Luigi Mangione’s High-Risk Legal Strategy

and I love horror movies. I love my dog, and I love trying to trick you.

“I'm Sam Azarsky, and I create the game's spelling bee and letterboxed on a daily basis,”

and I have this thing called "Promesthesia." I see color when I'm listening to music. New York Times games are made by people, like the ones you just heard from. Go to NYTimes.com/games to start playing today. From The New York Times, I'm Zollinkano Youngs, filling in this host. This is The Daily. In the two years since a masked man shot and killed a health care executive,

the National Spotlight has turned to one primary suspect, Luigi Manjeehoney. Newly released video of the moment, prosecutor say Luigi Manjeehoney gunned down United Healthcare CEO Brian. In that notebook, though, apparently there's multiple notes, writings from Manjeehoney, as well as other notes, mounting evidence collected by investigators, continuing to link 26-year-old Luigi Manjeehoney to the murder.

The overwhelming evidence has pointed to his guilt, and the question on most minds has been, "What might the defense of one of the most famous murder suspects in America look like?" A lot of anticipation and a line of people outside federal court in New York City today,

but on Friday, in a single hearing, we got our first glimpse at an answer.

One that appears to include a full-throated embrace of his guilt. Today, my colleague's Benjamin Wiser and Harubi Mechko, on the risky defense strategy of Luigi Manjeehoney, and why an admission of guilt might be his best bet. It's Monday, August 17th. So Harubi Mechko, you two have been following the prosecution of Luigi Manjeehoney

for almost two years. This has been happening on a number of different fronts.

“I think it's overwhelming for many people. Manjeehoney faces multiple charges for multiple”

different crimes in both state and federal court, all centered around one act. The assassination

of Brian Thompson, the United Healthcare CEO. And on Friday, we got our first glimpse of how these

different threads might play out in court. Ben, how would you characterize what we saw? All of the pieces of this brazen assassination from back in December 2024, the killing on a man hadn't sidewalk that really riveted the nation, a fell into place in front of our eyes. And we heard from Manjeehoney for the very first time in public when he pled guilty. He entered a guilty plea before a judge and explained what he had done that made him believe he was guilty.

A guilty plea. Harubi, when I hear that, I kind of wonder, okay, is this a rap? Is it over? Is that the case? Not quite. So he's entered a guilty plea in the federal case, but he still has a state case that is still looming and there could be months of litigation on that front. So the case is far from over. Far from over. Okay, let's let's get into this. Let's talk through the different elements of the state case, the federal case, all of these cases against

“Louis G. Manjeehoney. How has his legal defense evolved from the moment of his arrest?”

Sure. So from his arrest in Altoona, Pennsylvania, the Manhattan District Attorney's office

almost immediately charged him with 11 counts, including terrorism and second degree murder.

And as he was being extradited to New York and as he landed in New York City, the Manhattan Federal Prosecutors announced that they too would be charging him. Yeah, uh, the United States Justice Department brought four counts. Notably, one was use of a firearm to commit murder. Which carries a maximum potential sense of death if the government decides to seek it. There were also two counts of interstate stalking in a sense, stalking him over state lines,

stalking the victim, resulting in the death of Thompson. And that carried a maximum sense of life. There was an additional firearm charge, but those were the four counts initially brought by the federal government. And in announcing those charges, the United States attorney at the time, this was the Biden administration said explicitly that they expected the Manhattan DA's office to try Manjoni first and that the United States attorney's office would follow.

So the feds are deferring to the state authorities in some way. They're saying you're going to be kind of a lead on this and take the first crack at it. That's right. But several months after Trump

was going to seek the death penalty. So once the feds were saying that, and at least appearing

“to accelerate the process, it was no longer clear that the federal government was going to defer”

to the state first, to the district attorney's office. I should add that there's always been a

natural competitiveness between these two offices. It certainly goes back several decades, the period of time I've been covering the subject. But on top of that, there's something else between the two offices. The U.S. Attorney's Office, of course, is part of the Justice Department under President Trump. And the district attorney is Alvin Bragg. And Alvin Bragg, of course, was the prosecutor whose office successfully prosecuted Donald Trump in 2024.

Right. Right. I mean, even just covering the White House, it is clear that there's no shortage of reasons why these two offices have tension. And I should add that both prosecutors' offices have said that they're pulling from the same well of evidence. And that evidence, they've said, from the beginning is overwhelming. Starting with at the scene, there were shell casings found from the gun. And at the time of Manjeonis arrest as well, in a backpack, prosecutors have said

there was a whole lot of evidence with the gun itself, as well as a notebook, where they said that he planned the attack. And there was also a note with him that they've called a manifesto, which seemed to decry the healthcare insurance industry. And essentially just spell out why he attacked and killed a health insurance executive. Right. Right. Not to mention the evidence that the whole world saw these videos of the shooting that went viral and very much marked this killing.

So Ben tell us about how Manjeonis defense team set out to navigate all of these charges supported

by all of this evidence that feels pretty overwhelming. He's certainly hired powerful lawyers,

lawyers who have a wealth of experience in New York, both as prosecutors and defense lawyers. His lead lawyer, Karen Friedman, Agniflow, herself had worked in the Manhattan's DA's office as the number two prosecutor there. And her husband, Mark Agniflow, represented some of the most prominent

“defendants in the city just in the last year or so, Sean Combs did he in his trial?”

That's a big case. So their challenge once Mr. Manjeonis was in custody was first to attack the charges and through filings in both the state and federal court and a lot of vigorous argument, they ultimately succeeded in getting the state terrorism charge against him dropped and the federal count that carried the potential death penalty was also dismissed. So it seems like they got some momentum. Absolutely. They still faced another great challenge though, all of that evidence that had been

collected and tied by prosecutors to Manjeonis was out there and that was the evidence that would be presented against him in any trial he faced in New York, a state or federal court. And so they filed motions in both courts to suppress the evidence. I just wanted to jump in very quickly the suppression of the evidence and the defense lawyers arguments are really pointed to the time that Manjeonis was arrested in Pennsylvania. They argued that when the Al tuna police department

searched his backpack at first there was no warrant. So everything that was pulled out should not have been pulled out of the backpack that that violated his rights. And essentially they make a fruit of the poison tree argument and say that therefore anything that was in that backpack should not be allowed into a trial at all. And they tried that both in the federal and state case. In the federal case the judge overseeing that one quickly ruled that actually under federal law

everything is allowed into a trial. And in the state case the judge decided that some evidence

“should be suppressed but allowed in two very important pieces of evidence for state prosecutors,”

which was the gun that they said was connected to the killing and a notebook that they say detailed his plans to kill Brian Thompson. Okay so essentially this effort to suppress the evidence it doesn't really work where does the defense team go from there? So the question after that became are they having any kinds of clean negotiations with the prosecutors? And just generally any

good defense lawyer would always be in talks with prosecutors throughout the case.

This would be essentially a deal for Manjeonis to plea guilty on a lesser charge for lesser sentence. Is that right? It could be the same charge. It could be a lesser charge but it would be an effort for Manjeonis and his team to mitigate either the charges that he's facing or the

that there had been any kinds of negotiations or any talks. On the contrary state prosecutors had

“been very vocal that they wanted to go to trial. They felt they had a very strong case and the”

state trial was fast approaching. There was a hearing on Tuesday where the state judge announced that the jury would be anonymous and he told everyone I will see you on September 8th. Okay so after that it looks like Manjeonis is going to have to go to court and defend himself against murder charges. Pretty soon. That's right. And then on a day last week the same day that the judge in the state court held his final hearing before the trial the federal court posted a notice saying that a

hearing was being scheduled for Friday morning for reasons that were not described and that brought us to a federal courtroom on Friday where Manjeonis made his appearance. And what did we see in that federal courtroom on Friday? Well Manjeonis sat there between his lawyers and gave what's called

“an allocation a statement in which he admitted to what he did that added up to guilt in this case.”

The two stalking charges that led to Mr. Thompson's death. He talked about learning that United Health Care was holding an annual investor conference in New York City. He researched the event online and he said he emailed United Health Care leadership posing as an investor at a firm

that he said was managing over $50 billion in assets and asking for more information about the

conference. And he said, and this is a direct quote, "Unlike my previous interactions with insurers, I received an immediate response within an hour." And quote, suggesting against that they were happy to respond to a wealthy investor even if they, in his perspective weren't treating their patients very well. He also mentioned that he had endured years of severe pain from what he said was a broken back and that he had had to navigate the obstacles of the health insurance system.

So here he is making clear statements about his opinions that might also suggest his motivation. He talked about using a 3D printer to make part of a gun which he equipped with a silencer and a magazine. And he also talked about traveling from outside New York to Manhattan to carry out this assassination. And he said, "My travel to New York and my email to United Health Care was with the

intent to shoot Brian Thompson." This is the first time we have Manjoni or his team like addressing

any of this, right? I mean, we haven't heard from him in this kind of way yet until this moment. Now, that's right. And then this allocation culminated with his statement that on the morning of December for 2024, and again, I'm quoting him, "I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan and he died. When I did so, I understood that my actions would place him in fear of death and serious bodily injury. I knew what I was doing with illegal and quote."

So Harubi, as I hear these details, all of these seem like details that would hurt Manjoni's case. It almost seems like he could just be like burning the house down here as he admits this guilt.

“What were your reactions to to what he was saying in court that day?”

My first thought, especially as he started reading from a prepared statement and giving all of these

details, is it's remarkable to have all of this information after nearly two years to hear from him why he killed Brian Thompson and the details of the planning and everything that he gave. And my immediate second thought is that far from burning down the house that this was of strategic move from Manjoni and his lawyers to upend the state case, because as we were paying attention to the words that he was saying in that courtroom, so were the prosecutors with the Manhattan

District Attorney's Office just down the street. We'll be right back. The New York Times app unlocked. Everyone knows the times is behind a paywall. Only subscribers have access to all the reporting. But what if you could explore the times for a month for free without putting in a credit card? Now you can. When you download the New York

to see what time subscribers get every single day. All the investigations,

“the reviews, the recipes, the deeply reported fact-based journalism. If you don't already”

subscribe to the New York Times, download the Times app today and get free access for 30 days. Okay, so Harobi, help me understand why Manjoni's lawyers would offer this blunt detailed

admission of guilt in this way. Like, on first glance, it doesn't really make sense. It doesn't

track, but I'm sure you've got a better understanding than me on this. We don't know exactly what the discussions were between Manjoni and his lawyers. However, what we do know is within an hour of his plea, his lawyers file a motion and state court making two arguments. One, they say they're due process violations, and the second piece, they argue that now that Manjoni has pleaded guilty to federal charges,

that now this is essentially a double jeopardy case in the state venue, and the state case should be tossed out. Okay, double jeopardy. If I have this right, we're essentially talking about the argument that somebody cannot be tried twice for the same crime. But hearing you guys talk about this, I thought that we had different charges here. They each of these entities state and feds

“they're bringing different charges. So, how does double jeopardy apply here?”

That's likely what the Manjoni district attorney's office is going to argue against this mission to dismiss is that the federal case and the state case are designed to address different harms, where it's the stocking charges in the federal case, and the state case is very different, because he's actually being tried for murder. Right, different institutions, different charges. Right, but New York state law has broader protections for defendants.

Interesting. What Manjoni's lawyers are arguing under state law is the fact that he's already pleaded guilty to stocking, which led to Brian Thompson's death, that the state case is automatically double jeopardy out. Right, and so that detail confession he gave, I imagine that was actually key to this argument. That's correct. It could become very key. But Ben clarify something for me here. What does Manjoni actually have to gain in this situation? Right, you guys have articulated

the strategy, but if he does this, he's still going to be convicted in federal court. Right, so what is the benefit of his lawyers directing him to follow this route, this strategy? Well, of course, he has been convicted now, and thus we know he faces up to life in prison, and under the guidelines could face less time. Perhaps less time that would allow him if he was sentenced to less time

“to walk out of prison before he was 60 years old. And the truth is, in state court, if you were”

convicted there, he faces a 25 years to life sentence on a secondary murder charge, which, again,

in a theoretical sense, would allow him to walk out of prison as well. But the bottom line is that

by pleading guilty as he has, he at least has a chance you would think, or his lawyers think, to get rid of that state case altogether. It's a better deal for them to only be facing one sentence than two. Got it, okay. So it may be that the feds are more lenient than the state prosecutors, but that's actually besides the point. The strategy here is more so that by Luigi Manjioni bending the knee on one track here, he actually may have a higher chance of eliminating

that second track, meaning that he could face an outcome where he only needs to deal with one trial. Right. And he could, if he's very lucky, get a sentence that would allow him to walk out of prison. But he has to be very lucky that there's no state case at all. Just jump in very quickly. If his strategy doesn't work and a state trial does go forward, everything he has said during that hearing, his admission, all of that could be admissible in a trial

against him. So it's a, on some level, it is a risky maneuver. Okay. So it seems like this detailed admission of guilt we got from Manjioni. I understand how it plays into this double jeopardy strategy. But you know, I also wonder how it might play into something broader. Like in the minds of some Luigi Manjioni had become something bigger. He had become this idle for standing up against the health care insurance industry. So Harubi,

I wonder if you've examined not only how his admission of guilt and really his detailed explanation of his motive, not only have that factored into his legal strategy, but also how that factors into the broader cultural conversation around this case.

Well, it might be the first time that we've heard Luigi Manjioni admit to the killing in this case.

For some of his supporters, they've just understood that it was him and that they were supporting him

bigger, larger force, which is the health care insurance industry and the harms that that

“has been doing to the Outbridge American. So I don't think it's as shocking or surprising or”

turning away some of his most ardent supporters. It's interesting though, it's given what Manjioni setting court. The government responded to it afterwards. Just a few moments ago, Manjioni pled guilty to his heinous act. This was not a spontaneous act of violence. It was deliberate, calculated, and premeditated. Jamie McDonald, who has just been named the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, went outside with other law enforcement officials and spoke to the press.

And he addressed the larger cultural conversation that this case had provoked. The defendant committed this murder in an attempt to draw public attention to his dislike of certain businesses. But we live in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. He essentially said there's nothing honorable about this. This is an assassination we're talking about. No grievance, political belief, or ideological cause, can ever justify murder.

He said, you know, we don't commit murder just because of political grievance or ideological causes. There can be no celebrity in assassination. Any person who celebrates, encourages,

or excuses, actions like these is fundamentally wrong. I know as beat reporters that we never

want to lean into predictions in this business. But I do want to ask where things go next in this case. And what we can expect, the outcome of Manjioni's risky move to be here. Well, for sure, one thing that's coming in December is his sentencing. Manjioni will appear

“before the judge in the federal case. And one aspect of the sentencing that I believe we can expect”

is that the family of the victim, Mr. Thompson's family will be given the opportunity to speak and talk about the impact on them that his death has had. And of course Manjioni will be given an opportunity to speak. Not every defendant speaks that sentence, but most do. And given what he said and his plea, it will be interesting to see how far he goes in whatever he says if he says anything before the judge imposes sentence. On the state side, the district attorney's office has

said that they would litigate that motion to dismiss filed by Manjioni's lawyers and it could really turn into months of court hearings, filings back and forth in litigation. So this case is not over. Ben, Ruby. Thank you so much for breaking it all down. Thank you, Zola. Thank you for having us all.

“We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Can you pledge that the Justice”

Department will always act independently of the White House? Well, there's a big difference between

saying we will always do our job and investigate any case and act independently of the White House. No, I'm not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that. On Sunday, Todd Blanche present Trump's newly confirmed attorney general and former personal attorney refused to say that he would always act independently of White House influence. Questions over Blanche's loyalty to Trump had nearly derailed his nomination to lead the

Justice Department. But Blanche told NBC's meet the press that Trump had never asked him to do anything illegal or unethical. Blanche later said in an interview with Fox News that he was not afraid to push back against Trump. If he and I have disagreements or if there's something that that he has questions about legally that it's my job to talk to him about those, those issues, which I have done for many years and I will continue. And the head of U.S. Central Command

responded to concerns raised about the U.S. S. Lincoln, an American aircraft carrier, supporting U.S. operations against Iran. The ship has been deployed for nearly nine months with report showing shortages of basic supplies, water contamination, and deteriorating mental health among the 5,000 sailors on the ship. President Trump has dismissed those concerns. But on Sunday, Admiral Brad Cooper acknowledged that long deployment at C is, quote, "uniquely

challenging and tough." But he insisted that the ship has the lowest number of cases related to

Today's episode was produced by Alex Stern and Michelle Bonjah.

“It was edited by Michael Benoit and Rob Zipko, and contains music by Leah Shaw Damran”

and Dam Powell. Our theme music is by Wonderley. This episode was engineered by Chris Wood.

That's it for The Daily. I'm Zollinkano Youngs. See you tomorrow.

This week on the Wirecutter Show, it's really tempting the shop online, but there is no

replacement for shopping in person, especially for sofas. It's so hard to shop online.

“We're talking all about sofas. How do I win that will last and that you'll actually like?”

Find the Wirecutter Show wherever you listen to podcasts.