Alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO assassin Luigi Mangione’s legal team has filed a motion to dismiss federal charges, including the death penalty, in the murder of Brian Thompson. The motion, submitted to Judge Miriam Goldberg in Manhattan, argues that prosecutors have overreached by misapplying federal statutes to sensationalize the killing. The defense contends that the case should be tried in state court, not federal, and that the evidence against Mangione is primarily circumstantial. They also claim that the death penalty charge is based on flawed legal reasoning, as the other alleged crime, stalking, is not classified as a crime of violence under federal law.
The defense further argues that prosecutors should be barred from using Mangione’s statements to law enforcement, citing a violation of Miranda rights during his interrogation at a McDonald’s. They assert that any statements made without proper legal protection should not be admissible. Additionally, they challenge the legality of the search of Mangione’s backpack, where a gun and ammunition were found, arguing that it was conducted without a warrant and thus violates Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches.
The assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on December 4, 2023, has captured the nation’s attention, sparking widespread public outrage and online debates about corporate accountability. Mangione, who was captured days after the crime, has pleaded not guilty, and his legal team emphasizes that the government’s case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence rather than concrete proof of intent or organized criminal activity. The case, which has already sparked discussions about the role of the death penalty in such high-profile crimes, has also drawn attention from advocacy groups and legal experts.
Mangione’s defense is further supported by the recent public comments of Attorney General Pam Bondi, who called the killing of Thompson a ‘premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America.’ Mangione’s legal team has argued that these comments have been used to justify the death penalty charges, which they claim are not warranted given the legal standards required for such a sentence. The motion for dismissal, which includes requests to remove the death penalty from consideration, is scheduled for oral arguments on December 5. The case continues to be a focal point for discussions about the intersection of law, media, and corporate accountability in the United States.