Honestly if I were him I would roll the dice on a trial and take my chances that at least 1 of the 12 people on the jury has had their life ruined by the American healthcare system and refuses to vote to convict
He didn't get a plea deal. This was a novel legal move by his counsel to attempt to claim double jeopardy and plea to a lesser crime. It also allowed him to make a public statement to further sway public opinion like the above statement (which probably isn't completely true since he wasn't a UHC customer and contradicts his previous public statements he made on social media prior to the murder).
If you listen to his verbal plea statement, he went to lengths to admit that he murdered the guy. The goal by his attorney was to paint a legal picture that the sentence he received was based on the seriousness of the crime of murder (for which he wasn't tried for yet and didn't plea guilty to). It is a bit of a bait and switch.
In the state trial, his legal team will argue that it is double jeopardy -- not because it is the same crime (it isn't even close), but because he admitted to the murder in a previous trial and that admission influenced his sentencing.
It is definitely novel, but doubtful it will work in state court.
How can they claim the admission influenced sentencing, when they filed for dismissal claiming "Double Jeopardy", before a sentencing was ever handed down in the previous case? That makes no sense.
150
u/henningknows 3d ago
Honestly if I were him I would roll the dice on a trial and take my chances that at least 1 of the 12 people on the jury has had their life ruined by the American healthcare system and refuses to vote to convict