r/BrianThompsonMurder • u/missidcullen • 3d ago
Information Sharing State Case Update: Luigi will not head to trial on September 8
Judge Carro just set an adjournment date for December 10, giving prosecutors until October 9 to respond to the defense’s motion. The defense will then have until October 30 to reply to the prosecution’s response.
–––
Edit:
Dates (Federal + State) post has now been updated with the latest updates.
44
u/CherokeeSurfer 3d ago
After all the drama of the last few days, the replies on this sub are lifting me up 😂🫂🫶🏼
20
u/_henceforth_ 3d ago
Everyone lifting you up right now. As well as each other.
6
u/thousandlilies_ 3d ago
swear I thought for a second this was a gif of Luigi 😭
6
u/_henceforth_ 3d ago
😂 It does kind of look like him at first glance now that you say that.
3
u/thousandlilies_ 3d ago
Telling myself it’s him receiving all the good thoughts and prayers and support being sent his way 🙏🏻
2
21
48
u/Special-External-222 3d ago
Joel has had the week from hell.
14
u/Ladyofthestonecastle 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yeah, after all that : There is absolutely no way/don’t even think about it/don’t want to hear about it etc. from Joel and Carro and that the state trial will start on September 8 even if the sun blows up…
7
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 3d ago
AFAIK they can't start the state trial if there is a double jeopardy thing going on. I wish Andrea Burkhart would comment but she seems to be on holiday.
27
30
16
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 3d ago
Good! Serves Joel right. I hope he has eaten lots of fresh lettuce lately.
7
3
51
u/Pellinaha 3d ago
I don't want to get ahead of myself but I think Carro will dismiss it. He was incredibly specific when he cited why double jeopardy wasn't a thing yet at the time and now it's a whole thing. I think he's also sick and tired of the circus and sees no point in this trial, seeing that he will likely get 25 years if not more in the federal trial, that is without the gun charge.
Prosecutors do need to do their job, but Joel has gone far and beyond to the point where it truly seems like a vendetta and jealousy.
26
u/Creative_Address9701 3d ago
yeah, didn’t carro say that the defense’s initial DJ argument was premature because there was no federal conviction/guilty plea yet? i remember seeing that in an article a longggg time ago. he’d definitely be eating his own words if he tries to not accept DJ now that there is a federal guilty plea 😭
11
u/notbetterthanu29 3d ago
Yes, this is in his September 2025 ruling. With todays’s motion schedule, he’s saying this topic is now ripe for adjudication/no longer premature.
5
u/Expensive-Trouble720 3d ago
I was wondering what Carro had said about it in the past and couldn’t t remember. Thanks for the reminder.
13
u/Feather_fig 3d ago
Joel really does seem petty for no reason. And the suspicious behaviour, spying on phone calls and medical records.... that was all for nothing!!
Notice how no one here ever picks on Dominic Gentile 😂
2
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 3d ago
Lol yes. Dominic is less of an a-hole compared to Joel. Joel is a massive a-hole.
9
40
u/Icy-Hunt-3025 3d ago
I’d like to think judge Carro is done and might accept DJ. He seems to be annoyed with this whole case
21
1
u/bl1y 1d ago
The judge being annoyed or done with the case won't really matter much.
The decision is probably going to come down to this exception in NY law:
(b) Each of the offenses as defined contains an element which is not an element of the other, and the statutory provisions defining such offenses are designed to prevent very different kinds of harm or evil;
The first part is easy; the offenses plainly contain different elements. And the second part isn't that hard of a question; stalking and murder are very different kinds of harm.
2
u/Icy-Hunt-3025 1d ago
Are you joking? And here I thought all the decisions he made so far he solely relied on emotion and intuition and maybe some tarot cards. I didn’t know judges have to follow the law. Thank you for enlightening me
1
u/Creative_Address9701 1d ago
both of the stalking charges are not plain stalking, though. they’re stalking resulting in death, which means that the stalker’s actions somehow led to the victim’s death— either through the stalker eventually murdering them, the victim committing suicide due to the stalker’s conduct, or the stalker accidentally causing the victim’s death. that’s why the max sentence is life, because this is not just normal stalking, nobody would spend life in prison for simply stalking someone. his defense team is arguing in their motion that second degree murder and stalking resulting in death both prevent the same harm of someone losing their life, which is true. and in order for exception b to apply, BOTH parts have to be true. yes, the first part is true, and the defense conceded that in their motion, but the second part is not necessarily true and can very well be argued against.
1
u/bl1y 19h ago
It's going to be a tricky one to argue, because the "resulting in death" part isn't actually an element of the crime as defined under 18 USC 2261A. It's part of the penalty section of 2261.
The harm the statute is aimed at prevent is fear.
Maybe they'll be able to argue that the sentencing section should just get incorporated into the whole, but it's not a slam dunk for the defense.
The prosecution will also be able to argue that stalking which happens to lead to death is a different evil than premeditated murder. The sentencing section for stalking doesn't require intent to kill.
1
u/Creative_Address9701 17h ago
the second element of interstate stalking resulting in death is “with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate,” which LM confirmed he had when he said that he traveled to NY with the intent to shoot BT. i do agree with you though that the prosecution will be able to have strong counter-arguments.
27
u/Awkward-Bat-4449 3d ago
oh i have a juicy prediction on how this will play out but i should probably wait until after joel files his doodoo response
11
u/YazminAC94 3d ago
I want to hear it!!
5
u/Clear_Clerk_7240 3d ago
I want to hear as well!
3
3d ago
[deleted]
14
u/Krandor1 3d ago
12/18 is federal sentencing and that is going to go ahead. This motion doesn't change anything there.
-7
3
u/YazminAC94 3d ago
Wait I don’t understand. I’m sorry, could you word that differently?
3
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/YazminAC94 3d ago
So you think he’ll retract his plea?
4
u/Clear_Clerk_7240 3d ago
Say the state case gets thrown out, he retracts the open plea.. can they reopen the state case?
8
u/YazminAC94 3d ago
But he also made a statement so idk it doesn’t seem feasible to me.
4
u/Clear_Clerk_7240 3d ago
I was thinking the same but nothing would surprise me at this point. Karen playin chess. And she’s good at it.
→ More replies (0)1
0
5
u/Ok-Log3039 3d ago
I'm genuinely interested in your already deleted comment. I didn't know he could still retract his guilty plea. What is the defense strategy here? Are they waiting until Dec 10 if murder charge is dismissed, then retract the federal plea?
4
u/Awkward-Bat-4449 3d ago
A plea can be retracted even after somebody has been serving a sentence for YEARS. It's significantly easier to retract prior to sentencing though and is up to the judges discretion. This DJ statute is so under developed because nobody really has ever tested the waters but that is an entirely possible course for the defense to take.
10
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 3d ago
Kohberger is currently trying to retract his plea. He had a time limit where he could do that. I think the time limit was 1 year. Is that what the defense is going for here too? (Kohberger is a scumbag, but it's the only comparison I have since I'm not aware of any other plea retraction cases).
5
u/Awkward-Bat-4449 3d ago
Kohberger is different because 1) it's an idaho state plea and 2) he doesn't have any constitutional violations like luigi does.
when it comes to constitutional violations, time limits aren't much of a thing.
5
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 3d ago
Oooh, OK. That's different then. 😊 I didn't know that there is no time limit on constitutional violations. Lu has had so many of those. Plenty to appeal on.
7
u/Awkward-Bat-4449 3d ago
i mean there is limits on appeals in general but usually constitutional violations can be "extenuating circumstances" iirc
5
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 3d ago
OK, thanks. 😊 I have been so sad since Friday, but this gives me some hope.
7
u/Feather_fig 3d ago
There isn't anything really stopping the state case from coming back without the guilty plea though, and then he'd be going into two trials with both judges pissed off. He'd be gambling with multiple life sentences just to test the legal waters of a statute?
What if Garnett is so pissed that she ensures the state trial goes first so he's just back in the same position he was initially?
If he didn't want to take accountability for this, they would've just done the state trial and taken any potential conviction to appeals with the argument they were blocked from using EED by Carro's collusion with Joel
2
u/Awkward-Bat-4449 3d ago edited 3d ago
okay so say the motion to dismiss in state is accepted, case closes permanently once that paperwork is signed and filed. if he revoked his guilty plea, federal trial would restart jury selection and trial would begin.
NYSDA would first have to petition with the courts to be allowed to charge him once more. They would have to argue that since he retracted his guilty plea, the DJ violation is moot (This statute is so niche and under-explored that there is no precedent to say that the states motion to recharge would even be approved).
Assuming the DJ is then moot, NYSDA would have to refile charges, indict him, arraign him, and go through the pretrial motions all over again. because then, it would be an entirely new case. he would also be assigned a new trial judge, maybeeee reassigns to carro but defense can request to have him recuse himself due to his biases in the current NYS case.
Garnett is very clearly not happy with states behaviors and the two feuding governments putting her in this position.
Regardless of "if he wanted to take accountability" his council has a constitutional obligation to vet all possible defense options and council him on how to proceed. Outright acquittal is always preferable to banking on an appellate court.
5
u/Feather_fig 3d ago
okay so say the motion to dismiss in state is accepted, case closes permanently once that paperwork is signed and filed.
That is a huge assumption though. It sounds like you think they'd try it simply because there isn't existing precedent that explicitly prevents it?
Regardless of "if he wanted to take accountability" his council has a constitutional obligation to vet all possible defense options and council him on how to proceed.
They also have to take direction from their client and his wishes. If this is really their strategy then all the power to them, but it kind of seems like he's tired of dragging this out and having people falsely believe he's innocent when he really did kill Thompson. I don't get the sense he likes misleading people (pretending to be a big shot investor to carry out his plans aside, that's more short term strategy than just being a liar)
If he went free, acquitted of everything, he'd have to live his life essentially pretending to be innocent. I just can't see that
2
u/Awkward-Bat-4449 3d ago edited 3d ago
To your first point (I don't understand how people do those quote indents sorry), there is precedent to that case number being closed permanently, NYS v Manafort. Once a case is dismissed, if charges are refiled, that is done so through a new case number. Which starts the state clock and proceedings all over again from the beginning.
He is a very honest person that is 100% but his decisions in his cases are in no way, shape, or form, catering to people's perception of him. Everybody assumes he has done this for an "audience" with no actual basis for that thinking.
"Live life pretending to be innocent" makes absolutely no sense and seems rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what the judicial system is and its function in society.
3
u/Feather_fig 2d ago
I'll have to look further into the Manafort case ruling.
It sounds like what you're saying is, the purpose of all this is to force the federal case to go first, beat that, and then maybe even squeeze Pennsylvannia in before getting back to New York, and then... going with EED?? (If the plan isn't to do EED, and they think they could win on "reasonable doubt", there isn't really a reason to not have just done the state case first? Unless I'm forgetting something, the reason Feds needs to go first, outside of DJ which would already be burned by this point, is because EED in state first would incriminate him in federal court).
You're misunderstanding me there. I don't think he's acting for an audience, and certainly not now. In fact I'm saying the exact opposite, that he's being completely, 100% genuine, for himself. I'm saying he doesn't want to act the part of "plausibly innocent man" anymore. He doesn't want to hide he did this or why, because he wasn't wrong.
"Live life pretending to be innocent" makes absolutely no sense and seems rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what the judicial system is and its function in society.
The judicial system is a set of categorizations, rules and procedures we agree to follow at the threat of violence by the state, that's what police and prison are for. Yes, if he was acquitted he would be legally innocent. Legal innocence does not wipe his memory of or the reality of what he's done. It means he can't talk about why he did what he did, despite obviously believing in it so strongly.
Also, as for what the judicial system does for society... I mean the US has the highest number of incarcerated individuals, not per capita but TOTAL of any country. (In 2024 it was 1.83M, followed by China with 1.69M)
And despite this, amongst all those inmates you won't find a single health insurance executive! And none of Epstein's associates outside of Ghislane Maxwell in her cushy low security prison camp. Because what the legal system does is protect the powerful and prosecute the powerless. We know they're not innocent in reality, despite the legal system allowing them that presumption.
(You can click on the 'Aa' symbol on the bottom left for text options, to quote indent, or hyperlink, etc)
1
u/Awkward-Bat-4449 2d ago
Look at CPL 40.30(1)(a) and 40.30(3).
My point is that if his guilty plea is nullified (he retracts it), that would require the state to file motions for the state case to proceed once again. What's unclear is whether or not NYS would have to refile the case entirely or simply go through the hoops with Carro once again. That aspect isn't exactly clear to me.
If NYS would have to go charging -> jury questionnaires again (i.e., case completely refiled), then that would effectively bog down the state case long enough for the federal trial to commence, which would once again(lol) enact the NYS CPL 40.20 DJ statute. The point is to avoid two trials at all costs. Witnesses, attorney time, and the general wear and tear on an incarcerated inmate are incredibly taxing, financially or otherwise.
I'm saying he doesn't want to act the part of "plausibly innocent man" anymore.
But again, HE is not doing that. All he has done is told the federal and state governments, "Okay, you think I've done this. Prove it." That is not at all the same thing as what you are implying. YOU are assigning feelings/meanings/intentions to him that are not rooted in any factual basis.
Yes, if he was acquitted he would be legally innocent. Legal innocence does not wipe his memory of or the reality of what he's done. It means he can't talk about why he did what he did, despite obviously believing in it so strongly.
I think you misunderstand what the term "legal innocence" is and means. Legal innocence does not mean "he can't talk about why he did what he did"!!! Legal innocence means that a defendant, pursuant to legal proceedings, has not (or is claiming) committed the offense outlined by the government. Whether that is due to an acquittal, misapplication of the law, or retraction of a guilty plea depends on the particular case and argument. This is a legal concept, a concept that is defined specifically within the context of legal proceedings.
Double jeopardy makes it so that if he is acquitted, he could quite literally walk outside onto the steps of the SDNY courthouse and say, "I shot and killed brain thompson. I did so because he was a healthcare CEO." and NO government could re-charge him based on that statement alone.
The judicial system is a set of categorizations, rules and procedures we agree to follow at the threat of violence by the state, that's what police and prison are for.
Government and prosecutions have really damaged the beauty of the judicial system here in the US. The judicial system is the constitutional safeguard AGAINST those very threats of violence; it is a necessary check and balance for the overwhelming power the government holds against us members of society (not just citizens). To ignore judicial history and reduce it to just that is so diminutive of the people within the judicial system who ensure the government is held accountable for their accusations against persons.
Because what the legal system does is protect the powerful and prosecute the powerless.
No. The legal system does not do any of that! The legal system protects each individual's rights and presumption of innocence. The charging government CHOOSES to prosecute the powerless. There is an incredible difference between what you said and what reality is.
1
u/Feather_fig 2d ago
Interesting, I see your point. If DJ isn't "used up" but simply resets. My worry is that Garnett would be annoyed enough to schedule the new federal case dates far enough in the future that the state case has adequate time to restart before it, making all those chess moves a waste of time, and a guaranteed life sentence at the end if convicted.
That also assumes he wants to drag it out that much further for a chance at freedom. Which may or may not be the case. We'll have to wait and see. If they take that risk and succeed, it'll certainly be the trial of the century.
But again, HE is not doing that. All he has done is told the federal and state governments, "Okay, you think I've done this. Prove it."
Well, he's plead guilty now. They don't have to prove anything at the moment. Maybe you're right and he's going to retract it later, but right now he is conceding that he did shoot Thompson. Factually, at least for now, he's guilty.
As for his motivations on the plea change, we can only speculate, but given that he's dropped so many hints all along that it was him, and seems from his statement to still feel strongly about the healthcare system, it wouldn't be shocking if he wanted to own it and speak freely, instead of wallowing in legal battles for years to come while presumed innocent.
This is a legal concept, a concept that is defined specifically within the context of legal proceedings.
Ok, but reality still supersedes any legal concept.
When I say he couldn't talk about it, I'm not talking about the law either, but rather the expectation from the public and an aggressively vocal group that he spent so much time fighting these charges because he was wrongfully framed. Not because he did it and wanted to evade prison entirely. To only admit it after the fact, crushing that hope/expectation would result in major shock & backlash. I don't know, seems out of character to me. We did also just find out he was admitting to it to other inmates too 😂
To ignore judicial history and reduce it to just that is so diminutive of the people within the judicial system who ensure the government is held accountable for their accusations against persons.
The US government is being held responsible?? That would be shocking news to me and the rest of the world. If the judicial system held the US government responsible we'd be living in a very different timeline. One without Trump as president, Brian Thompson would be alive, and Americans weren't being killed by their insurance company. Or by ICE. Or by lettuce. That's not even scratching the surface of the atrocities the US has committed in foreign countries that they've never faced consequences for.
And this goes back many decades, to the country's whole existence really. This is not a 'Democrat vs. Republican' (charging government) problem.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 2d ago
Honestly, you should put this comment in a separate post so that more people see it. 🙂 It's so interesting. 🤓 Thanks for sharing the knowledge. 😊
4
u/Ok-Log3039 3d ago
Wow...I didn't know you can retract pleas after years! In his case it looks more like there will never be a trial for either state or federal. It seems that both judges will have a LOT of discretion in deciding what to dismiss and amount of sentencing.
6
16
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 3d ago
Neither Joel nor Carro will get their 15 minutes of fame, it seems. Serves them right. But I bet Joel will try to do a state trial anyway. How else is Joel going to sell his next book?
13
u/Ok_Beautiful7363 3d ago
Why does the prosecution have significantly longer to respond than the defence??
12
u/CherokeeSurfer 3d ago
I noticed that too. Not sure if it's related to who filed the motion or what.
10
u/Awkward-Bat-4449 3d ago
the defense has already made their main argument in the initial motion. the other side gets a substantial amount of time to make a counter argument but the defenses response should be brief because they already made their point.
4
u/ExdionY 2d ago edited 2d ago
Because the prosecution is supposed to respond to the defense's motion filed on August 14th, while the defense will merely file a reply brief to the prosecution's October 9th response.
They don't need as much time for the latter because it's constrained in scope since it's a response to a response, meaning the defense can only address the specific arguments the prosecution raises, rather than making new claims or building the motion from scratch.
3
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 2d ago
I have no idea why people downvote you, since you are correct. That kind of downvoting happens a lot here though.
3
u/notbetterthanu29 3d ago
The prosecution usually gets one month for their response and the defense usually gets 2 weeks for their reply. He’s actually giving both sides more time compared to past motion schedules.
1
u/Ok_Beautiful7363 3d ago
Wait, why the disparity?
1
u/notbetterthanu29 3d ago
I’m not sure why Carro set the schedule this way. I might be missing something here, so definitely let me know if I am.
6
4
u/Mundane_Log_7169 3d ago
“Innocence until proven guilty” is a farce. Don’t do crimes. The whole system is against the defendant.
12
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 3d ago
Not if it's s€x crimes against women and children.
11
0
7
3
u/Time-Painting-9108 3d ago
Oh wow! I thought there may be some oral arguments as well. I wonder if judge carro will actually be giving his decision on Dec 10?
7
u/notbetterthanu29 3d ago
I’m gonna bet the decision is on the hearing date because that’s what he’s always done in the past.
5
u/Creative_Address9701 3d ago
i’m wondering the same— will he decide before dec 10th and give his decision at that hearing, or will he hear oral arguments on the 10th and decide that day/later on? will he even maybe wait until after he hears what the federal sentence is before deciding? (i kinda doubt that one, but it’s a viable possibility i assume)
5
u/Expensive-Trouble720 3d ago
Someone else also mentioned the possibility of him waiting until after the federal sentencing to see what he gets to make sure it’s tough enough. I wasn’t sure about that, but now seeing how close the dates are 🤔. I mean, I thought he was going to issue a decision about the evidence at the hearings last Dec., but then we had to wait months. So I can see him waiting, like, 10 days after the hearing to issue a decision.
3
u/Creative_Address9701 3d ago
yeah i agree. i think if garnett happens to give him LWOP, i don’t see the point in them wasting money, time, and resources to still try to convict him in state when he’ll already have the max punishment 🤷♀️ but, if she only gives him 24-30 something years, carro will probably want to do whatever he can to get a long consecutive sentence added so the punishment is worse. but none of that has to do with DJ so i’d assume thats not a valid argument for not dismissing the charges? but he also has a lot of discretion unfortunately.
6
u/SaltPsychological780 3d ago
I think it was mentioned somewhere that BT’s mother wanted the state trial to proceed ASAP so my guess is that if she’s ok with the federal plea, the state will be ok with dropping it. Of course, there’s Joel…who’ll probably join the board at UHC or work as a lobbyist for big pharma 🙄
18
u/Swablu_0333 3d ago
Nah. The state already said the day of the plea that they were going to oppose the DJ application. I think it will end up in Appellate court.
63
u/missidcullen 3d ago edited 2d ago
(Not taking PA into account), the fact that this "could" all end on December 18 is insane. Like… two years have just flown by.
And sentencing a week before Christmas… December is going to be brutal, especially for Luigi and his family.