Detailed summary of each day of Mangione pretrial hearing

 Christine Savino | Cornell Law School provides a detailed summary of Luigi Mangione's pretrial hearing on JURISTnews:

Editor’s note: This is Day 9 (final day) of JURIST’s coverage of Luigi Mangione’s suppression hearings. Read Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Days 5-7, Day 8.

Luigi Mangione is accused of fatally shooting Brian Thompson, CEO of medical insurance company UnitedHealthcare, on December 4, 2024, outside a Manhattan hotel in New York state. He faces a nine-count indictment including second-degree murder, where he faces 25 years to life in prison, and multiple weapons offenses. Mangione was arrested on December 9, 2024, in Altoona, Pennsylvania—a city approximately 280 miles from New York City—five days after the shooting. While the arrest occurred in Pennsylvania, he is being prosecuted in New York state, where the alleged crime took place. The suppression hearings—pre-trial proceedings where a judge decides what evidence can be used at trial—determined what evidence from his Pennsylvania arrest can be used in the New York trial. Mangione pleaded not guilty to all charges in late December 2024.

The prosecution and defense completed their presentations on December 18, concluding three weeks of suppression hearings in the New York state case against Mangione. The prosecution called 17 witnesses from Mangione’s December 9 arrest in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The defense called no witnesses. No trial date was set.

Judge Gregory Carro announced the litigation calendar: defense filings are due by January 29, prosecution’s response by March 5, and Judge Carro’s ruling on May 18. Mangione’s next New York state hearing was scheduled for May 18, at which time Judge Carro may set a trial date. The approximately five-month timeline to issue suppression decisions is longer than expected, as were the suppression hearings themselves. The defense faces an uphill battle, as most motions to suppress are denied.

Assistant District Attorney Joel Seidemann pushed for a trial date, stating that Brian Thompson’s mother is 77 years old, and it “is important to the family of the victim to be able to know…whether or not this is the person who shot their son.” Upon Assistant District Attorney Seidemann’s request, there was a sidebar regarding scheduling. Defense counsel briefly conferred with Mangione, after which Attorney Marc Agnifilo told Judge Carro, “we spoke with our client, and he is willing to let us have proceedings, on the record, without you being present.” Mangione waived his right to be present during the private scheduling discussion, as defendants are not permitted to participate in these conversations.

Mangione appeared tense during the private discussion, unlike the first day of hearings when he smiled often.

Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo challenged whether the prosecution had fully complied with discovery obligations—the requirement that both sides share evidence with each other. She cited a December 17, 2024 press briefing where New York Police Department (NYPD) Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny described a conversation with Mangione’s mother, Kathleen Mangione:

She didn’t indicate that it was her son in the photograph, but she said it might be something that she could see him doing. So that information was going to be passed along to the detectives the next morning, but fortunately we apprehended him before we could act on that.

This statement was widely published by major news outlets including Fox News, People, and CBS News. The defense described the statement as an “unfounded claim” that was “widely quoted by numerous news outlets” in a November filing.

Attorney Friedman Agnifilo then referenced discovery documents that contradicted Chief Kenny’s public statement. The documents said: “Kathleen [Mangione] stated that Luigi has not made any suicidal statements and was not a risk to himself or others.” She argued Chief Kenny’s statement was “the opposite of what was said, and we didn’t get the opportunity to cross-examine Officer Diaz regarding this,” referring to NYPD Detective Oscar Diaz, a Manhattan South Homicide Squad detective. She requested that the prosecution “retract that statement, because that was never said by Mr. Mangione’s mother.”

Attorney Friedman Agnifilo argued that the defense was not granted a Dunaway hearing—a New York-specific suppression hearing used to determine whether a defendant’s statements or evidence were obtained as the result of an unlawful seizure or detention, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and New York State Constitution. She stated the defense intended to cross-examine NYPD Detective Oscar Diaz on whether the statement was part of probable cause.

Assistant District Attorney Seidemann countered that the statement was made a year ago and not relevant to Mapp or Huntley hearings—pre-trial suppression hearings under New York law that determine whether evidence was obtained legally.

Judge Carro appeared to side with the prosecution, stating, “most of the video was relevant to the hearing, and the People did say that they would make any Altoona or NYPD officers available if you want to call them.”

In a press conference outside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, Attorney Friedman Agnifilo, surrounded by the defense team, stated that the hearings “unnecessarily” extended into three weeks when “we were told this was going to be several days.” She stated that “it was only after Lieutenant Leonardi testified about the illegal wiretap of Mr. Mangione in Altoona, Pennsylvania, that they withdrew statement notice, and now suddenly we’re not going to have the lead case detective in this case.”

“We want the New York Police Department or the San Francisco Police Department or the Manhattan District Attorney to correct this very prejudicial statement that was never said,” Attorney Friedman Agnifilo stated before ending the press conference.

If the prosecution cannot provide evidence of the statement, they will not be able to present it at trial. However, this would likely not affect probable cause, which was the focus of the suppression hearings.

One point of contention during the hearings was whether New York or Pennsylvania law applied. Mangione was placed into custody in Altoona, Pennsylvania for forgery and related Pennsylvania charges, although New York officers quickly arrived, believing Altoona authorities may have apprehended the shooting suspect. Blair County District Attorney Pete Weeks stated:

There appears to be confusion with the media because New York law is different than Pennsylvania law. My office has argued in filed public documents and continues to assert that Altoona police officers lawfully arrested Mr. Mangione for crimes he allegedly committed in Pennsylvania in the presence of the officers…Because of his arrest, he and his property were then subject to a legal warrantless search incident to arrest allowed under Pennsylvania law and his property was then subject to an additional lawful inventory search as well.

Throughout three weeks of proceedings, Mangione frequently exhibited animated facial expressions, particularly furrowing his eyebrows when seemingly confused or frustrated. His relationship with the press appeared strained—he previously yelled at reporters for being “out of touch” with the “American people.” During testimony from SCI Huntingdon Corrections Officer Thomas Rivers—who stated that Mangione asked him about media perception—Mangione briefly put his head in his hand before returning to his usual demeanor.

The defense argued that suppression exhibits should be sealed from the media until trial. Judge Carro partially denied the motion, reasoning that “since this is a suppression hearing, and the court has not ruled whether this evidence will be admitted at any trial, sealing would prevent substantial possibility that the defendant’s right to a fair trial would be harmed.”

Mangione’s next hearing is scheduled for January 9, 2025, where he will appear before Judge Arun Subramanian at 40 Foley Square in New York for his federal case, United States v. Mangione. The defense has moved to challenge the constitutionality of Mangione’s death penalty. Like in his New York state case, the defense has also moved to suppress evidence due to the warrantless search and statements under Miranda. Additionally, the defense has moved to dismiss Counts 3 (murder through the use of a firearm) and Count 4 (firearms offense), which are based on the same facts and evidence as the New York state indictment.

To read more CLICK HERE