Legal Analyst

Should we talk about how I got the mayor indicted or...

Should we talk about how I got the mayor indicted or...

Should we talk about how I got the mayor indicted or...

To have all of these press there, the media there, it was like perfectly choreographed. And what was the New York City mayor doing at this press conference, Your Honor? That just made it utterly political. And frankly, Your Honor, the mayor should know more than anyone of the presumption of innocence that he too is afforded when he's dealing with his own issues.

To have all of these press there, the media there, it was like perfectly choreographed. And what was the New York City mayor doing at this press conference, Your Honor? That just made it utterly political. And frankly, Your Honor, the mayor should know more than anyone of the presumption of innocence that he too is afforded when he's dealing with his own issues.

To have all of these press there, the media there, it was like perfectly choreographed. And what was the New York City mayor doing at this press conference, Your Honor? That just made it utterly political. And frankly, Your Honor, the mayor should know more than anyone of the presumption of innocence that he too is afforded when he's dealing with his own issues.

And frankly, I submit that he was just trying to detract from those issues by making a spectacle of Mr. Mangione.

And frankly, I submit that he was just trying to detract from those issues by making a spectacle of Mr. Mangione.

And frankly, I submit that he was just trying to detract from those issues by making a spectacle of Mr. Mangione.

I was stunned that he was convicted. Yeah, I thought It was a pretty reasonable chance of involuntary manslaughter. I'm sure you've seen the TV, you know, the jury comes out, you know, malice murder, not guilty. And I'm like, that's right. You know, we expected that. Guilty of felony murder. I'm like, what? What? I was shocked by that. I was shocked by that.

I was stunned that he was convicted. Yeah, I thought It was a pretty reasonable chance of involuntary manslaughter. I'm sure you've seen the TV, you know, the jury comes out, you know, malice murder, not guilty. And I'm like, that's right. You know, we expected that. Guilty of felony murder. I'm like, what? What? I was shocked by that. I was shocked by that.

You know, it was days and days and days of jury deliberation. And the last thing that happened that day was they said, to be guilty of, I'll abbreviate it a little bit, to be guilty of felony murder, does that include intent to shoot? And to us, that question meant, we don't find the intent to shoot. So we were thinking, we're about to get an acquittal on that too.

You know, it was days and days and days of jury deliberation. And the last thing that happened that day was they said, to be guilty of, I'll abbreviate it a little bit, to be guilty of felony murder, does that include intent to shoot? And to us, that question meant, we don't find the intent to shoot. So we were thinking, we're about to get an acquittal on that too.

Because the judge said, oh yeah, if you're going to find him guilty of that, you've got to find the intended to shoot. Why would they have asked that question? So we were even more emboldened at that point not to ask for a mistrial, hung jury.

Because the judge said, oh yeah, if you're going to find him guilty of that, you've got to find the intended to shoot. Why would they have asked that question? So we were even more emboldened at that point not to ask for a mistrial, hung jury.

I think they put together a good set of circumstantial evidence, which they hoped and succeeded at convincing the jury that you shouldn't just find pure accident. They succeeded at that. And I don't have a problem with the jury reaching a verdict of negligence. I'm not a big Second Amendment fan, to put it mildly.

I think they put together a good set of circumstantial evidence, which they hoped and succeeded at convincing the jury that you shouldn't just find pure accident. They succeeded at that. And I don't have a problem with the jury reaching a verdict of negligence. I'm not a big Second Amendment fan, to put it mildly.

I think someone who has a loaded gun sitting in his lap needs to have his head examined. And conceivably with the trigger pullback, although it's in a bag, I mean, do you just discount all that? It's in a public grocery bag. Is that the way you intentionally shoot someone? Leave the gun in the bag? It was just so much nonsense.

I think someone who has a loaded gun sitting in his lap needs to have his head examined. And conceivably with the trigger pullback, although it's in a bag, I mean, do you just discount all that? It's in a public grocery bag. Is that the way you intentionally shoot someone? Leave the gun in the bag? It was just so much nonsense.

Your theory requires you to find that he's unbelievably devious and smart. and unbelievably stupid. And you take the stupid stuff and say, well, that's just because he's stupid. And all the other stuff you say, it's because he's devious. I think that's an unfair way to use our criminal justice system. It's fine for you to believe it. It's fine for anybody to believe it.