In a high-profile legal maneuver, attorneys for Luigi Mangione have asked a New York federal judge to dismiss several criminal charges—including the only one carrying the death penalty—in the case surrounding the December 2024 assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The latest filings, submitted on October 11, 2025, have reignited national debate over federal prosecution, law enforcement procedures, and the future of capital punishment in New York.
The case has gripped the public since that fateful winter morning when Brian Thompson, then CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was gunned down outside the New York Hilton Hotel in Manhattan. Thompson had been on his way to deliver remarks at his company’s annual investor conference, a detail that, as CBS News noted, has kept the story in the national spotlight. Surveillance footage captured the masked shooter’s escape: first by bike to Central Park, then by taxi to a bus depot serving several nearby states. The manhunt spanned multiple states and lasted five days, culminating in Mangione’s arrest at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania—more than 230 miles from the crime scene—after a tip from an alert employee.
Mangione, 27, has steadfastly pleaded not guilty to both federal and state charges. Since his arrest, he has been held without bail. The legal battle has only intensified, with the defense mounting a multi-pronged challenge to the government’s case. According to filings obtained by the Associated Press and Business Insider, Mangione’s lawyers argue that their client was never read his Miranda rights before law enforcement questioned him in Pennsylvania. They contend that any statements Mangione made to police should be excluded from trial, as should evidence obtained from his backpack, which contained a gun and ammunition. The defense asserts that officers lacked a warrant to search the backpack, raising critical Fourth Amendment concerns.
Corinna Barrett Lain, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, explained to Straight Arrow News that suspects must be in custody and under official interrogation for Miranda rights to apply. “Interrogation under Miranda is any statements or actions that the police know are reasonably likely to lead to an incriminating response,” Lain said. The defense maintains that Mangione was questioned while in custody, but without having his rights read—a procedural misstep that could have significant ramifications for the prosecution’s case.
The circumstances of Mangione’s arrest remain a point of contention. According to court documents, Mangione initially lied about his identity when approached by police at the Altoona McDonald’s. Officers warned him that further deception would lead to arrest, prompting him to admit his true identity. The exact sequence of events—particularly whether Mangione consented to the search of his backpack—remains unclear. Lain told Straight Arrow News that if Mangione did not consent and the backpack was not physically on his person but rather on the floor next to him, police would have needed a warrant to search it. “There are cases where a woman is carrying a purse, and the police have probable cause to search the woman. The courts will say, ‘Well, OK, the purse is a part of her,’” Lain explained. “But where the purse or the backpack is not physically a part of them, but is just next to them –– they might have probable cause to seize the backpack, but they would need to get a warrant to actually search it.”
Beyond procedural issues, the defense is challenging the very foundation of the federal charges. At the heart of the matter is Count Three of the indictment—the sole charge eligible for the death penalty—which accuses Mangione of murder with a firearm as part of other “crimes of violence.” Prosecutors allege that the “other crime” in this case is stalking. Mangione’s attorneys, however, argue that stalking does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence under federal law. “If you want to know if something’s a crime of violence, you would normally look within the code section,” Lain said. “Stalking falls into the larger federal section on domestic violence. And interestingly, [stalking] falls between sexual exploitation, that’s chapter 110, and shipping offenses — that’s chapter 111. So it’s not firmly embedded in some violent crime section.”
The legal ambiguity surrounding stalking has opened the door to a fierce debate. While stalking can involve intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, it can also be prosecuted for causing severe emotional distress. “You could violate stalking by having these contacts or placing someone under surveillance with the intent to harass them or intimidate them,” Lain noted. “Yeah, it’s against the law, but is it a crime of violence? No.” She added, “I think you could fairly say that stalking falls into a gray area, that it is not categorically a crime of violence, but as applied, it could be.” This distinction between categorical and applied definitions may ultimately shape the outcome of the case.
The federal death penalty charge has also drawn attention because New York abolished capital punishment years ago. As a result, Mangione can only face the death penalty at the federal level. The prosecution’s pursuit of this penalty aligns with directives from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who in April called the killing a “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America.” Bondi’s decision, as reported by Straight Arrow News, was made in concert with President Donald Trump’s push for renewed federal capital punishment.
Last month, Mangione’s defense scored a partial victory when New York Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro dismissed two top terrorism charges against him for legal insufficiency. However, the federal case remains robust, with prosecutors determined to press forward. The defense’s latest filing seeks not only to dismiss the death penalty charge but also to prevent the government from using key evidence obtained during Mangione’s arrest. The outcome of these motions is pending before U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett.
The aftermath of the assassination has reverberated far beyond the courtroom. The words “delay,” “deny,” and “depose” were found written in permanent marker on ammunition at the murder scene—an eerie echo of phrases commonly used by critics of the insurance industry. As reported by the Associated Press, this detail has fueled a cascade of online vitriol toward U.S. health insurers and rattled corporate executives concerned about security at public events.
For now, Mangione remains in federal custody, awaiting the court’s decision on his legal team’s sweeping motions. The case stands at the intersection of criminal justice, corporate America, and public sentiment—raising thorny questions about due process, the reach of federal law, and the limits of capital punishment in modern America. Whatever the outcome, its repercussions are likely to be felt for years to come.
