A pivotal evidentiary hearing in the New York murder case against Luigi Mangione continues Thursday — exactly one year after prosecutors say he fatally shot UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on his way to an investor conference. Mangione, 27, has pleaded not guilty to both state and federal charges, and his legal team is seeking to suppress key evidence before any trial begins.
Defense lawyers are pushing to exclude Mangione’s alleged statements to police as well as the contents of his backpack, which they argue were seized without proper legal authority. Prosecutors say those items are central to their case: the 9 mm handgun allegedly found in the bag matches the weapon used in the killing, and a notebook reportedly outlines resentment toward health insurance executives and plans to kill a CEO during a high-profile conference. Officials also say Mangione gave Pennsylvania police the same alias used by the suspected gunman at a New York hostel shortly before the attack.
Thompson, 50, was shot from behind on December 4, 2024. He had led UnitedHealthcare since 2021 and worked within its parent company, UnitedHealth Group, for two decades. The current hearing — limited to the state case — has nonetheless offered a rare public view of testimony, surveillance footage, 911 calls, and other material that will affect both the state and federal prosecutions. This week’s proceedings included police body-camera footage from Mangione’s encounter with officers at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Officers engaged him casually for nearly 20 minutes while attempting to confirm his identity, asking about his recent travels and why he appeared nervous, before eventually reading him his rights and arresting him on an identification-related charge.
Mangione’s team argues his Miranda protections were violated because questioning began before he was advised of his rights. They also claim the backpack search was unlawful because it was conducted without a warrant. Federal prosecutors counter that the officers acted appropriately for safety reasons and that Mangione’s comments were made voluntarily. Disputes over searches and statements are common in high-stakes criminal cases, but here they carry outsized consequence: if the court agrees with the defense, critical evidence could be ruled inadmissible, significantly affecting the prosecution’s ability to move forward.
