Defense attorneys for alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO shooter Luigi Mangione say prosecutors at the Manhattan district attorney's office violated his health privacy rights.
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.
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.