Luigi Archive

If by "we see" you mean we have a video recording, then we will on some days. Not all of them, unless the judge changes his mind. Diddy's latest trial was not televised, though. So, not sure if that is what you meant.

The evidence is going to be presented, yes. That is how all trials work. The public and media attending the trial hearings in person will be able to see it in the courtroom. Usually, evidence presented in the open court is a public record and regular citizens/media companies can request copies of it afterwards (e.g. just like how media obtained McDonald's body cam footage). However, sometimes the evidence is not permitted to be shared outside the courtroom. This can happen when defendant's right to a fair trial might be violated by having the evidence published publicly. E.g. if 2 or more defendants are tried for the same offense or when 2 or more cases share the same evidence and their trials are at different dates. Then the evidence shown at the first (defendant's) trial might be withheld because releasing it publicly before the second (defendant-s) trial could prejudice the second defendant.

Reminder: this month NBC aired Luigi "documentary" featuring NYPD officers and lied about them being involved in Luigi's case.

5 June 2016, Gilman School, Baltimore, Maryland

Class Portraits:

Luigi in the procession, before the ceremony:

Luigi giving his valedictorian speech:

Luigi receiving his diploma:

Luigi receiving a "William S. Thomas Scholarship Prize" - an award given to the top scholar of each grade:

A few photos of Luigi in the background:

The end of his graduation ceremony:

This is a MUST-READ for anyone living in New York.

For example, defense is looking for jurors who:

have "real-world responsibilities" in their jobs/living situations

do and don't have children

don't regularly stay at Hilton Hotel

have no ties to/interest in UHC (e.g. hold UHC stock)

don't watch pro-prosecution biased TV shows

have no intrinsic biases against people charged with committing a crime

No, those items do not have Forth Amendment protections and therefore, they are not suppressible, because they are considered to have been voluntarily abandoned. In general, evidence can only be suppressed if it has been obtained unlawfully or in cases of forced abandonment (e.g. when a defendant throws away evidence in response to an illegal police pursuit).

As per Prosecution's March 11, 2025 Automatic Discovery Form:

This Is A Good Point Just Cus Prosecutors Most Likely Will Bring It Up !

There are more than a dozen of criminal cases all over the country that cite Luigi as defendants' inspiration to commit crimes (this includes the highest profile cases - as prominent as LM's). Federal prosecutors brought it up multiple times already. M*ngionistas did not commit a crime, if state prosecutors were to bring them up, they would in the same manner as federal prosecutor did when he briefly mentioned supporters outside courtroom (April 1st hearing and it is not likely to happen during the jury trial, though.). Not good for Luigi, obviously, but not as bad (in a legal context) as being associated with actual criminal activities, which is what prosecutors are more likely to focus on, if they were to focus on it at all (previously it was only mentioned in the context of aggr. factors - which are no longer relevant).

The harm caused by M*ngionistas is different, defense cannot do much to fix it. They can get a restraining order, but then again - there are many more similarly behaving people out there. So it is going to continue to happen unless we all step in and stop excusing, promoting, engaging with these people and shun them away from the community instead (and also not buying their disingenuous statements distancing themselves from all of this, now that it is too late). It is also up to all of us to restore the overall image of LM supporters - it was already ruined way before M*ngionistas' infamous interview (it was just a final nail in the coffin). So, only getting rid of M*ngionistas will not change that.

I did not mean for dumb stuff; I thought they are able to use it for his trial; that the media is working to hard painting a specific narrative to make him look guilty.

They know this about media, too. ADAs have connections with media and KFA's a former ADA. She worked for CNN, too. Both Agnifilos have ties to media. And this was not about him, but about his supporters. Of course, it still does not reflect well on him by association. But because of this degree of separation, defense would have an incredibly hard time using it "for his trial" due to 1st Amendment (free speech rights). Assuming they would be using it for their prejudice arguments. Besides, there is no shortage of examples of media directly making him look guilty. And it seems like defense will not be arguing about prejudice anymore.