Will Evidence in Luigi Mangione’s Murder Trial Be Thrown Out?

Luigi Mangione’s three-week suppression hearing ended on Thursday, after New York State prosecutors presented evidence that they would like to admit into the New York State murder trial of the suspect for the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Mangione, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him, and his defense team are arguing that the evidence was obtained in an illegal search and seizure that violated his constitutional rights when he was placed under arrest on Dec. 9, 2024 at an Altoona, Penn., McDonald’s. His defense is trying to get evidence suppressed, including statements Mangione made to officers and his black backpack which allegedly contained a 3D-printed gun, silencer, bullets, and a red notebook with his writings in it.

Mangione’s three-week hearing has been extraordinarily unconventional, particularly for how much it’s drawn public attention, says Gary Galperin, a former senior prosecutor for the Manhattan district attorney’s office and an adjunct professor at the Cardozo School of Law. He adds the suppression hearings are usually very low-key and take a day or two. Galperin explains that Judge Gregory Carro has the option to suppress all of the evidence, some of it, or none of it. 

If suppression is granted, Galperin says, “Not only will the physical evidence not be allowed to be brought into evidence and used as exhibits at the trial, no one can refer to them either.” This means police officers testifying on the stand during the trial will not be able to mention finding the gun or Mangione’s letter to the FBI.

White-collar defense attorney Lance Clarke says that, in his experience, judges are very reluctant to suppress evidence. “If it can go one way or the other, it’s really hard to get evidence suppressed,” says Clarke, adding that defense teams often have a “super uphill” battle when fighting for suppression. The hearings ended this week with the judge saying he won’t be making his judgement about the evidence until the spring. 

Here’s a look at the key moments from Mangione’s suppression hearing:

The warrant-less search of the backpack

Over the last three weeks, the prosecution has called multiple Altoona cops to the stand, displaying bodycam footage from the police officers present for Mangione’s arrest. Mangione was initially arrested on forgery charges for giving officers a fake New Jersey driver’s license with the name Mark Rosario. In Pennsylvania, officers can search bags without a warrant under something called “search incident to arrest,” but three criminal lawyers explain to Rolling Stone that in order for the backpack to be admissible in New York court, police had to follow New York law.

“The backpack is crucial in terms of evidence for trial because it contained the [alleged] murder weapon, ammunition, money, and perhaps most interestingly, his writings, which link to his grievances against the health care industry,” Galperin says.

New York state law gives criminal defendants higher rights than under federal law, meaning they are very strict about search and seizure laws, explains Catherine Christian, who worked as a prosecutor at the Manhattan district attorney’s office and is now a criminal defense lawyer. In fact, she says when she first heard about Mangione’s arrest in Pennsylvania and how they recovered evidence from his backpack, she remembers thinking, “I hope they got a search warrant.”

There are exceptions to New York law that would allow police to go into Mangione’s backpack, referred to as “exigent circumstances.” The prosecution has to show that the backpack was within Mangione’s “grabbable area” i.e. within his reach, and that they believed public safety or the officers’ safety was in jeopardy. In this case, Officer Christy Wasser testified she was afraid there was a bomb in Mangione’s backpack. The defense team attempted to sow doubt on these claims by pointing out during cross-examination that the officer did not clear the McDonald’s of citizens, call a bomb squad, or even stop people from using the bathroom right next to where they were searching Mangione’s bag.

In bodycam footage, we see Mangione’s backpack moved to a table next to him. When it is searched, he is handcuffed with his hands behind his back and surrounded by police officers. “I guess it’s possible he could have jumped like Superman, knocked all the officers out of the way and grabbed the bag,” Christian says. “But I don’t find that credible.”

She adds that the prosecution could also argue “inevitable discovery,” which means that since he was arrested for forgery in Pennsylvania, they inevitably are going to go through his bag and inventory it, especially since they were transferring him to New York. The judge could decide for the prosecution with that reasoning.

“The defense has a good faith argument when it comes to moving to suppress the backpack,” Galperin says.

Were the Miranda Rights read too late?

Mangione’s Miranda warnings — when he’s told he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can be used against him — were not read to him until about 20 minutes after police first approached him at the McDonald’s. Before that, police asked him questions about his identity, but also asked him if he’d been to New York recently. In the suppression hearings, the defense argued that the question about New York was part of an investigation into his alleged crime in New York, meaning they were interrogating him without reading him his rights.

“The need for the police to give Miranda warnings is triggered by what is called custodial interrogation,” Galperin explains. He says that this doesn’t even mean the person being questioned has to be told that he’s under arrest, that he’s in custody, or even be handcuffed to trigger the necessity for Miranda warnings. Galperin said the defendant has to feel like he’s not free to leave. 

During the suppression hearings, the defense argued that there were initially two officers talking to Mangione at the fast-food restaurant and they were positioned in a way that could have blocked his exit. They added that quickly, there were more than a dozen police officers speaking with the suspect, who sat in a back corner with a table behind him and an officer next to him. The prosecution said Mangione chose to sit in that spot.

“The question for the judge to decide will be, would a reasonable person in Mangione’s situation think he was free to go at the point he was being questioned?” says Galperin, adding that police are entitled to some preliminary inquiries, but it will be up to the judge to decide what was appropriate.

Does the missing bodycam footage affect credibility?

After Mangione was arrested and his backpack was preliminarily searched at McDonald’s by Officer Wasser and Officer Stephen Fox, his belongings were transported to the Altoona police precinct. Wasser testified she took the backpack with her to the precinct, and Fox’s bodycam footage showed Fox putting a brown McDonald’s bag with Mangione’s laptop and other evidence into the trunk of his SUV. However, Wasser’s bodycam footage shows her arriving at the precinct 11 minutes after departing, and she arrives with both the backpack and McDonald’s bag. 

Wasser and Fox testified that as they were driving over to the precinct, Fox got called back to McDonald’s, so they pulled over to the side of the road, and Fox gave Wasser the bag to take to the station. However, since Altoona policy doesn’t require them to turn on bodycam footage while driving solo, neither of them captured this footage on camera. Nor did they turn on their vehicles’ cameras to document the exchange.

Immediately after Wasser arrives at the precinct, she places the backpack down on a chair next to Mangione, who is shackled to the floor and is being searched. Wasser opens the backpack and, within seconds, finds the 3D printed gun. Upon cross-examination, Mangione’s lead defense attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo accused Wasser of searching the backpack with Fox prior to arriving at the precinct, which Wasser vehemently denied. At the McDonald’s, Wasser and Fox had found one of two magazines with bullets in it, but the gun and silencer were retrieved at the police station.

“That’s definitely a credibility issue,” Clarke says. “I don’t see a judge throwing that out but that’s what you want to bring up to a jury.”

What happens next?

“The defense has very, very good arguments and it could go either way,” Christian says. This is not your typical suppression [hearing] where you know the defense is going to lose. It’s going to be a tough decision for the judge, and Carro is very good and will take a lot of time.”

“This is a judge who’s not afraid to — if he believes the law demands it — rule against the prosecution,” she adds, pointing to how Carro dropped the domestic terrorism charges against Mangione in September, citing insufficient evidence. Christian says she thinks Carro will likely suppress Mangione’s statements ahead of his Miranda rights being read, but that the backpack will be a tougher call.

All three attorneys say that even if all of the Altoona evidence is suppressed, this does not mean the state case against Mangione is dismissed. It just gives the defense a lot of leverage, and the prosecution a weaker case. However, there is still evidence from the Manhattan crime scene, including possible DNA evidence and security camera footage.

Judge Carro says he will make his decision on May 18. In the meantime, Mangione’s next federal hearing, in which he faces the death penalty, is set for Jan. 9.