Defense attorneys for alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO shooter Luigi Mangione say prosecutors at the Manhattan district attorney's office violated his health privacy rights.
.Apparently most subpoenas for information are in fact signed by the attorneys. Only if the opposing side or the reciever wish to challenge it does the judge get involved.
Yes the entire point of the typical subpoena process is that everything goes through the judge who then lets the other legal team know, because pretrial discovery procedures are massively influential as to how a case can later play out when its in a further stage of trial.
For a great example of this, see how badly Alex Jones got fucked because he (and his lawyers) kept stalling and lying during the discovery process.
So it doesn’t seem like him signing it is abnormal. News stories do mention that the court date didn’t exist. I imagine that is probably common as well if the date hasn’t been set. But maybe not.
No, I think this is the core of your confusion.
Read the entire complaint the Defense submitted.
I linked the actual pdf of the whole thing in my main post.
Read the entire couthousenews article I also linked and quoted from.
The vast, vast amount of media outlets covering this story are:
Obviously downplaying tons of details that make the DA look bad
Frankly, are written by people with less expertise and knowledge of this level of intricacy of the legal system than you or I.
…
The Defense asserts that:
The Prosecution served Aetna with a subpoena, which has a specific court date set for them should they not comply.
That date did not, does not, and never did exist within the system of the Clerk of the Court.
What that means is the Prosectution did not make the Clerk, the Judge, nor anyone else aware of the fact that they had subpoena’d Aetna.
This also means they falsely threatened Aetna with a specific court appearance date that did not exist, was not real, was totally fabricated.
…
Yes, this technically is a ‘procedural mistake’, but only in the sense of entirely not filing your tax returns for 5 years is an ‘accounting mishap’.
It is an egregious affront to, again, the concept of a fair trial, because it demonstrates a willful and intentional lie.
None of that says it wasn’t common practice to do what they did. I think it is egregious, but if it is common than it won’t be as big a deal as it is being made out to be. It looks more like short cuts than actions that are more nefarious than normal.
Did Atnea refuse at some point, and this subpoena was the result? I haven’t heard that anywhere. Did they go over the top with the threat of being held in contempt of court? I think so, but it was probably boilerplate BS that goes on every subpoena.
Aside from all that. It is common for the prosecution to have information they aren’t allowed to present in court. So if they could have gotten the information anyway had they followed proper procedure, then it doesn’t automatically impact the fairness of the trial. That is why the jury decides the result.
I think you need more to say it impacted the possibility of a fair trial. Like proof they believed the request would have been denied if filed correctly. Or proof they knew they had more information than they asked for, that it was protected information, and they continued to read it anyway. Otherwise these “mistakes” only impact the lawyers getting sued or what not outside the scope of this trial.
Yes the entire point of the typical subpoena process is that everything goes through the judge who then lets the other legal team know, because pretrial discovery procedures are massively influential as to how a case can later play out when its in a further stage of trial.
For a great example of this, see how badly Alex Jones got fucked because he (and his lawyers) kept stalling and lying during the discovery process.
No, I think this is the core of your confusion.
Read the entire complaint the Defense submitted.
I linked the actual pdf of the whole thing in my main post.
Read the entire couthousenews article I also linked and quoted from.
The vast, vast amount of media outlets covering this story are:
Obviously downplaying tons of details that make the DA look bad
Frankly, are written by people with less expertise and knowledge of this level of intricacy of the legal system than you or I.
…
The Defense asserts that:
The Prosecution served Aetna with a subpoena, which has a specific court date set for them should they not comply.
That date did not, does not, and never did exist within the system of the Clerk of the Court.
What that means is the Prosectution did not make the Clerk, the Judge, nor anyone else aware of the fact that they had subpoena’d Aetna.
This also means they falsely threatened Aetna with a specific court appearance date that did not exist, was not real, was totally fabricated.
…
Yes, this technically is a ‘procedural mistake’, but only in the sense of entirely not filing your tax returns for 5 years is an ‘accounting mishap’.
It is an egregious affront to, again, the concept of a fair trial, because it demonstrates a willful and intentional lie.
They intimidated Aetna with a fabricated threat.
None of that says it wasn’t common practice to do what they did. I think it is egregious, but if it is common than it won’t be as big a deal as it is being made out to be. It looks more like short cuts than actions that are more nefarious than normal.
Did Atnea refuse at some point, and this subpoena was the result? I haven’t heard that anywhere. Did they go over the top with the threat of being held in contempt of court? I think so, but it was probably boilerplate BS that goes on every subpoena.
Aside from all that. It is common for the prosecution to have information they aren’t allowed to present in court. So if they could have gotten the information anyway had they followed proper procedure, then it doesn’t automatically impact the fairness of the trial. That is why the jury decides the result.
I think you need more to say it impacted the possibility of a fair trial. Like proof they believed the request would have been denied if filed correctly. Or proof they knew they had more information than they asked for, that it was protected information, and they continued to read it anyway. Otherwise these “mistakes” only impact the lawyers getting sued or what not outside the scope of this trial.