• 0 Posts
  • 7 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 25th, 2023

help-circle





  • I understand why it’s not good that a paralegal made a mistake and overheard a privileged conversation. I was offering a potential insight into rationale the defense maybe applied in deciding not to motion for a mistrial.

    I’m not an attorney myself but I have to believe any attorney willing to take this case would be smart enough to be very cautious about their phone conversations with anybody incarcerated.


  • “In fact, the paralegal listened to the entire call, then subsequently informed DANY prosecutors about the identities of the people with whom the defendant spoke,” Wednesday’s letter said.

    “DANY thereafter handled the matter as described in our previous letter. Moreover, DANY notified defense counsel of these facts in an email, dated April 22, 2025, thus, counsel was aware of this information prior to arraignment.”

    Mistrials aren’t generally automatic. One side or the other has to submit a motion. I’d guess the defense doesn’t want a mistrial because that would only delay things even further and it’s already going to drag on forever.

    The defense attorneys would know that Mangione’s personal calls are being monitored by default. They’d also know that even if the prosecution intentionally listened in to their privileged conversation, which they’re not supposed to do, nothing they hear can be used or submitted in court.

    Edit: I haven’t been following this case but apparently they haven’t empaneled yet so I don’t think they can even motion for a mistrial. Maybe this would be prosecutorial misconduct and that’s why there’s the change in prosecutor?