In August 1970, President Richard Nixon carelessly mused that Charles Manson was “guilty” during Manson’s trial for orchestrating a string of brutal murders meant to spark a race war. The backlash was immediate. Manson’s attorneys pounced, arguing that if the president could prejudge guilt, why bother with a jury? The judge denied their mistrial motion, the jury was sequestered, and Manson was convicted anyway.
Fast-forward fifty-five years, and history seems to be rhyming. President Donald Trump, appearing on Fox, weighed in on the murder of Brian Thompson, flatly declaring that accused killer Luigi Mangione “shot someone in the back as clear as you’re looking at me… instantly dead.”
That soundbite might have faded quickly, but a Justice Department spokesman retweeted a “Rapid Response 47” post quoting Trump, and then a Bondi aide’s chief of staff retweeted that. The digital trail was deleted in short order, but defense attorneys seized on it, invoking a local criminal rule (23.1) prohibiting prosecutors from prejudicial pretrial comments. In their telling, the “retweets of tweets” tainted the jury pool.
Judge Margaret Garnett, a Biden appointee, agreed the retweets violated her order. She went further, ruling that defense counsel may cite not only those DOJ posts but also public statements by Stephen Miller and the White House press secretary in arguing against a death sentence.
Her order bristled with warnings: any future violations could trigger sanctions, including personal financial penalties, contempt findings, or even case-specific relief that might torpedo the prosecution.
Practically speaking, this is legal gamesmanship. The retweets were deleted almost immediately, likely because prosecutors recognized that the defense was preparing to weaponize them. But in a death penalty case, every slip of the tongue — or thumb on the “retweet” button — becomes ammunition for the defense.
With no exculpatory facts to work with, Mangione’s lawyers are pushing the narrative that prejudicial rhetoric from the administration is grounds to toss the case or at least spare their client the needle.
They’re also trying to reframe Mangione, denying he’s a violent left-wing extremist or politically motivated, and painting the White House’s narrative as unfairly prejudicial. It’s a long shot, but Judge Garnett’s order cracked the door open.
The irony? Nixon’s comments didn’t save Manson, but they remain a cautionary tale. Presidents can set policy, prosecute wars, and appoint judges. What they cannot do is speak recklessly about an active criminal case without handing defense attorneys a gift.
