Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, has received more public support than is typical for a man charged with first-degree murder. As positive public opinion for Mangione increases, Fordham Law Professor Cheryl Bader explains the gray area of American law, jury nullification, and what it means for the defense of Mangione.
“It’s not a legal defense sanctioned under the law,” said Cheryl Bader, associate professor of law at Fordham School of Law. “It’s a reaction by the jury to a legal result that they feel would be so unjust or morally wrong that they refuse to impose it, despite what the law says.”
…
Still, the jury selection process, known as voir dire, is designed to weed out people who are unwilling to follow the evidence and the law. Bader said she’s skeptical a jury would nullify here because the allegations are so serious.
“This is not a case of (Mangione) like throwing blood on this guy as he’s walking into the convention,” Bader said, referring to the scene of the shooting outside an investors’ conference in Midtown Manhattan. “If the jury finds that there’s evidence that he ended this man’s life in cold blood, I don’t see the result being an acquittal because of anger toward the health insurance system.”
…
The practice can strike against the rule of law in contradictory ways. In the lead-up to the Civil War, many juries in the North refused to convict people accused of helping slaves escape. However, during the Jim Crow era, some juries in the South declined to convict White people who were accused of killing Black people, most infamously for the murder of Emmett Till.
“It can also be used as a disregard for the rule of law without a just purpose,” Bader said.
Read “What is jury nullification and what does it mean for Luigi Mangione’s defense?” on CNN.
