The U.S. legal system is built on the foundation of “innocent until proven guilty,” while everyone is entitled to a fair trial. However, a common concern is unequal access to legal counsel, while prosecutors often have more resources than defense attorneys, leading to an uneven playing field.
Legal experts are now warning that it may be difficult for accused killer Luigi Mangione to receive a fair trial—as online support could result in “jury nullification,” where some may opt to vote to acquit, even if the evidence of his guilt may seem overwhelming.
According to the Fully Informed Jury Association, jury nullification can occur when the panel in a criminal trial “returns a not guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law.”
Online Support Continues
Jury nullification is legal in the United States, and Cornell’s Legal Information Institute further explains that it is “technically a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury,” yet, “counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury.”
In addition, while individuals are not allowed to attempt to convince a jury to nullify the verdict, it could be happening on social media, where Mangione has received so much support.
Several online defense funds have already been created for the 26-year-old Mangione, who is accused of having shot and killed Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, two weeks ago. Though crowdfunding platform GoFundMe pulled a campaign in support of Mangione, another website, GiveSendGo, raised more than $100,000 as of Sunday.
A Reddit thread to the subreddit “r/Ask_Lawyers” has also seen discussions as to whether it will even be possible for prosecutors to find an unbiased jury and if jurors could be punished if they attempted to nullify the verdict.
“In the age of information, when the general public enjoys widespread access to news and social discourse through apps, social media platforms, and the internet, it is unsurprising that concerns regarding the potential for biased jurors have emerged,” explained John J. Perlstein, a nationally recognized personal injury and wrongful death attorney.
“However, potential jurors have always had access to news and the opinions of others, ultimately shaping their own, so I don’t see the newer distribution channels of information and opinions being game changers,” Perlstein added. “It is still incumbent upon the lawyers in the courtroom to ensure that a fair and impartial jury is impaneled.”
The Growing Concern Of Nullification
Luigi Mangione has become something of an online folk hero, but he is hardly the first individual to gain such fame ahead of a trial. Still, the issue of jury nullification is one that Craig Barkacs, professor of business law and ethics in the MBA programs at the Knauss School of Business at the University of San Diego, said has long been a contentious and debated aspect of the legal system—and it could certainly come into play when this case heads to trial.
“The O.J. Simpson trial is frequently cited as a quintessential example, highlighting the deep divide in public opinion: some argue it exemplifies a profound failure of the prosecution, while others view it as a crucial exercise of jury independence,” Barkacs added.
“In our digital age, social media platforms amplify these divisions, turning legal cases into battlegrounds of public opinion. The recent killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson exemplifies this phenomenon, with social media becoming a conduit for conflict and discussion,” Barkacs continued. “Platforms like Twitter and Facebook not only broadcast but also shape the narrative, fueling further discord and contention.”
Potentially high-profile cases may capture widespread attention, and there is a risk that conversations on social media could significantly influence public perception.
“These platforms allow for rapid dissemination and amplification of debates, often leading to polarized views,” said Barkacs. “As public discussions intensify, jurors might find their perspectives swayed by the pervasive narratives they encounter online. When jurors begin to view the law as unjust or a severe conviction as unwarranted, they may be more inclined to exercise jury nullification.”
Trial By Media
High-profile cases have also long caught the attention of the American public, and that has created complex situations for the judicial process.
Social media could make the situation worse, as it isn’t just “experts” on TV offering insight, but every armchair barrister debating the case in real time. Even now, users are presenting evidence—some of which has resulted in a spread of misinformation.
Despite judges instructing jurors to avoid media, the pervasive discussions often challenge jurors’ ability to remain impartial.
“This phenomenon, known as ‘trial by media,’ exerts significant pressure on the court, as public narratives can overshadow the strict interpretation of the law,” warned Barkacs.
“Social media not only impacts jurors but also fuels political movements advocating for nullification,” he suggested. “Activists can leverage platforms to promote their causes, influencing juror decisions in pursuit of perceived moral justice. This digital activism complicates the defense and prosecution strategies, as legal teams must address the media narrative to ensure a fair trial.”
Moreover, the spread of misinformation on social media can further distort public perceptions, leading jurors to form skewed views that hinder their ability to deliver a fair verdict.
“Courts may need to extend voir dire or consider a change of venue to screen for potential biases,” said Barkacs.
The Defense Needs To Sway One Individual
It has also been noted that while prosecutors need to convince the entire panel of an individual’s guilt, the defense team needs to reach just a single individual.
“Even in the absence of full-fledged jury nullification, it only takes one dissenting juror to result in a hung jury, potentially leading to a mistrial and complicating future convictions,” explained Barkacs.
No doubt, in the era of social media when it comes to high-profile cases, judges will face an uphill battle in ensuring that some individuals will truly receive the fair trial they deserve. This cuts both ways, for the accused and the victim alike.
“Judges typically instruct jurors to base their verdicts solely on the facts presented and the law, not on personal beliefs or perceived fairness,” Barkacs suggested. “However, the concept of jury nullification often goes unmentioned, subtly allowing jurors the discretion to act upon their convictions if they deem it necessary.”
