The Murder of Brian Thompson: The Case of Luigi Mangione: Decision and Order on Suppression

Summary

---

The Murder Sheet Podcast

Episode: The Murder of Brian Thompson: The Case of Luigi Mangione — Decision and Order on Suppression

Date: May 18, 2026

Hosts: Áine Cain (A) and Kevin Greenlee (B)

---

Episode Overview

This episode covers a major development in the high-profile case of Luigi Mangione, who stands accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan in December 2024. The focus is on the recent New York Supreme Court decision regarding the suppression of evidence—a mixed ruling that partially favors the defense. Hosts Áine and Kevin, a journalist and attorney, provide a deep dive into the judge's order, dissect the legal nuances, and discuss what evidence will be permitted at trial.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Context and Background

• The Case: Brian Thompson was shot outside the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan on December 4th, 2024. Luigi Mangione was arrested days later at an Altoona, PA McDonald’s.
• Dual Proceedings: Mangione faces both federal and state charges; this episode focuses on New York State proceedings.
• Suppression Hearings: The defense motioned to suppress various pieces of evidence. The court responded with a detailed order granting some suppression and denying others.
• Judge: Justice Gregory Caro (New York Supreme Court, New York County).

---

The Judge’s Approach ([02:10]-[06:09])

• The order is presented as “brief” but thorough—about 17 pages long.
• Áine describes the suppression of any evidence as “a pretty big win for the defense” ([05:57]).
  • Quote: “I think any ability to get evidence suppressed at this phase… is a win and should be seen as a win for the defense of Mr. Mangione.” ([05:57] - A)

---

Legal Foundations: Facts and Law ([06:09]-[07:49])

• Distinction Explained: Kevin breaks down how courts apply the law to specific factual circumstances—first establishing “what happened,” then applying relevant law ([06:35]-[07:49]).

  “What is necessary for judges to do… is, first of all, they have to say, we’ve listened to some testimony. This is what we believe the facts are. And now… we have to look at the law and apply it and see how the law comes down.” ([06:47] - B)

---

Factual Summary: Mangione’s Arrest at McDonald's ([07:49]-[14:42])

• Police in Altoona, PA confront Mangione in McDonald’s after he is recognized by staff.
• Mangione provides a false name and fake ID.
• He is frisked, eventually arrested, and his backpack is seized and searched.
• The search yielded: 9mm handgun, loaded magazine, silencer, cash, passport, notebook, computer chip, cell phone, knife, and assorted personal effects.
• Notable moments:
  • Police bodycam shows that customers and staff continued to move through the area during the search ([14:13]).
  • Officers express concern about possibly moving a bomb to the police station—a nod to a local incident with a pipe bomb ([13:45]-[13:47]).

---

THE RULINGS: What’s In, What’s Out

(I) McDonald’s Backpack Search ([15:31]-[30:11])

• Key Legal Question: Should New York or Pennsylvania law apply?
  • Judge Caro rules “New York law applies”—a victory for the defense, as NY law affords stricter protections ([18:41]-[19:24]).
  • Quote: “New York has a paramount interest in the application of its law, and New York has a paramount interest in the application of its law.” ([18:41] - A)
• Exigency & Immediate Control: Judge finds Mangione’s backpack was not under his “immediate control or grabbable area” once it was moved and he was handcuffed and surrounded ([22:00]-[24:00]).
  • Safety Argument: Judge dismisses the claim that the search was primarily for public safety; officers’ actions didn’t match a true “bomb threat” scenario.
  • Quote: “If you really have reason to think there is an explosive in the backpack, …wouldn’t you evacuate that restaurant?” ([22:47] - B)
• Result: All evidence found during the McDonald's backpack search is suppressed, except for the red notebook (which was not opened at the scene).
  • Suppressed: Magazine, cell phone, passport, wallet, computer chip.
  • Quote: “The evidence found during the search of the backpack at the McDonald's must be suppressed, including the magazine, cell phone, passport, wallet and computer chip.” ([28:42] - A)
• Red Notebook: Stays in because officers did not examine it until reaching the station ([29:33]).

---

(II) Station House Search ([30:12]-[39:00])

• Inventory Search Protocol: Judge finds Altoona PD followed proper procedures for inventory searches, which are allowed if not done for investigative purposes.
• Result: All evidence found at the station, including the firearm, silencer, red notebook, USB drive, and photos/cataloguing of the notebook, is admissible.
  • Quote: “…the Altoona Police Department had an established inventory search protocol … and the protocol was followed … the search produced the hallmark of an inventory search, a meaningful inventory list.” ([36:55] - A)

---

(III) Search Warrant Argument ([39:00]-[41:41])

• Judge Caro rejects prosecution’s claim that a later Pennsylvania search warrant can retroactively justify anything previously seized illegally at McDonald’s.
  • Quote: “…the presence of an independent source does not automatically immunize a[n] initial warrantless search.” ([40:55] - A)

---

(IV) Defendant’s Statements ([41:41]-[51:22])

• At McDonald’s:
  • Pre-custody (before 9:47am): Statements allowed.
  • Post-custody (after 9:47am): Responses to interrogation suppressed, but basic identifying info (“pedigree”) allowed.
  • Post-Miranda: Defendant’s statements about remaining silent are excluded. Responses to safety questions (weapons, frisk) are admissible.
• To Correctional Officers:
  • Statements made spontaneously to PA corrections officers are admissible.
  • Quote: “Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is... admissible in evidence.” ([44:43] - A/quoting court)

---

Impact & Analysis ([51:40]-[57:37])

• Defense Win: Suppressing evidence from McDonald’s backpack is a meaningful win.
• Prosecution Still Strong: Admissibility of the firearm and silencer—crucial evidence—means the state case remains strong.
  • Quote: “Feels like a lot of the stuff that is coming in is pretty damaging.” ([53:58] - B)
• Áine’s View: Suppressed items may not be “load bearing” in the case; the gun is likely most important.
  • “I think the biggest thing about this is probably the gun. The gun is huge. You lose the gun, that's a big deal. They lost the magazine…I don't know how much this affects the case going forward.” ([54:02] - A)
• Both hosts unsure if suppressed items dramatically alter trial outcome. Statements to correctional officers and minor comments at McDonald's seen as “weird, but not incriminating.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Law Application:

  “New York law applies, which is stricter…so that in and of itself is a win for the defense.” ([19:08] - B)

• On Exigency:

  “If you really thought there were explosives in that backpack, wouldn’t you evacuate that restaurant?” ([22:47] - B)

• On Defense Strategy:

  “It’s really not smart to talk to people when you’re in this situation. I’m just going to say that.” ([43:05] - A)

• On Being in Custody:

  “Once you’re surrounded by eight cops at a McDonald’s...all ambiguity is gone.” ([49:44] - B)

• On the Ruling’s Effect:

  “I think as I look over this, it’s a very well reasoned, put together document. I understood the reasoning of the judge—makes sense.” ([57:03] - B)

---

Timeline & Timestamps for Important Segments

| Segment | Timestamp | |------------------------------------------------------|--------------| | Case Background & Facts | 02:10–07:49 | | Police Encounter at McDonald's | 07:49–14:42 | | Judge Rules on Law (NY vs. PA) | 18:41–19:24 | | Legal Reasoning on Immediate Control & Exigency | 21:50–24:00 | | Ruling – What’s Suppressed vs. Admissible (Backpack) | 28:42–29:33 | | Analysis of Station House Search | 30:12–39:00 | | “Independent Source” Doctrine | 39:00–41:41 | | Suppression of Defendant’s Statements | 41:41–51:22 | | Rundown: What’s In & Out | 51:22–53:58 | | Final Analysis | 54:02–57:37 |

---

Conclusion

This episode provided an in-depth, step-by-step breakdown of the suppression order in the Luigi Mangione case, highlighting the balance between law enforcement procedure and the rights of the accused. The defense scored a partial win with the exclusion of several items found during the initial search, but the state retains powerful evidence in the form of the gun and silencer. The hosts emphasize the legal nuance and fairness of the judge's rationale, and note that, while some publicly lauded items are “out,” the heart of the case remains with the admissible firearm evidence.

Listeners come away with an appreciation for judicial reasoning and the intricacies of evidence suppression in high-stakes criminal trials.

Transcript

[A]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states from Geico Subconscious News, I'm Tammy. Racing thoughts broadcasting from your brain. You think you live in a pretty safe place, but you just heard about a break in four miles away, which isn't close, but it isn't far either. You know our Art Palpitations is on the scene. I sure am, Tammy. And I don't even know why I drove out here because, as you know, you got customized renters insurance through Geico, so your stuff is covered. Oh, well, that's great. Any sign of crime there, Art? Just some light littering, Tammy, but like they say, a little litter can lead to a lot. Wise words. It feels good to worry less. It feels good to Geico. I'm Anya, and today we're going to talk about a development regarding key pieces of evidence in the murder of Brian Thompson case. Content warning this episode contains discussion of murder. So at the heart of the matter here today, we know that UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered in 2024 in Midtown Manhattan. A man named Luigi Mangioni is on trial, or rather two trials, for that case. On the one hand, he's got federal charges, and that's going through the federal courts. And at the same time, he's got state charges in New York. So recently, Mangioni's defense team argued that they wanted certain key pieces of evidence against him suppressed. The state already argued back, saying, no, don't suppress those. So today, Monday, May 18, 2026, we finally have our answer on what the judge is suppressing and what he's not suppressing, because this is kind of a mixed decision. He is, he is. He's keeping some things in, he's throwing some things out, and we're going to talk about all of it now. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[B]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[A]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[B]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder Sheet and this is

[A]

the murder of Brian Thompson. The case of Luigi. Decision and order on suppression. Sam. So the judge on the state case is Judge Gregory Caro, and that is the judicial officer tasked with the, you know, bringing this through the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. And he. This is a pretty brief order. It's about 17 pages. Well, maybe it's not that brief, but I've had to deal with some pretty long documents in this case. So I was like, yeah. And I guess the kind of breakdown that I'm going to give you is, as I mentioned at the top, certain pieces of evidence are in. Notably the gun found on. In Luigi Mangione's backpack is going to be in the case. But there's also some things that are suppressed. So I think it's important to maybe kind of contextualize all this. So I think probably the easiest way for everyone to understand it. I found this a very easy to understand order. I think we're just going to kind of read through it and then summarize at the end what's in and what's out. It's gonna. It's gonna take on a Project Runway vibe at the end there. I guess. I used to love that show as a kid, but, no, it's gonna be more serious than that. So I guess to start off with Judge Caro goes ahead and sort of summarizes the facts of this case or kind of. Kind of does a little intro where he's kind of talking about what happened with the actual murder and what the defense was asking for here. So we start off with, quote, On December 4, 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot to death outside the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan. On December 9, 2024, the defendant was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, after he was recognized by employees who had seen media coverage. A 9 millimeter gun was recovered from the defendant's backpack, as well as, among other items, a loaded magazine, a silencer, cash, a passport, and a notebook. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence recovered, as well as statements made to law enforcement officers during and after his arrest. On September 16, 2025, this court ordered Mapp and Huntley hearings. And those hearings were held in December 2025, during which the court heard testimony from 17 witnesses. Both parties filed written submissions for the reasons stated below. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. So before we go onward, maybe people will disagree with me. I. And maybe you'll agree with me by the end of this or disagree with me. But my interpretation of this is the fact that anything got suppressed at all is a pretty big win for the defense. I wasn't necessarily expecting that. I personally, as, like, a layperson, I understood their Arguments I did. I didn't know how compelling I found them, but I think the fact that they were able to get some of this evidence knocked out is a huge win for them. And that's how I read this. I read this as a win for. I say huge win for reasons that we'll get into later. I'm not sure how much this will ultimately matter. I think that remains to be seen. But I think any ability to get evidence suppressed at this phase in this sort of. With these arguments is a win and should be seen as a win for the defense of Mr. Mangione.

[B]

Yeah, that's fair.

[A]

So, again, we can talk about it. I think different people will have different interpretations, and that's okay. I'm just saying, like, for me, I'm like, wow, okay, they. They got that, you know, so we start off with a section called Findings of Fact. So when we're talking about findings of fact and then also, like the law in this. Kevin, look, can you distinguish when a judge is looking at the facts, but also the law? And, like, what. What's going on with that? Why. Why. Why make that distinction?

[B]

Well, basically, I mean, I'll. I'll make this ridiculously simple. The law.

[A]

I need that

[B]

laws apply in specific factual situations. For instance, if you are going 55 miles an hour, if you happen to be driving on a highway, that's fine. And the law doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong. You're not breaking the law. If you're going that speed and you're on a city street or a neighborhood straight, well, then you're speeding, you're driving dangerously, and you are breaking the law. So what is necessary for judges to do in a case like this is, first of all, they have to say, we've listened to some testimony. This is what we believe the facts are. And now that we know what the facts are, that is, somebody may have been driving 55 miles per hour, we have to look at the law and apply it and see how the law comes down. So you have to figure out the facts, and then you figure out the law and you apply it. And that's what you see happening in a decision like that. Does that make sense?

[A]

Makes sense. So to start off with, Judge Caro outlines the facts as he saw it from these hearings, and he actually starts out with saying the facts relevant to the hearing are largely undisputed. So he's saying, this is a case where there's maybe some agreement to some level about what happened, how we interpret that is, and how we believe the law should be interpreted. Here is where there is the difference between the defense and the state. And I will, I think it is important to re summarize some of this stuff because we did go into it in some past coverage of this case and we went into the sort of state side of it. I think we went over that document and then maybe some of the defense's response. So I think let's just recap this because it'll help us understand what's coming in and why and what's not coming in and why. So we're go back to December 9, 2024. He the judge recognizes that a number of officers from the Altoona Police Department did testify. And also their body worn camera footage that they submitted was also brought into evidence. They talked about how the initial Altoona police officer was responding to this Altoona McDonald's employee who recognized Mangioni were Joseph Detwiler, Tyler Fry. They show up at McDonald's about 9:30am that Wyler is listed as a 14 year veteran of the department whereas Fry was more of a rookie of that Wyler had been following the case. He was like aware of this shooting and whatnot. So they find Mangione sitting at the back table near the bathrooms. He's got a backpack sitting on the floor at his feet and a laptop before him. And basically what happens is when, when the Detwiler asks him to pull his face mask down, he does so. And Detwiler recognizes him as who he believes is the New York City shooter. And he gets a fake name from Mangione. Mark Rosario is how he identifies himself. And he gives them a phony New Jersey driver's license with that name. And they, they go to try to verify that license. Detwiler sort of talking with him, asking about where he's from, has he been to New York recently. Datweiler very much thinks this is the guy, but he's playing it casual. He frisks Mangioni, doesn't find anything. Detwiler goes outside at some point and calls Lieutenant Tom Hannely and he Hannely, Sergeant John Burns, Corporal Garrett Trent, Officer Samuel McCoy all head to the McDonald's. This is obviously a pretty big deal. Then you have that. Wiler keeps Mangioni talking. He says I've not been to New York City recently. He says he's homeless. And Detwaller said, oh, we're just trying to confirm your identity but after that you can leave. Lieutenant Hanley on his way to the McDonald's is trying to call the NYPD the New York City Police Department using 911. He's not really getting through. Then McCoy, an officer named Luke Yeager, Corporal Brian Miller, they all show up. And Detwiler asks McCoy to stand with the defendant around 9:42am now, in testimony, Lieutenant Hanley said that he felt that Mangione was detained at that point. So the judge does note that Detwiler and Hanley conferred out, confer outside. And that one was like, that's the shooter. And Burns and Trent are inside. They then more officers show up. Christy Wasser and Stephen Fox, they show up, and Hanley tells Detweiler, give Mangioni false identification warnings under Pennsylvania law. Del Wiler tells Mangioni that, you know, hey, if you give us a false name, we're going to arrest you. At about 9:48am Corporal Trent directed Fox to read Mangioni his Miranda warning, and Fox does so. At that point, Fox asked, you want to talk to us? Mangione is like, no, I don't think. And he's like, shaking his head. Fox tells the guy, hey, you're not in custody at this point. And he continues to ask him, why do you have a fake identification? You know, what's going on? And Mangioni says, I'm going to remain silent. Fox orders Mangioni to stand, frisks him once more. And Mangioni claims, I'm carrying a jar of peanut butter. So he's asked, do you have any weapons? Mangione says no at first, and then he says he has a pocket knife. At this point, Hanley is outside sort of reaching out to the Blair County District Attorney's office in Pennsylvania, trying to figure out what charges to file. And they go with forgery and tampering. At 9:58am Hanley instructs the officers to arrest Mangione. Deadweiler and Fry take the defendant by the arm. Wasser puts on a pair of rubber gloves, and they, you know, they were arresting him, and they at that point, they say he's in custody. Over the radio, deadweiler, fry, McCoy searched the pockets of Mangione, searches clothing. They get the peanut butter. They get a pouch with money, coins, gloves, paper, a hat, string. Fox goes to the table where the backpack is. He asks him if there's anything in the bag they need to know about. Mangione says he's just going to remain silent. Wasser and Fox search the backpack. And at this point, you're noticing with the body cam footage, with the testimony, customers or employees and employees are notably still in the McDonald's, still walking through that back area to access a closet and the bathroom in there. That's going to be very important later. So remember that there's still people going through this McDonald's while they're doing this. So Trent recommends to everybody, let's bring. Bring this backpack to the station and search it. There's Wasser and Fox say they don't want to bring a bomb to the station. This. They don't want to, quote, pull a moser. This is a Altoona police officer who once accidentally brought a pipe bomb to the station.

[B]

Oops.

[A]

Yeah. And his name became, I guess, legendary for the wrong reasons. And this is what they find in the backpack. They take a red journal out. Fox does, puts it on the table. Wasser finds the Faraday bag, finds within its cell phone, passport, wallet. Fox finds a cardboard sleeve, tries to open it with a knife, and finds a computer data chip. They also find, you know, this passport. And Wasser finds some, I think, wet underwear and unrolls it and finds a handgun magazine. At this point, Hannah Lee says he told Wasser and Fox, let's wait till we get back to the station. We'll finish the search there. I'm concerned about cross contamination of DNA evidence. So they put everything back inside the backpack except for some items that they put in a separate McDonald's bag, and they take it back to the station. So that's what Judge Caro says. That's what happened here in the McDonald's search.

[B]

So those are the facts. And again, what's important here is the law says in certain circumstances, certain types of searches are allowed, are permissible. And if a search is allowed and permissible, it means that the fruits of that search, the things you find during that search, are allowed into court proceedings. But if you say these are the facts, and then here is the law, and I don't think the facts support what the law says, then that means, no, you can't use those things in court.

[A]

And I. I said we were going to go in chronological order, but maybe it would be good to actually jump ahead and. And because he kind of segments this nicely, and I think maybe it would be helpful to jump ahead and actually talk about what his ruling is on the McDonald's search specifically.

[B]

Yeah, let's do that. That makes sense.

[A]

That makes sense. And we stay busy with the podcast, so I like my wardrobe to stay comfortable, easy, and intentional. Something that I could put on that feels great while also looking super put together when we're going out to court or to an interview.

[B]

So thank goodness for our sponsor, Quint's. We both love quints. They've got high quality products that we can actually afford. They help us elevate our look without breaking the bank.

[A]

These are the kinds of premium everyday essentials that you can wear all the time and incorporate into your wardrobe seamlessly. All their pieces are 50 to 80% less expensive than what you'd find at competitors. They keep costs low by cutting out middlemen and partnering directly with ethical factories and artisans.

[B]

100% European linen shorts and shirts to keep you cool this spring and summer from $34 clean 100% Pima cotton tees that are super soft to the touch.

[A]

I myself love wearing Quince's 100% European linen button front dress in blue chambray stripe. It's so light and airy. We're actually going to go out and hang out with friends soon and I'm probably going to put that on. It's a perfect going out outfit and it's just so comfortable. I wear it all the time.

[B]

Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to Quince.com msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet

[A]

wherever you go, whatever they get into, from chill time to everyday adventures. Protect your dog from parasites with Credelio Guattro. For full safety information, side effects and warnings, visit cordelioquattrolabel.com consult your vet or call 1-888-545-5973. Ask your vet for Cordelio Cuatro and visit quattrodog.com you know, a big part of the prosecution's argument, or rather the state's argument, was that, hey, like, you know, Pennsylvania and New York law are different on searches. Do we really expect a bunch of police officers from Pennsylvania to be like, ah, yes, let's break open those New York law textbooks? And that was a big part of their argument. They also talked about like, there's a certain level of like safety issues that if a search, you know, is kind of required by that and they find something, maybe that's okay. So let's see what Judge Caro found about that. This is what he said. Initially, the court must decide what which state's law, New York's or Pennsylvania's, applies when determining whether evidence or statements should be suppressed. Defendant is being tried In New York for a crime that occurred in New York under these circumstances, it is clear that New York is the forum state and that New York has a paramount interest in the application of its law, end quote. So he's like, new York wins.

[B]

That in itself is a win for the defense. Oh, yeah, because New York has different laws, and New York's laws make it more likely that a search is illegal. Pennsylvania is, I wouldn't say looser, but they have not as high a standard for when a search can be done.

[A]

New York, I think, are some of the more strict states as far as that, the search law.

[B]

Because when we talk about applying law, the first thing we need to figure out is what law do we apply? And he's saying, well, we need to apply New York law, which is stricter. So that in and of itself, as we said, is a win for the defense.

[A]

He goes on to say, quote, while the people argue that Pennsylvania law should apply, as the Altoona Police Department followed Pennsylvania law in good faith, that is not the test under New York law. And in any event, New York law does not have a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, end quote. What he's saying there is essentially, you know, they. What the state's saying is, hey, they. They weren't like, violating its right. They weren't sitting around being like, let's violate his rights. They were sitting around applying Pennsylvania law in good faith. And with the judge saying that may be true, it doesn't matter because our law doesn't have some sort of exception that you're doing in good faith, so it's okay. He goes on to say, the people also argue that the cases cited by the defense apply only when the defendant claim violation of another state's search and seizure laws, because New York courts will not trouble themselves with assertive violations of other state search and seizure law. This court does not believe, however, that those cases can be so limited. The courts clearly state that New York has a paramount interest in the application of its law and that suppression issues, procedural issues, and evidentiary issues are governed by the law of the forum state. The courts do not limit this clear pronouncement, and therefore, this court will follow New York law in deciding issues involved. So pretty clear on that. From there, he talks about search incident to arrest. I'll go into that. Quote, the fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The New York Court of Appeals has interpreted our state Constitution as providing even broader protections to justify a warrantless search. The people must meet two separate Requirements. The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not divorced in time or place from the arrest in the context of search and closed containers, incident to arrest. The second requirement is that the people bear the burden of demonstrating the presence of exigent circumstances in order to evoke the exception to the warrant requirement. So in other words, he sort of sums it up. In order to evoke the exigency exception, the property must be within the suspect's immediate control or grabbable area. So in, in. In. What he's saying is that basically when you're justifying a warrantless search, you want to see two things. The safety of the public and the arresting officer is one. And then the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment.

[B]

Yeah, and this goes back to what you were kind of gently foreshadowing a few moments ago, right? Talking about the customers.

[A]

Yes. And the employees.

[B]

And the employees. So we see that while all this is going on, business is going on very much as usual at the McDonald's. There's still customers there. People are still going to the restrooms. And so we can sit here and say, yes, of course, if you really have reason to think there is an explosive in the backpack, you would certainly have the right to search the backpack to protect yourself and others. No one would dispute that. But wait a minute. If you really thought there were explosives in that backpack, wouldn't you evacuate that restaurant? Wouldn't you make. Make it so that people weren't bustling around where you thought the explosive was?

[A]

And I definitely understand that logic and thinking. Personally, I feel like there's degrees to this. Like, maybe, maybe you don't, like, panic everyone and start something immediately when it may not be necessary. But I understand the judge's reasoning here. I'm just saying, personally, like, I think it's a complicated situation, and I. I do think they were following Pennsylvania law. And maybe the issue here is more of that doesn't really necessarily translate to how stringent New York law is, personally. And I, I just think that, like, you know, you can be concerned about a bomb or weapons or whatever. I mean, like, I mean, like, this is a stupid idea, but, like, what if, you know, the backpack's over there, but then he's got a detonator? You know what I mean? Like, I don't like, who knows? Now that's more in the realm of, like an action movie or something. I'm not saying that's realistic. I'm just saying, like, I think there's degrees to which this is the case. But Judge Caro is very much, you know, looking at this from like, you know, there's, there's. People have a lot of rights, and certainly those rights are very much protected under New York law. So he, he also notes, even if even a bag within the immediate control or grabbable area of the suspect at the time of his arrest may not be subject to a warrantless search incident to arrest unless the circumstances support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence located in the bag. So here's what he interprets based on the facts that he just sort of outlined. The backpack, Mangioni's backpack was not under Mangione's immediate control. It was not in his grabbable area at the time of the arrest or search because Lt. Hanley moved the backpack away from him. It was out of his reach shortly after he arrived and a number of officers were standing around the defendant. So if he'd lunge for it, you know, it would have been out of his reach and he would have been surrounded. So at that point, he notes, Also, Lt. Hanley considered the guy detained. And then after that, Officer McCoy moved the backpack to a table nine feet from the defendant. And again, he's still surrounded. So this is what the judge says from there, quote, once defendant was arrested for the false identification, he was handcuffed and remained surrounded by several officers. Hanley was not concerned that defendant could reach the bag while rear cuffed. McCoy was also unconcerned, testifying that the defendant was surrounded by officers who had good body positioning. The defendant was also cooperative, described by several officers as compliant and non combative, and offered no resistance to the frisk or the placing of the handcuffs. So he's not posing a threat. It's not in his immediate area. It's me. It's pretty difficult for him to get it at that point. So they're saying that. So the judge is saying that backpack is in the control of the police. And I think that is fair. That is fair based on, based on what he's seeing here. And then he notes that even if it was within his control or grabbable area, that the people New York did not meet its burden that they needed. So this is what he says about that. Quote, the people assert that the police were merely searching for explosives in an effort to protect themselves in the public before removing the backpack to the station. However, this justification for searching the backpack does not hold up to scrutiny. The officer's actions were inconsistent with merely performing a Safety search. The area where the police searched the backpack was open to the public and to employees, both of whom passed by the area on their way to the bathrooms and in the case of employees, to gain access to the storage closets. Moreover, the police stopped searching the backpack once they found the loaded magazine. A Officer Fox even stated that now they had found the magazine. Let's just take it back. Similarly, if it was a search for a bomb, it was an incomplete one, as they left compartments unopened and untouched. Moreover, a search for explosives would be inconsistent with the examination of small items where a bomb would be unlikely to be found, such as the defendant's wallet and the close examination of an opening of the cardboard sleeve. This court is unpersuaded that the people have met their burden of showing exigent circumstances, end quote. That's what we're talking about. Where you, you know, he wants to see more. He wants to see a more thorough, like, if, and I understand that from the perspective of like if it's a safety search, it needs to look exactly like a safety search. That would you assume mean some evacuation, searching the whole thing comprehensively.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Calling the bomb squad, whatever, I don't know if they have a bomb squad, but doing all of that. So that is a big basis for his reasoning here. And you know, he also notes that another, you know, the people argued, the, the state argued, hey, we, it's not just that they thought it was a bomb. They thought he might have a gun. Turns out he did have a gun. But upon reviewing the body worn camera footage, Judge Caro said the officers, you know, he heard them talking about a bomb a lot, but he didn't hear them talking about a gun. So there's no evidence that that was a real concern for them. And even if it was, could have been a legitimate concern. But, quote, there was no possibility at the time of the search that the defendant might retrieve a gun from the backpack and thus no exigency. And that is the thing about a gun, because, like, maybe you could do something remotely with a bomb. But I mean, I don't know. I don't know gun technology. But I, I think that would be a lot harder. Like, you'd kind of have to get a hold of the gun to really make that be a threat to anyone. If the backpack is far away from him, that's not as much of a concern. So this is what Judge Cara rules about all this. Quote, therefore, the evidence found during the search of the backpack at the McDonald's must be suppressed, including the magazine Cell phone, passport, wallet, and computer chip. So when we talk about these items being suppressed, as far as evidence goes, what does that mean?

[B]

Well, basically, it means that the state is not allowed to introduce them into the trial.

[A]

Those are out.

[B]

They're out.

[A]

Throw them out. So, again, the. The gun magazine, the cell phone, the passport, the wallet, and the computer chip, they're out. I imagine the passport, maybe that's a bigger deal that I'm not picking up on. I. I don't really know about that. The wallet, I think, would have been good because it would have shown his, like, fake ID potentially. I don't know. See, like, this is one of those things. I'm not exactly sure what all of this will, like, lead to or not lead to or what it closes off for them. Again, the computer chip, I don't know. That could be huge. It could not be huge. I'm just not aware of what's on that. When it comes to the cell phone, again, same thing. The magazine is certainly like, yeah, that would be. That would be good to have. So definitely, I would say, a win for the defense on this one. And the judge. The judge does note a caveat, though. One of the things you may have picked up upon is, wait, where's the red notebook? The red notebook was taken out of the backpack of McDonald's. This is the judge's reasoning for why that stays in. The red notebook will not be suppressed, as the officers did not open it or search it at the McDonald's. So he's saying that's in. So let's go to the next segment of what the judge is weighing on. So we. We have everything thrown out at McDonald's. You know, that's. Except for the red notebook. That's all gone.

[B]

Gotcha.

[A]

The defense won on that one. So what does the judge think about the. The search at the police station? So this is what he says. He. He initially starts off with a kind of recap of the Altoona Police Department inventory policies. He talked about testimony from George Featherstone, the evidence custody there, the custodian there, the APD general orders, talking about, you know, the requirement for an inventory search of a detainee at APD headquarters before they're placed in a cell, how to properly document and store the property, how they need to generate an itemized inventory of all items taken from the defendant from the detainee. Rather, contraband evidence, weapons. Those are not going to be returned to the detainee. They'll be noted on the property form and document documented in the incident report. Detainees Would be escorted to the station house intake area and, you know, for processing, when possible, inventory it in that person's presence so that there's no claims of damage or theft. If there's a weapon, move the inventory search outside of the intake area away from the detainee. That makes sense. You don't want them lunging. Grabbing a weapon could be dangerous. So every. Every piece of clothing searched, every bag, items, and personal items stored. And kind of one big responsibility of an inventory search is determine what's personal property and what's evidence. So if it's just like somebody's, I don't know, sweater, that's not necessarily evidence. But if you have reason to believe that the sweater has evidence on it, then maybe you put that in the evidence section. And there'd be overhead cameras running while they do this. Body worn cameras running. And you don't have to write down an inventory list simultaneously as doing the search, but, you know, you could document at a later time. So that's what he's saying that they're supposed to do. So let's see whether he felt if those Altoona officers lived up to what they were supposed to do here. Because, I mean, obviously what he's saying is that they did not. You know, they violated his rights. Under New York law, we can't allow that McDonald's stuff in. How is this going to comport with New York law? How's it going to comport with everything? So he says that officers Fry and Austin Homan completed an intake. They obtained the defendant's pedigree information. That means like his name, where he's from, stuff like that. And they searched his clothing.

[B]

He.

[A]

They collected his layers of clothing, jewelry, his USB drive that was on a necklace, personal items, bus tickets. USB drive was set aside as evidence, and then the personal items were put into a Lowe's bag. Wasser gets to the station. She's carrying the backpack as well as the McDonald's bag, which had been handed to her by Officer Fox. He she placed the backpack on a chair in the intact room and then placed the bag on the floor. She looked at the backpack and opened a compartment. She had not searched the McDonald's, and she found a handgun. So if you remember, proper procedure is stop the intakes, stop the search in the intake room, and get out of there with the weapon. So she tells Deputy Chief Derek Swope about the gun, and he has her move the backpack to another room, and she continues the search in an adjoining hallway. She clears the gun, finds that he's loaded and then she and Swope put it in an evidence box. She then continues to look at the backpack. She's putting different items in separate bags. Items that were found in McDonald's, microchip, cell phone, Faraday bag, the knife, a loaded magazine. And then also items that were found at the station. The silencer, USB drive. Finds the red notebook again. Says it's like a journal. And then Swope says if she should bag it. And then Wasser says, I would. Swope says that at one point that Wasser should make sure there's no explosives in there. And they remove the items, place them in bags. Wasser asked if she should put this all back in, referring to his back of toiletries, batteries, clothing, masks, and. And she does so. Now, Lieutenant Hannely, meanwhile, is still trying to. You know, he's been trying to get a hold of the New York police. He gets NYPD Detective Lenardi of the Manhattan South Homicide squad, and then that. And then Leonardi's on his way to Altoona at this point. He says, don't talk to Mangione. Hold all of his personal property. Hold all of his property. So Wasser moves the backpack into Featherstone's office. Remember, he's the custodian of evidence here. Sergeant Eric Houston starts photographing all the items. He's really diligent about photographing everything. The loose pieces of paper, the gun, silencer, passport, wallet. The office gets too crowded with all the stuff they have to bag, so they move to the roll call room. He's still photographing everything, and he's very careful to photograph the notebook and, like, what pages are torn. So at that point, I think we can talk about what the judge felt about all that.

[B]

What did he feel about it all?

[A]

What do you think? Well, let me. Let me scroll over there. So the judge discusses this in a section labeled inventory searches at the station house. This is how Judge Caro defines what an inventory search should be. Quote, a search designed to properly catalog the contents of the item searched, and it must be conducted according to a familiar routine procedure. End quote. And so he notes that, like, quote, while the discovery of incriminating evidence may be a consequence of an inventory search, it should not be its purpose. End quote. So you're not looking for evidence. You're just doing what you're supposed to do when you bring this stuff into the station house. And this is what he said. Quote, here it is clear that the Altoona Police Department had an established inventory search protocol that was set out in its written rules and regulations that met the three objectives and sufficiently limited the discretion of the searching officers. The people also demonstrated that the Altoona officers conducted their search properly and in compliance with established procedures, end quote. He notes that Officer Wasser immediately took the backpack to a separate area after finding the gun. This was standard APD protocol and talked about how she continued to sift through it. Put the personal items in the backpack, put evidentiary items in manila envelopes, including Those found at McDonald's, and this is also consistent with the protocol there. And then all the items removed Featherstone's office so there'd be more room to do this and this initial inventory quote sufficiently complied with Altoona procedure to be a valid inventory search. He notes that the defense noted that Wasser did not make a written list of the items immediately, but also notes that APD policies don't require simultaneous documentation. They all the items were ultimately documented once they were moved to Featherstone's office and then the roll call room. And he notes, quote, minor deviations from procedure will not invalidate an inventory search, end quote. Especially since it sounds like that wasn't a requirement. Notes about he According to Judge Caro, everything was, quote, meticulously documented once they were in Featherstone's office in the roll call room. He notes that Featherstone, Houston, Burns place each item in an envelope labeled. Each envelope kept written lists of the items. Houston and Featherstone photographed each item, each loose piece of paper, each page in the notebook. Thus, it is clear that the Altoona Police Department had an established inventory search protocol and that the protocol was followed and that the search produced the hallmark of an inventory search, a meaningful inventory list. End quote. Then this is Caro's conclusion. Therefore, the people met their burden of establishing that this was a valid inventory search. Defendant also argues that Wasser's brief examination of the notebook to determine whether it should be treated as evidence and Houston's and Burns photographing of its pages were an unlawful extension of an inventory search. This court disagrees, finding that the cataloging and photographing of the notebook was a valid part of the inventory search. Nor does the evidence suggest that the purpose of examining the notebook was investigative rather than conducting an inventory. That the officers photographed every single page demonstrates that the purpose was to catalog rather than investigate. And Burns was careful to document every page of the notebook to protect against claims of damage or tampering, end quote. He also says that he's not persuaded by Mangione's argument that the protocol only permits inventory searches of a defendant's purpose person, and that's not supported by the Altuna Department's general orders. And. And he says, quote, moreover, it defies common sense that would defeat the purpose of an inventory search. To catalog and preserve the defendant's property. So that is. That is the search there, but there's a little bit more. Now, you might remember that there was a Pennsylvania search warrant, and he gets into that. And the state tried to argue that even if some of the stuff doesn't come in, otherwise, we got a search warrant. This is the factual basis for that that Caro describes. He says, you know, Houston was the one who put together the application for the search warrant for all the items recovered, quote, listing the items that have been recovered from the backpack and describing some of the information that had been found in the red notebook. Houston also added information about the shooting that had been obtained from Detective Oscar Diaz from the nypd. Houston described the purpose of the warrant as to seize the items located during the search incident, to arrest an inventory of the property and to continue the search of the items and to maintain the property later to be transferred to the nypd. And, of course, the Blair County District Attorney's office approved the warrant. So what does he think about that? Does that save any of the stuff coming from McDonald's? And the answer is no. He says the people argue that the search warrant for the backpack obtained at the end of the day after the search at McDonald's and the inventory searches at the station provided an independent source for the evidence. But he. And he notes that they cite People v. Arno or Arno. Yeah, I think that's how you say that. Quote, however, the presence of an independent source does not automatically immunize initial warrantless search. He noted that the Altoona police relied partly on the evidence itself recovered from the backpack and information given them by the NYPD after the searches had occurred. Quote, therefore, the independent source doctrine does not apply, and to apply it under these circumstances would improperly vitiate the warrant requirement. So basically, like, it just. You're not. It's not going to work here. So the next and final section, I believe, is his statements, Mangione's statements to law enforcement and correctional officers. So Manjioni made a lot of statements. Some of them are kind of. Don't seem like that big of a deal to me. And then others, you know, I don't know, maybe nothing too. In my opinion, none of this is too, like.

[B]

Right.

[A]

It doesn't. I don't think it moves the needle that much. But they do have to deal with, like, what can come in and what can't. So this is. This is the statements that they focus on, on this. Rather, these are the ones actually they initially sort of got into the ones with the correctional officers, and those seem a little bit more important than the ones that he initially makes. The responding officers in altoona. Quote, on 12-10-20. Well, actually, before we get out, what do you think about all of that? What do you think about the search, the inventory search stuff coming in?

[B]

I think it makes sense based on that fact pattern. I think it absolutely makes sense. And it's appropriate to bring it in.

[A]

Okay. Quote, on December 10, 2024, while defendant was housed at Pennsylvania's Huntington Correctional Institution, he was monitored by Corrections Officer Matthew Henry. Defendant told Henry he was a software engineer, that he'd been arrested at McDonald's. They had been carrying a backpack, that the backpack contained a 3D printed pistol and a magazine. Jesus Christ. Sorry. But like what? As well as a small amount of foreign currency and that people were accusing him of being a foreign agent. Henry testified that the defendant blurted out these comments without any questioning from him. It's. It's really not smart to talk to people when you're in this situation. I'm just going to say that. Just, you know, not trying to help anyone get away with anything here.

[B]

But like listeners, you're giving free defense lawyer advice.

[A]

Keep your mouth shut. Quote. On December 16, 2024, defendant was being monitored by Corrections Officer Tomas Rivers. Defendant talked about his travels and the places he'd seen, Vietnam and Thailand. He also talked about people appearing to be happier in third world countries despite living in poverty. And they also discussed the health care system. Rivers could not recall who initiated the conversation, but Rivers did give his opinion about private versus public health care systems. Defendant also asked Rivers about how the media was portraying him. He stated he had heard he was being compared to Ted Kaczynski. Defendant also said he wanted to make a statement to the public. End quote. Yep. All right, so does that come in? What's going to go on with that? Well, the judge, in his findings of the Law section with this, actually talks a little bit about the conversations with police at the McDonald's as well as the correctional officers. He starts out with McDonald's because that happened first. This is what he starts off saying, quote, a defendant's statements obtained through custodial interrogation and without Miranda warnings must be suppressed. However, any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is of course, admissible in evidence. Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment. The Miranda of safeguards do not come into play unless a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. So if you just start yapping at people, that's kind of your problem. Is that what I'm hearing here?

[B]

That's what you're hearing? Okay, you brought it on yourself.

[A]

Yeah. Not. Yeah, that's why. That's why defense attorneys will tell you to just shut up. This is how Caro is going to go about figuring out what's what. Quote. To determine the admissibility of a statement given without Miranda warnings, a court must determine, one, whether the person was in custody, and two, whether the police questioning constituted interrogation. To determine custody, a court must find that one, a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing would not have believed that he or she was free, free to leave. And two, there was a forcible seizure which curtails a person's freedom of action to the degree associated with a formal arrest. End quote. So, you know, are the vibes. Are the vibes arresty?

[B]

Right.

[A]

Like, if I'm. If I'm going to McDonald's, getting my big arch on, and an officer is just chatting with me, and I just, for some reason think that he just wants to chat with me, and we're talking about big arches or whatever, you know, maybe if I say something like, here's all those murders I did, that's kind of on me, because I'm not.

[B]

That's on you.

[A]

Me. And we're just chatting, you know, and if I'm surrounded by officers at the McDonald's after trying to get my big arch on, maybe, you know, maybe I'm. Maybe I start to feel like, okay, there's something going on here. Maybe I'm not going to be allowed to. To leave. They're surrounding my table. They're all staring at me. Like, at that point, it kind of starts to seem like you're. A reasonable person would feel perhaps more like they're in custody. Is that right?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

They don't have to be like, you're under custody. You know, you're in custody. They don't have to yell that at you, but the vibes are off. Okay. Remind me never to go to McDonald's again. What? I feel like if. I feel like if we were. If this happened, like, you.

[B]

You would.

[A]

You would find a way to just wander out without me. I'll leave her to that. Is that right?

[B]

Yeah. No, I'd always stick up for you, despite your.

[A]

You'd identify yourself as my attorney. And we just. We try to bounce. So this Is this is what Caro determines with this. And it's kind of a bit of a timeline going here. So he says, during the initial interaction at the McDonald's from about 9:29am to about until about 9:47am I find that the defendant was not in custody. Only two or three officers approached or spoke with the defendant. The interaction was not occurred not the interaction occurred in a public setting where the defendant was eating breakfast and there was no indicia of custody. The officers did not display their weapons, employ physical restraints or engage in any conduct that would lead a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing to conclude that he was not free to leave or under arrest. Therefore, any of the statements made during that period will not be suppressed. Okay, so everything before 9:47am is totally in. Now this is where it gets a little bit trickier. Quote, the analysis is different, however. Once more than eight officers arrived at the scene and surrounded the defendant, such as that a reasonable person would not have believed that they were free to leave. The officers positioned themselves in a manner that effectively encircled the defendant and controlled the immediate area, creating a police dominated atmosphere. Their presence and positioning significantly restricted the defendant's freedom of movement and foreclosed any avenue of departure under the totality of the circumstances. The court finds, as established by video evidence at this, that at this point, at about 9:47am the defendant was in custody. Therefore, the responses given to the officer's questions that were interrogation or the functional equivalent, including Fox asking why defendant had lied about his name, Fox asking why he had lied, and Fox asking if he had fake id, will be suppressed. However, the responses to Detwilers and Fries questions about the defendant's real name, his date of birth and his middle initial will not be suppressed. They're admissible as pedigree information, end quote. Then he goes into the Miranda warnings. Quote, after the defendant was given Miranda warnings at 9:48:32am he shook his head. And when asked if he wanted to speak to the officers and asked again why he had fake id, defendant responded that he was going to remain silent. Those responses are of course not admissible. However, his responses to being asked to stand up for a frisk if he had any weapons on him and responses to follow up questions about the pocket knife are all admissible as responses to safety concerns and related questions, end quote. What do you think about all that?

[B]

I, I think it's well reasoned. I, I think it makes sense for those things to be admitted. What are your thoughts?

[A]

Yeah, seems reasonable. And I certainly think like once you're surrounded by eight cops at a McDonald's. Like, you're definitely. Yeah, something went wrong. You're in custody. I mean, I think that's fair.

[B]

It's definitely fair.

[A]

I might. I might be kind of worried if I was surrounded by two or three, but eight.

[B]

All ambiguity is gone.

[A]

Precisely. Now he gets into the correctional officer. So are those things coming in? Because honestly, I don't think those statements are the biggest deal in the world. They're not the end all be all. They're not great. I mean, I wouldn't want them in as the defense. How are. How's the media portraying me? I don't know. That. That kind of makes you look bad. I don't know. I don't. I wouldn't. I wouldn't want that in. But I don't think it's the end all be all. Because people can just be saying weird stuff sometimes.

[B]

Yeah, it doesn't.

[A]

It's not a confession. I mean, it's not. I wouldn't even call it really an incriminating statement. Maybe if you squint. But I think really it's more of just something that's like kind of. It's a weird thing to say. So this is what the judge found. The defendant also made statements to two Pennsylvania correctional officers, Matthew Henry and Tomas Rivers, who were monitoring him while he was being held at the correctional facility. Both Henry and Rivers testified at the hearing, and I find them to be credible witnesses. Henry's testimony was uncontroverted, that he did not ask the defendant any questions or attempt to elicit any information from him. And I find those statements to be spontaneous and therefore admissible. Officer Rivers and the defendant engaged in casual conversation on various subjects. Again, the defendants. The defendant's statements were not made in response to questioning or interrogation. And I find those statements to be admissible as well. End quote. So what do you think about that?

[B]

Yeah, it boils down to the. This was not an interrogation situation. He made the statements of his own accord. And as you said a few moments ago, that's not a good idea. And when you do that, you should be aware that it's likely to come in.

[A]

Let's do a little rundown. As far as I can tell, maybe a little. A little list, an inventory list, if you will, about what is out and what is in. As far as I can tell, for this case going forward at the state level, what's out is what was found in McDonald's, with one exception. What was found at McDonald's. A loaded magazine, a Cell phone, a Faraday bag, a knife, a passport, a wallet, a computer chip. Statements made after 9. Most of the statements made after 9:47am after he was in custody. Most a statement about fake identification. Post miranda warning after 9:48. The his question, his response to the question about whether there was something in his bag which was just going to remain silent. Silent. That's not admissible. So that's all out. That's out. When it comes to what's in, we're really looking at a lot of the stuff at the inventory search. So that is the firearm discovered in his backpack. That is the silencer. That was a red notebook which was found at the McDonald's but not reviewed. It was only reviewed at the station house. That's in it was a USB drive. And it's also regarding statements. It's statements made from about 9:29am until about 9:47am at the McDonald's. It's any pedigree statements made after 9:47am that means establishing his pedigree. That means establishing who he is. It's his post Miranda warning statements about having weapons or not having weapons and him standing up for a frisk. It's post Miranda warnings about after 9:48 about pedigrees. And there are a couple of incidents where Caro specifies that these he felt were spontaneous and not in response to police questioning. That's him saying, calling a couple more cars. This is a puffy jacket. I'm not very big. Can I ask why there's so many cops here? He's kind of doing his little stand up routine. I don't think any of those things hurt him though. I mean you could just. Someone's being a little bit snarky, whatever. But that, that all comes in his statements to Matthew Henry come in. His statements to Tomas Rivers come in. So that is where things come down to.

[B]

So it feels like a lot of the stuff that is coming in is pretty damaging.

[A]

Yeah, I think the biggest thing about this is probably the gun. The gun is huge. You lose the gun, that's a big deal. They lost the, they lost the magazine. I don't know. I don't know how much this affects the case going forward. Now listen, I'm really kind of. We're kind of looking at this as it develops. There's, it's possible I'm missing something really big here. I don't want to act like oh this is no big deal because maybe, maybe there's something I'm not considering that makes it a really big deal. And so, I mean, I'm certainly interested if anyone has any ideas on what that would be or if we're missing something on this. I think it's impressive that the defense got any of this knocked out. You know, I really felt like I. When I read the state's response, I was kind of like, yeah, this makes more sense. I'm surprised that the judge went that way. I don't mean surprised in like a dismayed way. I mean, I don't. The judge knows the law. I mean, like, I. You gotta what? Regardless, in this situation, I feel like, you know, it has to be a pretty extreme situation for me to be like, oh, the judge got this one wrong. I don't think that. And also, like, it's the judge's job to be applying the law as they see fit. It's their job to be considering all the angles, applying New York law in this case and dealing with it in that way and making the case as strong as possible to protect Luigi Mangione's rights and to also make sure it's appeal proof. You know, like, there's a lot of different reasons why you, you know, everyone should want that. But whether you think he's innocent, whether you're undecided, whether you're guilty, you want the defendant's rights protected for so many reasons. So if he feels like it, feels. If he feels like that would violate it, then that's what they got to do. But I'm having a hard time seeing how any of that is like necessarily load bearing for the case. The gun feels more load bearing. The notebook may be harmful to him. I don't know what was on the computer chip or the cell phone. Maybe that would have been really good to have. I don't know. I just personally do not know. I feel like most of the statements to me are not that wild either way. Like maybe the stuff to the correctional officers is not great. But I don't think it's like awful for him because he never, he never really comes out and says anything.

[B]

He doesn't really say anything incriminated.

[A]

No. Like I, I think it's. I think it's weird to be like, ah, so they're saying I'm just like Ted Kaczynski. I mean, but I mean, at the same time I think you could explain that of like, whatever interested in Ted Kaczynski. We know that from his goodreads. Like it's not really, I don't know, maybe just kind of had a hang up on the guy. Whatever. It's not that big of a deal. I don't think. I don't think I would not convict on that certainly. But yeah, I don't know. I. I'm curious about what's on this USB drive. The silencer definitely is is important. What do you think? Are you surprised that the judge suppressed anything? Are you not surprised? Where do you come down on all of this?

[B]

I think as I look over this, it's a very well reasoned put together document. I understood the reasoning of the judge. Makes sense.

[A]

Do you think this severely damages the case against Mangione?

[B]

Absolutely not.

[A]

Okay. Yeah, maybe we're missing something. I'd be curious to hear what other people's takes are, but I don't really see it at this point. Seems like the most important thing came in which was the gun. But I don't know, maybe there's other stuff. Anyways, we really appreciate you guys listening and hope you have a great day. Bye.

[B]

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[A]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[B]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web@Kevin TG.com if you're looking to talk

[A]

with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion Group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.