Can he talk to the public while in custody? Is that a right that he has or are there legal mechanisms to keep him segregated if they don’t like what he wants to say?
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Likely never if he doesn’t live past the end of the trial.
But like, it’s not like the guys dead, or old.
He’s 26, and they’ll almost definitely say it’s terrorism linked, so 20 to life in NY.
He could be out before he’s 50 even if he loses.
Guy is from a very wealthy family and has access to the best lawyers. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s bailed out even. It’s a thing in NY for murder charges, and sometimes there’s not even bail, you get out but up $0, even for murder.
This guy wasn’t a mass shooter, he walked right past witnesses, but most importantly rich as fuck.
We’ll know what’s in it, because he can just tell us even if the cops keep it.
Allonzee@lemmy.world 1 week ago
litchralee@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
There are a number of rights which are curtailed when in custody – whether pre-trial or as part of a sentence – but even under the appalling incarceration standards in the USA, the right to free speech is not something which is substantially limited while in custody, barring some very particular circumstances.
A defendant in jail awaiting trial has not, by definition, been convicted of any wrongdoing. So for pre-trial detention – where the purpose is to assure that the defendant won’t skip court – the only cognizance reason to curtail the defendant’s speech (either by mail, phone, or in-person) would be for jailhouse security reasons, as noted by various court rulings. The ACLU has litigated cases where prisons – ie post-conviction detention – violation the prisoners’ rights, so no doubt that pre-trial defendants in a jail would preserve more rights.
An example where free speech continued even while serving a sentence is when the Menendez Brothers gave a phone interview from a California prison, as part of a new documentary on the 1989 murders they were convicted of, now under scrutiny.
On the flip side, there are times when a defendant must have some speech curtailed prior to trial, even if they’re not in jail. Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) comes to mind, who was ordered pre-trial to not communicate with employees of his exchange (unless all lawyers are present) as the judge agreed with prosecutors that he could try to manipulate them into lying to the feds.
What would be outrageous in that case was if the order was more sweeping, such as being restricted from talking about his own case, for which he has a First Amendment right to do so.
Appropriately, the First Amendment rights must be jealously guarded, even for people we might not agree with, precisely because it also protects people we do agree with.
Allonzee@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Wow, thank you for the clarity!
WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That it could be an incitement to violence is precisely what they will/have argue(d), I would guess.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
if convicted he’ll be epsteined.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world 1 week ago
People keep saying the family is so wealthy, but if that’s true; even they couldn’t keep up with the medical bills.
Allonzee@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah that is strange, the affluent usually have gold plated plans that aren’t subject to the same murderous tyranny most’s base level and/or employer provided garbage is.
I always saw those plans as the “In the little self-protecting country club” plans.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This is America…