, you know.

0:43:16 Liz: Totally is. And there are other states also that, that also agree with this rule, but you know, I'm noting that New York Court of Appeals said failing to exclude wrongfully obtained primary evidence would encourage unlawful searches in the hope that probable cause would be developed after the fact. This is from the New York court of appeals, but they're quoting Oregon in this. So

0:43:32 Thomas: Well, there you go. No. Yeah. Yeah, but okay. Very interesting. Wow. Yeah wow really really excellent breakdown and so

0:43:35 Liz: I mean, like the logic is really plain to see here, but unfortunately the federal government has not been good with following this or the federal judiciary has not been good with this. So that's where we're at right now is, you know, we're waiting for, um, there's gonna be some post-hearing briefs that are going to be dropping in the state case in the next couple of months going through what happened with these hearings. There's going to meet these interesting arguments on the federal side as to whether or not they didn't meet the actual predicate crime that they needed to for two of the charges, which would be really interesting, which is whether or not cyber-stalking and stalking constitutes a crime of violence. And that's kind of where things are going. So things are chugging along, but there's still a lot ahead of us. I mean, listen, I would love to like get a transcript after the fact and go through it on either like an OA or a Gavel Gavel. New York is like not a video and audio oriented state. So the best we can do is get the transcripts. And that's on January 9th in the Southern District. And it's going to be these arguments on whether or not the like counts three and four of the federal indictment should be dismissed because they haven't kind of met their predicate crime requirement.

0:44:23 Thomas: One more reminder I think the next thing we're looking at is you said there's a hearing coming up pretty soon and is that anything the public can like you know is it just like getting transcripts after the fact maybe or what? Yeah but that isn't stuff we ever get to like see or hear you're right. Yeah. Yeah, that will be very interesting. Mm-hmm. Con law dog, I did. Yeah?

0:45:04 Liz: Because the argument being that stalking and cyber stalking is not a crime of violence. And that happens January 9th. So that's going to be pretty interesting. I would just say it is encouraging and interesting that the judge has asked for arguments on this because they have filed lots and lots of stuff that the Judge seems to have decided just on the papers, probably not necessarily in their favor. And the fact that the arguments are asked for here is quite interesting. And I'll even read the exact language of this because I thought the The judge's little order from the federal side was really interesting. Of course, this is my dog. I don't know if you heard my dog in the background also commenting. The court requests both parties be prepared for oral argument and to answer the court's questions regarding the motion to dismiss three and four. They will allot 30 minutes to the government and 30 minutes of the defense. And then they say, you know, as to the other issues, as of the date of this order, given the extensive and excellent briefing by both sides on other pending motions and issues, the court does not believe oral argument on the remaining motions is necessary or would

0:46:00 Thomas: That's interesting. Throwing a little compliment in there. I like that. Thanks, court. Court?

0:46:05 Liz: Be helpful to the court. So pretty interesting that the court wants this. I know. It was like, right, nice. Extensive and excellent. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yes. State court stuff, we're not getting

0:46:12 Thomas: Oh, gosh, thank you. I guess I'll take it. Well, that was a great breakdown, Liz. So nice to have you back on the show, and keep an eye on this, and I can't wait to have you back for maybe after hearing. We will see, you know, we'll see what happens. I imagine a decision would come. Well, I guess sometimes they can come pretty soon after that, right? But it just depends on what he wants to do. Yeah. What are you talking about? You're a celebrity there. You're totally,

0:46:37 Liz: A decision until May. And then I think, you know, the federal court stuff. I don't know. Maybe we could get a pretty there's a lot of stuff going on there. But those arguments are in January. I I think we could get something in the next month or two afterwards. I don't think it'll be too long thereafter. So very, very interesting there. But yeah, lots of good stuff. There will be continued developments. I will continue to try to like sneak into the, not sneak, exercise my legal right as a attorney and member of the public and go watch the proceedings in the state courthouse.

0:47:02 Thomas: Yeah. That's awesome. That was excellent. Thanks so much. Great hearing from you. Talk again soon. Okay. So of the main issues from this episode, we had the backpack evidence and the dispute over

0:47:12 Liz: Thanks so much. It's so nice to be on here.

0:47:26 Thomas: Whether that search was proper. And I think Liz broke down exactly what was going to happen there. We also had the statements given because of possible Miranda issues and also the whole stalking thing, whether stalking is a crime of violence. Now that one is interesting. I'm going to tell you about the judge's order. So I'll save that one for last because it's kind of the most complicated. So quickest one to get out of the way is about a week after I recorded this with Liz, the government and Mangione were able to come to an agreement. Basically, the government represented that it's only trying to admit Mangione's statement, providing his name as Mark and Mark Rosario and none of the other statements that Mangione made because of this in this joint letter they're like well if that's all the government's going to try to get in basically just that he says his name is Mark and Mark Rosario then we're gonna not fight it anymore we're not we're going to withdraw our motion so defense withdraws Mangione's motion to suppress his statement so that's that one's easy and then just on the 30th so a couple days ago We got decisions on the stalking thing and the backpack. The backpack one, I mean, it's pretty much how Liz drew it up. The judge is going to allow the backpack, I'm not the lawyer obviously, but I can just read the judge's conclusion to you. In sum, numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement, as well as the federal search warrant actually issued, preclude suppression of the backpack and its contents in this case, whether through the discovery of the loaded magazine during a pre-transport safety search, the recovery of the remaining items in the course of an inventory search at a police station, or the inevitable discovery of all the contents through the federal search warrant, even excising references to any items found or seen after the magazine firearm and or silencer were found. Accordingly, the motion to suppress the backpack and its contents is denied. I believe that's pretty much what Liz said. Inevitable discovery. There's also some talk. I read the whole decision just for fun. It's really interesting, especially after having a a breakdown by Liz. It's just fun to see how that turned out. This one doesn't really seem close to the judge. The judge just seems to think like, ah, this is, you know, so many different reasons. It's like inevitable discovery. There's good faith. And there's a procedure that they gave as evidence, like here's our normal procedure for inventory searches and that kind of thing. And we followed it. And therefore, so it just seems like this one was not a close call for this judge anyway. Interesting paragraph here, though, I guess at the very least, the judge said While the defendant likely has the better of the argument on search incident to arrest, the court need not belabor that point because, as explained more fully below, the entire contents of the backpack fall squarely within several exceptions to the warrant requirement, most notably the inevitable discovery doctrine, through a combination of either pre-transport safety search or an inventory search, followed by the federal search warrant, which plainly was supported by probable cause without reference to any information learned outside of the permissible bounds of either of these two precursor searches. And then this is why I think the judge didn't find this particularly close. There's a footnote there. Footnote seven, although neither party argued this point, the contents of the backpack would also likely be admissible under the good faith exception based on the federal warrant. And it quotes the case law there and says the quote is the exclusion of evidence is inappropriate when the government acts in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant, even when the warrant is subsequently invalidated. So that's one of those times where the judge is like, no one even argued this, but also this. So looks like that one, good try, but it wasn't particularly close for this judge. Okay, but now we have the death penalty thing and the stalking. This one is super complicated. I'm not going to try to do a lawyer breakdown of it, but was really interesting. And maybe this is like a deep dive we can do in the future, just about how this works in general. It's really fascinating. And just to refresh, I'll read from the judge's words. The crimes charged in counts three and four require that the stalking crimes in counts one and two meet the federal statutory definition of a crime of violence. As a matter of law. The defendant has moved to dismiss counts three and four on the grounds this requirement is not satisfied. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. So Luigi prevailed on this one. And that means the death penalty is off the table for this case because count three, I guess it looks like was the only one that could have been capital eligible. And so since that's out, the death penalty is out. So that's good news. Really interesting to read the judge's decision here. And again, I do think this would be great for a breakdown with an actual a lawyer. But just to give a kind of a preview of it or a taste of what the decision was based on, it comes across to me like the judge is not particularly happy about this, having to rule this way. Might as well read it right off the bat. The question before the court is whether under the relevant statutes and Supreme Court precedent, the crimes charged in counts one and two are crimes of violence. The court would be remiss not to note at the outset the apparent absurdity of the inquiry. The defendant is charged with selecting a stranger to be killed based on his employment, carefully planning the killing, including identifying where and when the selected victim would be most vulnerable, traveling across multiple states to carry out that killing, and then gunning the victim down on a public street in midtown Manhattan using a handgun equipped with a silencer. No one could seriously question that this is violent criminal conduct. And yet, over the course of the last two decades or so, the Supreme Court has embarked upon a legal journey explained herein that now requires lower courts to engage in an analysis totally divorced from the conduct at issue and centered on the hypothetically least serious conduct that the charged crime could possibly cover. This gets really complicated in like an IRS way. It's like, this is the categorical approach. And then there's the modified categorical approach. It goes through all this language about exactly how to do it. But what I gather is essentially because you haven't proven that the defendant has actually done these things, When you're looking as to whether or not an offense is a crime of violence, you have to look at it, again, I'll quote, the inquiry is limited to whether an offender has been charged with a crime that, as defined in general for all possible cases, inherently meets the force requirement such that the government must always prove beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of its case that force was used, attempted, or threatened. What I think is so interesting about this and why I would love a deep dive is the judge notes that this is something that happened in the past 20 years and relatively recently. And it strikes me that this a change in the Supreme court's interpretation, taking this judge's word for it, that has kind of gotten a little more defendant friendly in a way that I just wouldn't have thought this court would have gotten. So it's interesting, but I think this makes sense because essentially what, what it seems to be saying to me is since you can't look at the facts of this case, because you haven't proven them, like you haven't proven what Luigi did yet. For example, you don't get to take those allegations and say like, well, that's obviously violent. So therefore you have to take basically the least violent version of whatever the offense is and see if that necessarily includes violence. In so many words. I mean, again, there's, there's so much text in this about the categorical approach and then the modified categorical approach and that stuff. But that seems to be what it comes down to. And the judge talks Well, if there's any way that these offenses could be successfully prosecuted without it needing and requiring violence and like also the mens rea required in that, then it can't be a crime of violence. So the example the judge gives is like, ex-lover could be stalking. It's so funny because we're talking about Mangione obviously allegedly shooting and killing the healthcare CEO. But since the charges we're looking at are the stalking ones and seeing if they're inherently crimes of violence, all the discussion is about like a jilted lover is stalking their ex kind of thing. And it's just funny that like that's the analysis you do and looking at Luigi Mangione and this healthcare CEO is just kind of, I don't know if it's ironic, but it's just kind of weird. It was one of those things. And so the judge talks about how, like, the stalking, which leads to death, could be theoretically, in another case, caused by, like negligence. So it could be that, you know, you're stalking someone and you're following them with your car and essentially through negligence causes a car accident, which results in death. And so therefore, since there is a possible version of this crime that doesn't necessarily involve violence and like the mens rea attached to that, therefore, they can't find that as a matter of law, it's necessarily a crime of violence. And obviously, there's more to it. There's more to it that a real lawyer could tell you, but I just want to give you a little taste of reading the judge's words. I just found it interesting. I think this is a really interesting decision and area of law, and it's further interesting to me that the recent... This judge is almost upset, it seems to me. Judge Margaret Garnett is almost upset that the law is this way. And it's like, well, the Supreme Court, in their wisdom, has made it slightly less easy to get the death penalty, which, again, just seems... It's not the court I know. That's not the Supreme Court I know and hate. So it's kind of interesting. All right. Well, there's your update. It's mixed. I think bottom line seems to me very good news that no death penalty. I mean, I think that's like over and above probably the most important thing. Sucks that the backpack's coming in. Not sure how much it matters because of what Liz explained in terms of what actually would have been excluded. And all in all, love Liz. Glad we did that. And hope you enjoyed this episode and this update. Thanks so much. We'll see you on Wednesday.

0:57:07 Liz: Luigi's a babe.

0:57:09 Thomas: Court? Oh.