April 18, 2025 • 7 mins
Jesse Weber speaks with Mendte in the Morning about the latest in the legal world including the recent supreme court rulings and the Luigi Mangione case.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, a lot of big courtroom cases are going to
play out over the next few months, possibly over the
next year, and to get the latest on some of
that in some analysis so we can know what's going on.
Jesse Weber News national legal contributor and anchor on the
Law and Crime Network and co host of WLRS Always
(00:21):
in Fashion, which airs both Saturday and Sunday at seven pm. Hey, Jesse,
thanks for being here.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Good morning. A lots to talk about.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Yeah, there's a whole lot to talk about. Let's talk
about the case that is front and center in the
news right now. A Brago Garcia, the man that was
deported to El Salvador that the Trump administration refused to
turn around and bring him back and says there unless
El Salvador lets him out of the prison, they're not
going to bring him back from there either. What they say,
(00:52):
they'll provide a plane, that's what they said. So who's
right and who's wrong? Because this is still being fought out.
There's a federal court judge that is saying no, no, no,
you did the wrong thing and want to go back
to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I think the Trump administration is struggling legally to justify
what's happening here. I mean, most recently, yesterday, a federal
appeals court rejected the Trump administration's arguments that they didn't
need to comply with getting a Brego Garcia back.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
And by the way, this was a ruling that was penned.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
By an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan. So you're
seeing this kind of bypartisan level where the basic issue is,
you know, if you're the Trump administration and the Supreme
Court says you have to facilitate of Brego Garcia's return,
they're interpreting that as to be well, we just won't
put any obstacles in his way. If El Salvader wants
to send them back, Okay, their choice, But is that
(01:44):
really what the Supreme Court is saying. Sure, the Supreme
Court said, you know, there's a difference between facilitating his
return and effectuating his return, and you have to give
deference to the executive branch and their view and their
role in a foreign policy. But really, I think we
can all agree that if you were to shut off
the six million dollars that's going to tell Salvador for
(02:07):
them to house inmates, or if you were to provide
a plane right. This back and forth that we saw
earlier in the week between the El Salvador and President
and President Trump that you know, there's only so much
I can do, There's only so much I can do.
It feels a bit disingenuous. I feel if Brego Garcia
was anybody else, there wouldn't be this conversation.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
If the Supreme Court issued that ruling.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
The Trump administration, if they wanted this person back, they
would have him back. And what concerns me is, you know,
there's a lot of talk out there, he's a.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Known terrorist, he's a gang member.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
To just clarify that issue a little bit, Yes, there
was a court in twenty nineteen that deemed him to
be a gang member, but recently the court that's overlooking
this says, wait a minute, I looked at this evidence.
It's based on an uncorroborated statement of this witness who
actually wasn't accurate about where A. Brego Garcia was and
because he was wearing certain clothing that might have identified
(03:00):
him as a gang member. It's scant evidence, and at
the very least, at the very least, this is something
that should be litigated for purposes of due process. To
really determine whether or not he was a gang member,
a terrorist, and whether or not he should have had
some protection in the United States. So this is it's
bound to go back to the Supreme Court, and if
they provide more clarity, then it becomes a question of
(03:22):
what the Trump administration will do.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
There's so much I want to get to, but I
want to clarify one thing that you said, and that
is the Supreme Court and what they said. I listened
to a colleague of yours. I listened to someone else
who is a legal analyst on CNN, and she said
that she believed that the court ruling was mushy and
(03:43):
that because they just use the word facilitate that the
Trump administration has been very careful in saying, sure, we'll
provide a plane, so you know, and that's a long
way of saying I agree with you. It has to
go back to them. They have to say what exactly
they meant.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I think I will agree with that.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
I think the Supreme Court kind of gave out a
way to interpret this that is being taken advantage of
by the Trump administration. If it goes back to the
Supreme Court, where they say with finality now that we
have a better understanding of But basically they said is
we need more clarity from the district court and what
they want the administration to do now that if they
(04:24):
have that clarity, if they provide a more final order,
a more final conclusion, I think we all should be
able the lookout because again I know there's a conversation
going right now. Is the Trump administration not following direct
court orders, particularly now from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
That's going to be something to watch out for.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Let's talk about the alleged healthcare assass and I say allege,
even though there's video of him committing this crime. And
the interesting thing in this story, I believe is the
fight between the state and the federal government on jurisdiction
and who goes first and all the I think the
Feds just take over if they want to, don't they.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
I think the state case may go first.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
And let me tell you something, actually, I think for purposes,
if the goal is to convict Luigi Mangioni of what
is a ainus crime, you got the state charges the
easiest charge. So what do I mean by that? He's
now indicted federally? Okay, he's indicted for murder through use
of a firearm.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
And I have to tell you if you read the.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Statute very carefully, and by the way, we know why
the Feds want this because the death penalties on the table.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
There's an all back and forth on that.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
But if you're reading it correctly, there is an argument
to make that the only way that would work is
if the jury accepts that Mangioni was stalking Brian Thompson,
And if you read the stalking statute again, I think
there's a legal argument that Brian Thompson would have to
have known he was being stalked, and I think that's questionable.
Whereas if you go to the state case, one of
(05:53):
the most straightforward direct charges he's facing is murdering the
second degree intent to kill. Everything that we've seen, again,
he's innocent until proven guilty, but taking all the evidence
that we see, that feels like the most straightforward charge.
Now he's also charged with first degree murder that this
was a form of terrorism. I think that's on shaky
legal grounds. And by the way, this is coming from
somebody who filed the case from the beginning, and I
(06:15):
think the evidence against him is really strong, but there
is a question have prosecutors overcharged him in order to
get life in prison, in order to get the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Talk about the process. So even if he is convicted
federally of the crime, there has to be another hearing
or there has to be something else that happens before
they could possibly come back with the death penalty.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Right Coure. That's a whole, this whole separate issue.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
And one of the reasons why prosecutors across this country
and death penalty jurisdictions wonder whether or not they should
move forward with it is because it elongates the case.
So you not only need a jury that can ultimately
hear the case and determine whether or not somebody is
guilty or innocent, but then you have the penalty phase,
and they're aggravating factors, they're mitigating factors, and right now
(07:03):
there's a battle. His attorney's believed that the death penalty
should be taken off the table.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
They think that this is an outlier case.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
They think that Attorney General Pambondi's comments about the death
penalty has tainted a future jury. So they're trying every
which way to make sure the death penalty is not
an option for prosecutors.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
What's coming up on your show this weekend.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
We're talking about is someone replaceable or someone irreplaceable and
a lot of jobs, careers. It's I think it's a
fair question to think about how you're doing. And while
we might think everyone's replaceable, have you created a position
for yourself that it will be really tough that for
anyone else take your place?
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Well, that's always in fashion Saturday and Sunday at seven pm.
Jesse Weber, News Nation legal contributor and anchor of the
Law and Order Crime Network. Thank you so much. The
Law on Crime Network, Thanks so much, Jesse, thanks so much.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Appreciate it.
Well, a lot of big courtroom cases are going to
play out over the next few months, possibly over the
next year, and to get the latest on some of
that in some analysis so we can know what's going on.
Jesse Weber News national legal contributor and anchor on the
Law and Crime Network and co host of WLRS Always
(00:21):
in Fashion, which airs both Saturday and Sunday at seven pm. Hey, Jesse,
thanks for being here.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Good morning. A lots to talk about.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Yeah, there's a whole lot to talk about. Let's talk
about the case that is front and center in the
news right now. A Brago Garcia, the man that was
deported to El Salvador that the Trump administration refused to
turn around and bring him back and says there unless
El Salvador lets him out of the prison, they're not
going to bring him back from there either. What they say,
(00:52):
they'll provide a plane, that's what they said. So who's
right and who's wrong? Because this is still being fought out.
There's a federal court judge that is saying no, no, no,
you did the wrong thing and want to go back
to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I think the Trump administration is struggling legally to justify
what's happening here. I mean, most recently, yesterday, a federal
appeals court rejected the Trump administration's arguments that they didn't
need to comply with getting a Brego Garcia back.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
And by the way, this was a ruling that was penned.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
By an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan. So you're
seeing this kind of bypartisan level where the basic issue is,
you know, if you're the Trump administration and the Supreme
Court says you have to facilitate of Brego Garcia's return,
they're interpreting that as to be well, we just won't
put any obstacles in his way. If El Salvader wants
to send them back, Okay, their choice, But is that
(01:44):
really what the Supreme Court is saying. Sure, the Supreme
Court said, you know, there's a difference between facilitating his
return and effectuating his return, and you have to give
deference to the executive branch and their view and their
role in a foreign policy. But really, I think we
can all agree that if you were to shut off
the six million dollars that's going to tell Salvador for
(02:07):
them to house inmates, or if you were to provide
a plane right. This back and forth that we saw
earlier in the week between the El Salvador and President
and President Trump that you know, there's only so much
I can do, There's only so much I can do.
It feels a bit disingenuous. I feel if Brego Garcia
was anybody else, there wouldn't be this conversation.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
If the Supreme Court issued that ruling.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
The Trump administration, if they wanted this person back, they
would have him back. And what concerns me is, you know,
there's a lot of talk out there, he's a.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Known terrorist, he's a gang member.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
To just clarify that issue a little bit, Yes, there
was a court in twenty nineteen that deemed him to
be a gang member, but recently the court that's overlooking
this says, wait a minute, I looked at this evidence.
It's based on an uncorroborated statement of this witness who
actually wasn't accurate about where A. Brego Garcia was and
because he was wearing certain clothing that might have identified
(03:00):
him as a gang member. It's scant evidence, and at
the very least, at the very least, this is something
that should be litigated for purposes of due process. To
really determine whether or not he was a gang member,
a terrorist, and whether or not he should have had
some protection in the United States. So this is it's
bound to go back to the Supreme Court, and if
they provide more clarity, then it becomes a question of
(03:22):
what the Trump administration will do.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
There's so much I want to get to, but I
want to clarify one thing that you said, and that
is the Supreme Court and what they said. I listened
to a colleague of yours. I listened to someone else
who is a legal analyst on CNN, and she said
that she believed that the court ruling was mushy and
(03:43):
that because they just use the word facilitate that the
Trump administration has been very careful in saying, sure, we'll
provide a plane, so you know, and that's a long
way of saying I agree with you. It has to
go back to them. They have to say what exactly
they meant.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I think I will agree with that.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
I think the Supreme Court kind of gave out a
way to interpret this that is being taken advantage of
by the Trump administration. If it goes back to the
Supreme Court, where they say with finality now that we
have a better understanding of But basically they said is
we need more clarity from the district court and what
they want the administration to do now that if they
(04:24):
have that clarity, if they provide a more final order,
a more final conclusion, I think we all should be
able the lookout because again I know there's a conversation
going right now. Is the Trump administration not following direct
court orders, particularly now from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
That's going to be something to watch out for.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Let's talk about the alleged healthcare assass and I say allege,
even though there's video of him committing this crime. And
the interesting thing in this story, I believe is the
fight between the state and the federal government on jurisdiction
and who goes first and all the I think the
Feds just take over if they want to, don't they.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
I think the state case may go first.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
And let me tell you something, actually, I think for purposes,
if the goal is to convict Luigi Mangioni of what
is a ainus crime, you got the state charges the
easiest charge. So what do I mean by that? He's
now indicted federally? Okay, he's indicted for murder through use
of a firearm.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
And I have to tell you if you read the.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Statute very carefully, and by the way, we know why
the Feds want this because the death penalties on the table.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
There's an all back and forth on that.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
But if you're reading it correctly, there is an argument
to make that the only way that would work is
if the jury accepts that Mangioni was stalking Brian Thompson,
And if you read the stalking statute again, I think
there's a legal argument that Brian Thompson would have to
have known he was being stalked, and I think that's questionable.
Whereas if you go to the state case, one of
(05:53):
the most straightforward direct charges he's facing is murdering the
second degree intent to kill. Everything that we've seen, again,
he's innocent until proven guilty, but taking all the evidence
that we see, that feels like the most straightforward charge.
Now he's also charged with first degree murder that this
was a form of terrorism. I think that's on shaky
legal grounds. And by the way, this is coming from
somebody who filed the case from the beginning, and I
(06:15):
think the evidence against him is really strong, but there
is a question have prosecutors overcharged him in order to
get life in prison, in order to get the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Talk about the process. So even if he is convicted
federally of the crime, there has to be another hearing
or there has to be something else that happens before
they could possibly come back with the death penalty.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Right Coure. That's a whole, this whole separate issue.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
And one of the reasons why prosecutors across this country
and death penalty jurisdictions wonder whether or not they should
move forward with it is because it elongates the case.
So you not only need a jury that can ultimately
hear the case and determine whether or not somebody is
guilty or innocent, but then you have the penalty phase,
and they're aggravating factors, they're mitigating factors, and right now
(07:03):
there's a battle. His attorney's believed that the death penalty
should be taken off the table.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
They think that this is an outlier case.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
They think that Attorney General Pambondi's comments about the death
penalty has tainted a future jury. So they're trying every
which way to make sure the death penalty is not
an option for prosecutors.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
What's coming up on your show this weekend.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
We're talking about is someone replaceable or someone irreplaceable and
a lot of jobs, careers. It's I think it's a
fair question to think about how you're doing. And while
we might think everyone's replaceable, have you created a position
for yourself that it will be really tough that for
anyone else take your place?
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Well, that's always in fashion Saturday and Sunday at seven pm.
Jesse Weber, News Nation legal contributor and anchor of the
Law and Order Crime Network. Thank you so much. The
Law on Crime Network, Thanks so much, Jesse, thanks so much.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Appreciate it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com