Tough crowd today.

Prove to me that the American justice system isn’t a game show. Other than the “unanimous decision” part, name one thing in a criminal trial that’s different from American Idol.

Double jeopardy is a legal defense that stops the government from trying or punishing a person twice for the same crime.

It’s a real thing.

Are you joking right now?

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, emphasis mine:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Double jeopardy is a legal concept that means a person can’t be tried for the same crime twice. Leading up to the revolution, there was an issue with British authorities charging colonists with trumped up charges just to harass them. And when they’d beat the charges, the authorities would just charge them with the same crime again, starting the entire process all over again. So they specifically listed a “no double jeopardy” clause in the constitution, because they had seen how a prosecutor could abuse the legal system to keep an innocent person perpetually locked up.

However, double jeopardy doesn’t typically protect someone across state and federal crimes. Courts have repeatedly upheld that you can be tried in both, because the two courts are entirely separate. So it’s interesting that they’re trying to use the double jeopardy argument to say that the state can’t charge him.

In case you weren’t making a joke: Double jeopardy

The overwhelming amount of evidence was actually a large part of why I consistently held that some of it was planted. His bag was initially searched at the scene of the arrest, then it was taken by an officer who wasn’t wearing a body cam. The bag was entirely off camera for around 10 minutes. Then when that officer came back with the bag, they searched it again and “found” the journal, manifesto, ghost gun, etc… None of which was noted during their initial search inside of the restaurant.

The police were under an extreme amount of pressure to arrest somebody. Anybody. They needed a patsy. And so my bet right from the start had always been that the evidence was planted.

You’re telling me the dude managed to evade a nationwide manhunt for an entire week, but didn’t think to break up the untraceable ghost gun? It could have been taken apart and scattered into a dozen trash cans, and they never would have found it.

And when people write manifestos, it’s because they expect to get caught and they want their manifesto to be seen. They want to send a specific message. So why would he hide for an entire week if he wanted the manifesto to be found?

The eyebrows don’t match either. Luigi’s were much bigger than the security camera footage of the killer. And anyone who has accidentally over-plucked their eyebrows can attest that they don’t just grow back in a week.

New York specifically has a very strict double jeopardy law. Stricter than the constitutional double jeopardy.

They won’t be able to convict him after the federal case is done.

Also he admitted to possessing a firearm in Manhattan, which there are no federal charges for, those would be local laws that you cannot carry one there without regulated permits.

He didn’t just plead guilty to stalking, he pled to interstate stalking resulting in death. The shooting was part of his guilty plea today, not a separate action like you suggest.

Not that I really have any hope or faith in our justice system- the government holds all the cards, and they are making an example of him. Getting double jeopardy protection will be an uphill battle.

People plead guilty for crimes they didn’t commit every single day. Coercing guilty pleas via lenient sentencing is literally a core feature of the US justice system.

He was facing the possibility of life in prison. I could see pleading guilty in spite of his innocence because of that (and there are many cases of people who pled guilty to avoid the possibility of a maximum sentence and were later exonerated).

As for the specific admission of stalking, shooting, and causing the death of Brian Thompson, I don’t extend the benefit of the doubt to the government anymore, to the point that the description of his flat affect makes me wonder if he was tortured. He was kept in solitary confinement for a long time (which I guess is technically already torture, but I’m sure the US government doesn’t legally consider its “correct” application such)- a couple of missed visits outside in a row can really fuck with a person’s psyche.

I don’t think it’s likely that they specifically and actively tortured him to force this exact confession out of him, but I do think he has likely been both intentionally and negligently psychologically harmed during his imprisonment, beyond what is unavoidable when holding someone against their will.

I try to think of it from the perspective of a Luigi who didn’t do it. He had gone a little nuts in the months before the arrest and had been living rough for a while after having cut contact with most of his family and friends and quitting his job. Suddenly he’s arrested because of his eyebrows, and they plant a bunch of convenient for prosecutors but nonsensical for the specifics of this case evidence. They probably rough him up during the arrest, then he’s reunited with his family who have enough money from a gofundme to hire great attorneys, and he’s getting fan mail and nude Polaroids for some reason. He’s still not exactly mentally stable and then he’s kept in solitary confinement for months, interspersed with incredibly high profile court appearances and a huge demand from the general public for his commentary on all of this.

Would it astound me if someone who had been through all that reacted by confessing to the crime? No, honestly. I could see that person reacting in all sorts of ways.

Maybe during sentencing or if there is ever a state trial, enough evidence will be put forth to tip it for me, or we’ll get to see enough of him speaking and reacting to things to get a better handle on what his mental state is, but until then, I’ve got evidence based reasons to doubt that he did it (the chain of custody on the backpack, the eyebrows not being convincing for me, and the utter pointlessness of getting a ghost gun and not disposing of it), so it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were on a jury deciding this, I would obviously receive more evidence, but I do need that before I can say it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plenty of innocent people have pleaded guilty if they thought it was the best way forward.