The Murder of Brian Thompson: The Case of Luigi Mangione: The Search, the Death Penalty, and More

Summary

The Murder of Brian Thompson: The Case of Luigi Mangione – The Search, the Death Penalty, and More

Podcast: Murder Sheet
Hosts: Áine Cain & Kevin Greenlee
Date: February 10, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee revisit the high-profile murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, who was shot in Midtown Manhattan on December 4, 2024. The episode breaks down the latest legal proceedings involving the accused, Luigi Mangione, focusing on pivotal updates regarding the federal death penalty, legal technicalities of "crime of violence," and significant rulings around the search of Mangione's belongings at the time of arrest. The hosts dive deep into the interplay between state and federal cases, the nuanced legal arguments in play, and offer analysis on the current state of the prosecution.

---

1. Background and Major Themes

• Case Recap:

  • Brian Thompson, aged 50, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was murdered in Midtown Manhattan (12/4/2024).
  • Luigi Mangione has been charged in both state (New York) and federal courts.

• Key Developments Covered:

  • The removal of the federal death penalty in Mangione’s case.
  • The legal reasoning on defining "crime of violence" and its implications for the case.
  • The search and admissibility of evidence from Mangione’s backpack at arrest.
  • State vs. Federal prosecution dynamics.

---

2. Federal Death Penalty Removed

[03:21–14:00]

• Background:

  • Mangione was facing the death penalty federally, largely due to terrorism-related and firearm charges piggybacking off stalking statutes.
  • On Jan 30, 2026, Judge Margaret Garnett ruled the death penalty was off the table.

• The Legal Issue:

  • "Crime of Violence" status is crucial; firearm charges require underlying stalking charges to be classified as such.
  • The Supreme Court’s "categorical approach" means courts must consider the least violent version of a crime.

• Notable Quote:

  • Judge Garnett (via Kevin, 09:02):

    “No one could seriously question that this is violent criminal conduct. And yet, ... the Supreme Court ... now requires lower courts to engage in an analysis totally divorced from the conduct at issue and centered on the hypothetically least serious conduct that the charged crime could possibly cover.”

  • Áine Cain (10:20):

    “I think what the judge is saying here is essentially that Supreme Court justices are eggheaded nerds who should be shoved in a locker because they don't live in reality ... She’s basically saying they've encouraged the lower courts to engage in something that's, quote, divorced from the conduct at issue.”

• Explanation of the Categorical Approach:

  • Courts analyze the “minimum criminal conduct necessary” for conviction – not real-world acts, but theoretical ones ([21:16–22:52]):
    • If "stalking" can be committed non-violently, it’s not categorically a violent crime.
    • Examples: Recent rulings found arson and kidnapping not categorically “crimes of violence.”

• Memorable Moment:

  • Kevin reads Judge Garnett’s detailed hypothetical involving a non-violent yet criminally prosecutable course of stalking ([33:34–38:41]):

    (Hypothetical scenario of an ex-lover stalking in non-violent ways, ending in an unintended fatality)

    • This demonstrates stalking can meet legal elements without the perpetrator committing an act of violence.

• Implication:

  • As stalking wasn’t a “crime of violence” under federal law, counts allowing for the death penalty were dismissed.

---

3. Search and Admissibility of the Backpack

[39:45–65:48]

• Legal Battle:

  • Defense sought to suppress evidence from Mangione’s black backpack, arguing the search violated his rights.

• Facts of Arrest ([44:00+]):

  • Mangione was located via tip at a McDonald's in Altoona, PA, backpack by his side.
  • Police performed an initial search for officer safety (found a gun magazine), then a more thorough inventory search at the station, recovering a handgun, silencer, writings, electronics.

• Key Legal Arguments:

  • Defense: Search was invalid since Mangione wasn’t in direct possession of the backpack, and the follow-up inventory search was really for evidence, not just safeguarding property.
  • Prosecution: Multiple exceptions applied (safety search, inventory search, inevitable discovery doctrine); a valid federal warrant was later issued without relying on disputed evidence.

• Analysis of Police Procedure:

  • Deputy Chief Nathan Snyder (Altoona PD) testified on standard policies for arrest and property searches.
  • Judge Garnett found searches consistent with department policy and, even if not perfect, allowed by the exceptions mentioned.

• Notable Quotes:

  • Áine Cain ([58:40]):

    “Police don't have to do everything perfectly for evidence to come into trial.”

  • Kevin Greenlee ([60:29]):

    “Fruit of the poisonous tree... if I get some information or some evidence... based on having violated a rule, then I'm not supposed to use that. But ... if you also have a completely different way of getting that information, which is valid ... then ... it would be inevitably discovered and you're allowed to keep it.”

• Outcome:

  • The evidence from the backpack is NOT suppressed ([62:53]).
  • Federal search warrant gave independent cause.
  • Áine concludes skeptics predicting lost evidence were off-base ([65:47]).

---

4. State vs. Federal Prosecution and Double Jeopardy

[66:00–75:00]

• Dueling Cases:

  • Both state (NY) and federal governments are pursuing charges.

  • Friction between which will proceed first – state Judge Caro showed “saltiness” at federal scheduling ([69:01]).

  • Judge Caro:

    “It appears the federal government has reneged on their argument... that the state that did most of the work in this case to go first....” ([69:01])

• Double Jeopardy Concern:

  • Mangione protested in court:

    “It's the same trial twice. One plus one is two. Double jeopardy by any common sense definition.” ([70:46])

  • Hosts clarify: Under “dual sovereignty,” separate prosecutions for federal and state crimes (based on the same act but on different laws) are constitutional and common.

• Legal Clarification:

  • Áine Cain ([73:02]):

    "The states under our system, the federal government and the states are both sovereign... One act, a single act, can violate both state and federal law.... This isn't new, this isn't some bizarre thing they're trotting out just for the Mangione case."

---

5. Host Analysis: Media Hype vs. Legal Reality

[65:48–68:59 & scattered]

• Áine repeatedly cautions against social media hot-takes and legal misinformation:

  • Many online were predicting “the case is falling apart” over the search issue, which, in legal reality, was never credibly at risk.

  • She urges listeners to distinguish between emotional, partisan commentary and factual legal outcomes.

  • Memorable insight ([65:48]):

    “If someone is consistently incorrect about cases, they're probably just telling you what…they themselves want to be true. And they're emotionally compromised and have no business commenting on something.”

---

6. Upcoming Trial Dates and Defense Concerns

• The state trial may proceed in June 2026; the defense is seeking more time, fearing a rushed process due to federal-state scheduling rivalry.
• Áine and Kevin express hope the defense will have adequate time to prepare as constitutionally required.

---

7. Memorable Quotes & Moments

• Áine (about the legal approach):

  “This is starting to read more like a, an apology or like a hostage taking, like a proof of life, like she's being held hostage by the Supreme Court.” ([13:34])

• Kevin (on dual prosecution):

  “That's dual sovereignty.” ([72:44])

---

8. Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-------------|----------------------------------------------------| | 01:01 | Recap & dual state/federal prosecution | | 03:21 | Death penalty and legal distinctions | | 09:02 | Judge Garnett’s caustic opinion (read aloud) | | 21:16 | Detailed explanation: “categorical approach” | | 33:34–38:41 | Judge’s stalking hypothetical | | 39:45 | Search & admissibility of Mangione’s backpack | | 69:01 | State vs. federal scheduling tension; notable quotes| | 70:46 | Mangione’s double jeopardy claim | | 73:02 | Hosts clarify dual sovereignty |

---

9. Podcast Tone and Style

• The hosts blend clear legal explanation with humor and accessible analogies ("eggheaded nerds," hypothetical kidnappings with Mr. Pibb and Pez dispensers, etc.), emphasizing both the intellectual complexity and real-world stakes.

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers a detailed legal explainer on a complex, highly watched murder case, making intricate court reasoning accessible while highlighting the contrast between internet speculation and sober court reality. The hosts urge critical listening, patience with the process, and skepticism toward media clickbait, while tracking the serious legal battlelines ahead of a landmark trial.

Transcript

[Kevin Greenlee]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game?

[Anya Cain]

Well, with a name your price tool.

[Kevin Greenlee]

From Progressive you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

[Anya Cain]

Pricing coverage match limited by state law.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Not available in all states.

[Anya Cain]

Why choose a sleep number Smart bed Can I make my site softer? Can I make my site firmer?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Can we sleep cooler?

[Anya Cain]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort comfort on either side your sleep number setting Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now during our President's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed plus free premium delivery with any bed and base ends Monday only at asleepnumber store or sleepnumber.com I'm Anya and today we're going to talk about some big case updates in the murder of Brian Thompson and the case against Luigi Mangione.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Content Warning this episode contains discussion of murder.

[Anya Cain]

So today on the Murder Sheet we're going to be revisiting the murder of Brian Thompson. And of course, Luigi Mangione is the man accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on December 4, 2024 in Midtown Manhattan. This is one of those extremely high profile cases. We did a sort of primer on the case recently and then there'd been some developments that I think are worthy of coverage. These concern namely an effort to suppress the fruits of the search on Mr. Mangione when he was sort of first detained by police. And it also concerns the death penalty. So we're going to kind of discuss some of this in depth. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[Kevin Greenlee]

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

[Anya Cain]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[Kevin Greenlee]

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.

[Anya Cain]

The murder of Brian Thompson, the case of Luigi Mangione, the search, the death penalty and more.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It. As you said, we went into the facts of this case in some detail in an earlier episode, but just to be very, very brief, the victim in this case is a 50 year old man named Brian Robert Thompson. He was shot in Midtown Manhattan on December 4, 2024. He was the CEO of United Healthcare and a man named Luigi Mangione was ultimately charged with that murder. And he's facing charges now.

[Anya Cain]

That's right. And one thing that makes this case a little bit challenging to follow and, you know, kind of keep up to date on, is that there is this, there, there are two cases. There is a state case out of New York and there's a federal case. And they're kind of going on to a certain extent at the same time. And frankly, they seem to hate each other. I'm, I'm just kidding. I don't, I don't think the people involved necessarily hate each other. But you're going to learn later that there was some vocalization of some tensions between the two from the New York side judge. And it's just kind of interesting to see that play out. So, I mean, it's just, it's just unusual. I mean, it's not necessarily unusual and we'll get into that later. But it's just there's two cases he's, he's being charged in in both settings. And the, the two judges involved are United States District Judge Margaret Garnett as well, and the, and the New York side state judge is Gregory Caro. So the first thing we're going to talk about, and you've probably seen headlines about this already, but I thought it would be helpful to kind of not just go into what happened, but the why, why it happened and why did the judge make this decision? The death penalty was on the table on the federal side. So Mangione was facing the death penalty based on the, on the federal government's request that is now off the table. He is no longer facing the death penalty. This may be deja vu for some of you because on September 16, 2025, Judge Caro on the state side actually ruled, dismissing the terrorism related charges that Mangioni was facing because they did not, he said they did not meet the legal threshold.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Because the argument was this wasn't just a murder. This wasn't just the type of murder that happens on the streets of the country every day. This was actually an act of terrorism. And so because of that, he therefore should face greater penalties. Was that the argument?

[Anya Cain]

Yes. And what Caro ruled was that they didn't meet that threshold. A similar thing happened here with the death penalty. I think most of us, when we're looking at cases, we're really thinking about what are the facts, what are the facts of what happened in this instance. And that is to some degree what judges also deal with. But that is not exclusively what judges deal with. Judges deal with the law. And so what we're really going to be getting into here on the federal side is the law, what it says, and how the Supreme Court of The United States expects judges to work out some of these naughtier issues of the law. And again, this is. This is going to be from Judge Garnett. She issued the order saying the death penalty is essentially off the table on January 30, 2026. And we're going to be kind of getting into this. To start off with, Mangione is facing four, or was facing four counts in his indictment. And a lot of, believe it or not, so the stateside deals with more of, like, the murder. What the federal side was, is dealing with is almost that he was stalking Brian Thompson and that stalking caused his death.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And not only was it stalking, it was stalking across state lines.

[Anya Cain]

Stalking across state lines. That's when it becomes a federal case, so to speak. So I'll go through each of the four counts just so we can know what we're talking about when we're Talking about count 1, 2, 3, 4. Count 1, using interstate travel to stalk Thompson, causing his death. Count two, using electronic communication systems to stalk Thompson, causing his death. Count three, murdering Thompson with the use of a firearm during. In relation to stalking him. And in count four, using a firearm, brandishing, discharging, you know, equipping it with a silencer while stalking, causing his death. So that's. That's where. That's where that comes in. So the death penalty comes in because counts three and four would require that counts one and two meet the definition of crime of violence legally. So what does that mean? So essentially, in order for the death penalty to come into consideration, you need the firearms charges to piggyback off of the two first stalking charges. And the stalking in that instance needs to be considered legally a crime of violence. Many of you who listen to the show may be sitting there thinking, well, stalking is often and inherently violent crime. We have heard of so many cases of people being killed by their stalkers, people being attacked by their stalkers. And certainly in this case, if Mangione is guilty of stalking Thompson, that ended in violence. If we're. If he's found guilty of stalking him, and, you know, the. Then he would have been the one to kill him. Right? So there's all that. But it's not quite that simple. It's not about the facts of what happened in this instance, and it's not about the facts of what could happen. It's essentially, well, we'll get into it. The way they think about it, it's just so fascinating how the law works, because I think this is just so different from how oftentimes I Think about crime.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Can. Can I read a little bit from what the judge wrote about this issue you're discussing?

[Anya Cain]

Yes. Oh, and I should note one thing. The only count that was actually a capital offense was count three, not count four, just count three. That was where they were gonna get the death penalty. And. Yeah. So why don't you read what the judge wrote?

[Kevin Greenlee]

I'm reading from what the judge wrote. Quote, the question before the court is whether, under the relevant statutes in Supreme Court precedent, the crimes charged in counts one and two are crimes of violence. The court would be remiss not to note at the outset the apparent absurdity of the inquiry. The defendant is charged with selecting a stranger to be killed based on his employment, carefully planning the killing, including identifying where and when the selected victim would be most vulnerable, traveling across multiple states to carry out that killing, and then gunning the victim down on a public street in midtown Manhattan using a handgun equipped with a silencer, no one could seriously question that this is violent criminal conduct. And yet, over the course of the last two decades or so, the Supreme Court has embarked upon a legal journey, explained herein, that now requires lower courts to engage in an analysis totally divorced from the conduct at issue and centered on the hypothetically least serious conduct that the charged crime could possibly cover. End quote. So I think it's important to note that the. The judge there is basically saying a version of what you said. We all know that stalking is serious, and in this case, it led to a very violent outcome.

[Anya Cain]

I think what the judge is saying here is essentially that Supreme Court justices are eggheaded nerds who should be shoved in a locker because they don't live in reality with the rest of us. No, I'm just kidding. But I think. I mean. But no, I mean, she's basically saying they've encouraged the lower courts to engage in something that's, quote, divorce divorced from the conduct at issue.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And it's absurd.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, so she doesn't seem like a big fan of this. And. And this is something that you do see sometimes from higher courts is that the further you get away from the judges who are more in the lower courts on the ground dealing with criminal cases, the more it seems like they like to kind of, you know, stroke their chins and muse at the bust of palace and say, ah, yes, ah, but what is stalking? You know, I mean, like, it's important.

[Kevin Greenlee]

To remember that a judge doesn't get to say, well, I think doing it this way is wrong, even though the law says it's correct. So I'M going to do it my way. They have to follow the law.

[Anya Cain]

Yes, but it sounds like some lower court judges feel that the higher up judges are going perhaps beyond what is even.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's what I'm saying. Even this lower court judge, she may not like the law. She so has to follow it.

[Anya Cain]

Right.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's what I'm saying.

[Anya Cain]

Right. So, and so what we're going to get into is called, and I'd never even heard of this before, so I'm, I was, I was pretty fascinated what, what Judge Garnett calls the categorical approach. That is how they are supposed to think about this. I'm going to just read a portion where she sort of defines or, you know, kind of goes into that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So.

[Anya Cain]

Did we get into the part where she said defy common sense? No, this is, this is that so, quote, so shocking about the categorical approach, quote. It has produced questionable results that defy common sense. Eg. United States v. Lung Aho. Arson is not a crime of violence. Kidnapping is not a crime of violence. And equally importantly, has proven increasingly difficult for lower courts to apply with any confidence or consistency. These are not new observations. The C. United States v. Taylor Thomas J. Dissenting, decrying the current state of the Supreme Court's categorical approach jurisprudence and urging a revival of the residual clause or a return to a constitutionally permitted conduct based analysis. However, regardless of its own views, a district court is duty bound to follow binding Supreme Court precedent. The analysis contained in the balance of this opinion may strike the average person and indeed many lawyers and judges, as tortured and strange. And the result may seem contrary to our intuitions about criminal law, but it represents the Court's committed effort to faithfully apply the dictates of the Supreme Court to the charges in this case. The law must be the Court's only concern. End quote. This. I love this. This is starting to read more like a, an apology or like a hostage taking, like a proof of life, like she's being held hostage by the Supreme Court.

[Kevin Greenlee]

This is what I'm saying. She has to do what the law says, whether or not she likes it or not. But when someone starts out with this long of, I call it an apology, you know you're in for something. You know, if you started a podcast by saying, well, you know folks, that this is going to seem tortured and strange and absurd, but I'm doing it.

[Anya Cain]

People making me do it.

[Kevin Greenlee]

People would know you're in for a wild ride.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, no, I mean I, I love that she's going into this Because I think a lot of people did get mad at this result or they got really happy about this result. And the people who got mad or happy were reading into it, things that I don't think really were there. You know, I think the, the people who were mad about him getting. Not getting the death penalty anymore, it was more of like, oh, they're going easy on him. They don't care about the murder. And then the people who were happy about it were like, oh, this is a great thing for Luigi. We're so happy for him. He's being vindicated. And it, like, it has nothing to. It is so high level that it has nothing to do with this case. In a way, it is truly just about the interpretation of the law and what the Supreme Court is going to back up. And, you know, it sounds like at least I don't have an opinion on this because I don't. I'm not educated enough on it. But it sounds like some people feel like the Supreme Court is going way too far in one direction with some of this stuff. And so, you know, basically, if she's saying, if you want to be mad about it, be mad at the Supreme Court. So, yeah, so this is so she notes also just in a footnote that, you know, the. She's really talking about count three and count four, even though count three is only the one, the only one that's really the kind of capital offense around, you know, things like that. So this is how she defines crime of violence in terms of federal law. And again, remember, stalking has to be a crime of violence in order for count three to go through and, and allow the death penalty. She said it's defined as, quote, as having, quote, an element, the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, end quote. If you're like us, you're trying to save money right now. One major personal finance hack we've discovered is investing in clothing staples that hold up over time and never go out of fashion. That is why we love our sponsor Quints.

[Kevin Greenlee]

If you're in need of everyday essentials, go to Quint Murder Sheet listeners, get a great [e-mail] msheet check out their organic cotton sweaters, polos, lighter jackets for the changing weather. You know you're getting the best deal because they cut out the middlemen and work directly with ethical quality factories and artisans. So you're missing the markup.

[Anya Cain]

We adore our Quint items. I've also found that all of my Quint's clothes hold up super well. Remarkably well. I've even had an accidental stress test there. Like, seriously guys, a detergent bottle exploded in my laundry room, dripped a lot of detergent onto one of my Quint's Mongolian cashmere sweaters. So it took me a minute to hand. Was all of the suds out and I was frankly so worried. But when it dried, it was as good as new, no damage. It was like brand new once again. So that gave me a lot of confidence. I wear my Quinn sweaters all the time because I feel comfortable knowing that they're going to last me a long time and feel super good.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I wear my sweaters too. I was never really a sweater guy, but Quince has changed that. I wear my Quince sweaters all the time because I like the way they feel. Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go 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 free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet and you know, and what.

[Anya Cain]

The defense in this case, what Luigi Mangione's defense said was that, you know, stalking is not inherently a crime of violence. And this is what the court found in terms of how do we define stalking? Because to start, if we want to decide if stalking is a crime of violence, we have to first define what the heck stop. What what a stalking charge entails. So quote, the court finds that the stalking statute is divisible into four distinct crimes. 2. That accordingly the modified categorical approach must be used. 3 that neither of the charge stalking crimes necessarily requires the government to prove the use of force as the Supreme Court has defined it in large part because the only element that could potentially satisfy that standard can be committed recklessly, which does not meet the standard. 4 the penalty element of death resulting does not change the analysis because it likewise does not require the necessary mens rea. And finally v.5 in the alternative, the pertinent element can be satisfied through threats of self harm and thus the requirement that the use of physical force be against the person of another is not met. For all these reasons, the stalking offenses charged in counts one and two are not crimes of violence as a matter of law and counts three and four must be dismissed. So she's oh God, it's all so complicated. This is, this is kind of where she's getting into kind of what we're going to see her Prove out in the following pages. And, and you know, and we're going to get into a bit about this definition of stalking. We're going to get a bit into. She actually outlines kind of a wild scenario in which you can stalk someone without it being a crime of violence. And what, what essentially this boils down to is you can't think of stalking how it generally plays out, which is often in a violent way. You have to think about stalking as how it can hypothetically play out without using violence. And you, you need, the judge needs to base their ruling off of the hypothetical that involves the least violence or no violence.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let me ask this to make sure I understand it correctly, because you're our expert on this case. So if I was charged with murder, we would say that's definitely a crime of violence because there's no way you could take someone's life without committing some form of violence against them. That's definitely a crime of violence. If I'm charged with serial theft, that could potentially be a crime of violence if I'm like robbing a person at gunpoint. But there are also ways I could commit that crime that don't require violence. Therefore it is not inherently a violent crime and therefore can't be considered as a violent crime.

[Anya Cain]

That is correct. And I'll note, stalking is not the only one. She cited two, two other cases where they found that arson was not a crime of violence and then more notably that kidnapping was not a crime of violence because it's possible to kidnap somebody without resorting to violence. Hypothetically, you could probably conceive of a situation where you could kidnap somebody without, you know, using harm against them specifically. So it's, it's a situation where you have to go with the least violent or the non violent side. But you're right, if you kill someone, you know, that's a different story. But in this case, because they're putting everything on the stalking, if it's possible to stalk someone without being violent, then it's technically not a crime of violence under the eyes of the Supreme Court.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Right. So.

[Anya Cain]

Which sounds nuts. I just want to say on a personal level, regardless of how you feel about this case, I think that sounds insane. I think that sounds totally divorced from reality. But, you know, I, I also, you know, like, that's the way it is. So this is what she says about how, how things have to happen. Quote, A court undertaking the categorical approach must identify the minimum criminal conduct necessary to meet the elements of a particular offense and then evaluate whether that least serious hypothetical Conduct, not the defendant's actual conduct, necessarily involves force. At times, the inquiry is relatively straightforward because the statutory definition of the crime in question contains words that, on their face, have an equivalent meaning to use of physical force against another. More commonly, the process resembles a sort of stress test where the task is to probe the boundaries of the offense to find examples of conduct that might fail the definition of crime of violence but nonetheless satisfy all of the elements of the offense. If this inquiry reveals that the offense could, in at least one conceivable factual scenario, be committed without force, then the offense is not a crime of violence in any case, regardless of how obviously violent a particular defendant's alleged conduct may be. Because the government could prove that hypothetical case to a jury and secure a valid conviction without having proved that the hypothetical defendant used force. Does that make sense?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

So that's. You basically have to make up, like this. This is literally what she's saying. The judge basically has to look at this and make up a scenario or try to make up a scenario where you can do the crime without using force and using violence. And if you can think of something that the, you know, in the hypothetical scenario that you think that the government could get a conviction on that, on that criminal offense without needing the violence, then that case, that kind of crime will never be considered violent. It's not. It's inherently, categorically not a violent crime. It. Okay, isn't that kind of wild?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, but I think I understand.

[Anya Cain]

I understand the thinking, but I just think that's wild that they do it that way.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So.

[Anya Cain]

So I didn't know that. So, you know, this is. This is her example. So talks about kidnapping. Why is kidnapping not considered a crime of violence? I think when we think of kidnapping, you know, we think of grabbing somebody, throwing them in a van, you know, inherently violent. But what she says is that the federal kidnapping statute, quote, can be violated by seizing, confining, inveigling, decoying, abducted, or carrying away and holding a person for ransom. End quote.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, for instance, if I get a message saying, kevin, come to this office building downtown and you're going to find a room full of Mr. Pibb Pez candy and comic books. And I say, oh, boy, I'm out of here. And I go down to that room, and then the door locks behind me, I guess I'd been kidnapped without violence.

[Anya Cain]

Okay, but, like, do you have to relitigate that situation on the show right now? I said I was sorry and I just needed some moments to myself. I'm just kidding. Yes, so, like, you know, you can do that. You can kind of, you know, leave candy on the sidewalk for someone and then a big cardboard box falls on top of them. You know, like that. You could, you could do that. And it's not inherently violent. Usually kidnapping would be violent, but it's not all. You could, you could conceive of something like that where it's technically kidnapping, but it's not violent. So this is, this is what they get into the kind of almost like, like the math or the logic games of, of how they're breaking down the, the stalking. So this is for the interstate stalking offenses that are charged in count one and count two, and those, of course, the predicate crimes of violence required for three and four to go through. And then she says, only one of them needs to qualify as a crime of violence for 3 and 4 to survive. Spoiler alert, they did not. So this is what. What. What the stalking statute says. And this is section 2261A of the criminal code. So, quote, whoever one. Travels in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person and in the course of or result of such travel or presence, engages in conduct that a. Places the person in reasonable fear of the death or serious bodily injury to 1, that person 2. An immediate family member as defined in section 115 of that person 3. A spouse or intimate partner of that person or 5. Or for the pet, service animal, or emotional support, animal or horse of that person, or b. Causes or attempts to cause, or what would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person Described in clause 1, 2, 3, or 3 of subparagraph A or 2 with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person uses any electronic communication system of interstate commerce to engage in a course of conduct that a places that person in reasonable fear of the death or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause 1, 2, 3 or 4 of paragraph 1 a or b causes or attempts to cause or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause 1, 2, 3 or 4, paragraph 1A shall be punished as provided in section 2261B. So that's quite literally the stalking statute. So what the judge notes is that the defendant objected to this. They argued Mangione's defense Team argued that count one and two are not crimes of violence as a matter of law, because no element in that whole statute requires violence, requires force. You can do the stalking without using violence, without using force. And then, therefore, the whole thing falls regardless of what Mangioni is accused of doing, which obviously was violent. Says, that's all below the level of, you know, what the Supreme Court is asking for here. And so that, you know, what the judge found is that the. Essentially, there's two things that this comes down to. Travel stalking, reasonable fear with death resulting, and cyber stalking, reasonable fear with death resulting. Those are the two stalking charges. And saying that the elements of both are essentially the same. And except there's just different. You know, she said there's, quote, different jurisdiction triggering elements, but that's not basically what she's doing saying is, like, it's the same. Let's just talk about them together. Quote, the first element of both crimes is that the perpetrator must travel interstate or use an interstate electronic communication service, end quote. With sort of the intent to kill somebody or harass them or intimidate them or place them under surveillance with the intent to do all those horrible things. So she said that, quote, neither party disputes that kill, injure, harass, intimidate, place under surveillance with intent are alternative means of committing the first element. Similarly, neither party seriously disputes that intent to harass is the least serious or least violent way of committing these crimes, or that this least serious version of the first element, traveling or using the Internet with intent to harass, can be committed without use of force, end quote.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, in other words, you can be guilty of this crime if you just intend to annoy somebody.

[Anya Cain]

Yep.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And annoying someone is not inherently a violent act.

[Anya Cain]

That's right.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We prove that on a weekly basis with our Cheat Sheet episode.

[Anya Cain]

Oh, my God. But, yeah, so this is. Yeah. Quote, nothing in this element requires that the conduct in question use force. And the government does not dispute that a range of acts can satisfy this element, including nonviolent acts such as driving to a particular place or placing a telephone call, end quote. Next, she gets into the statute requiring the perpetrator's conduct or course of conduct in terms of putting the person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Quote, the government argues that this element or this element, in combination with or as a modifier to the required conduct sl. Course of conduct, necessarily requires the. That the government prove the use, attempted use, or at least threatened use of force. The government concedes that the statute does not use those words or even Analogous words, but rather argues that the conclusion is justified because it is impossible to imagine a perpetrator's conduct that would place the stalking victim in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death that did not involve the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But yeah, so the, this would only work if you're, if you're required to use force to make a person fear for their life. Is that what you're saying?

[Anya Cain]

I think what she's saying is that like it. So I don't know, it's so confusing. I think they're saying that the statute.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Says you're guilty if you make someone be in fear of their life. So the question is, can you make someone be in fear of their life without using violence?

[Anya Cain]

And I think what the government is arguing is that they have to prove that something went into that, like there was at least some threatened use of force. And therefore, if they have to prove that in order to win a case, then under the categorical approach, you know, they have something to work with there. As far as counting this as a violent crime. That's how I read that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And the defense is saying no.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

If you don't, if you can make a person be in fear of their life without using force, then this falls.

[Anya Cain]

Yes. And that, and also it's also about what the government can prove. So it's like all about, like, can a government prove. Can the government prove their case without the force element? And could they get a conviction hypothetically? And what the government's saying is, no, no, no, we can't do that. And what the defense is saying, yes, you can. So, you know, quote, they're talking about the death result, Quote, the death results element does not change this analysis, as it likewise has no specific intent requirement, end quote. So, so the sheet the under. So this is what the, the judge writes. Under this test, the death of the victim need not be foreseeable to the defendant and certainly need not be the defendant's desired or intended outcome. And then kind of cite something around carjacking because, like, you might just want the car, but you accidentally push someone out of the car and kill them. You know, it's, it's not, it's, it's not as clear cut in every situation, quote, because the resulting death can be caused accidentally and certainly negligently or recklessly. The death results element cannot supply the necessary use of force to convert the charged stalking offenses into crimes of violence. So that doesn't work either quote.

[Kevin Greenlee]

In sum, a defendant could complete the charge, travel, stalking, and cyber stalking offenses through only reckless conduct that falls short of the legal definition of the use of force against the person or property of another. And then she has a hypothetical.

[Anya Cain]

Can we do the hypothetical? I thought this was fascinating.

[Kevin Greenlee]

A hypothetical case proves the point. Suppose a man travels across state lines with the intent to harass an ex lover that he believed had been unfaithful to him during their relationship. Nothing about the man's history with the victim suggests a propensity for violence, and he harbors no intention of causing fear. Rather, he seeks only to turn the table than humiliate the victim. He fantasizes about achieving a sense of closure by ultimately confronting the victim and relishing the sight of her shame and embarrassment or hopefully, her guilt and remorse for her past conduct. The man starts with indirect tactics. He travels from the neighboring state where he now lives to secretly post signs at the victim's workplace, reading the victim is a slut and a cheater and also sends an anonymous mass email to all of her co workers with the same message. He pays a sketchy friend of a friend to follow the victim with instructions, to occasionally shout cheater. Or to talk loudly with other patrons about her past infidelity when she was out with friends at a bar. Andy text him updates on the victim's whereabouts and mental states so that he can best plan his own in person confrontation. So far, so good. The defendant has traveled and used the Internet with the intent to harass the and is engaged in more than one act in the course of doing so. The man is confident in his own mind that his planned course of conduct does not go too far and veer into any kind of violence or threat of violence. But what if the victim sees things differently? In all kinds of circumstances, the man may unknowingly place the victim in reasonable fear by consciously disregarding a substantial likelihood that his actions would produce that result. He may, for instance, wrongly assume the victim will readily attribute the anonymous messages to him, ignoring that his anonymous accusations of cheating could conjure fears of potential violence from other actors. Perhaps the man knows but disregards the fact that another intimate partner, also suspicious of infidelity, had recently threatened the victim with violence, or that an unstable co worker had promised physical retribution after accusing the victim of using underhanded tactics to win a coveted promotion. Or he might discredit or ignore warnings from his friend that his shady henchman has a history of erratic behavior leading to a rougher treatment of the victim than the man intended. Or maybe the man simply lacks awareness and good sense as Stalkers generally do, based on an amicable history with the victim. He may assume the victim has no reason to perceive his actions as threatening, but he may fail to recognize that his conduct departs so wildly from accepted norms that any existing benefit of the doubt would almost certainly give way to an updated presumption that he had gone off the deep end. He might, for instance, trespass into private places or leave notes or post signs of the homes of the victim's friends and family. The man's only intent is to maximize humiliation and maybe get an apology. But from the victim's perspective, one that is objectively reasonable, the man has unintentionally conveyed an ominous warning that she may be in serious danger and there is no place to hide. If that's not enough, suppose the facts get worse. Ready for his big face to face moment, the man eventually relays a final anonymous message. We need to talk. He then drives to the victim's house, parks on the street out front, and sits in his car while waiting for the victim to come home. Ten minutes later, he spots the victim's car approaching from the rear, and at the same time, the victim takes note of an unfamiliar car parked in the street ahead. The man begins to open the car door, and the victim deduces that the person must be the anonymous harasser, ready to pounce. In a panic, the victim turns the car around and begins driving towards the nearest police station. The man starts his car and follows close behind, anxiously seeking the final confrontation of his fantasy. The victim apprehends that a chase has begun, and the panic grows distracted and having accelerated too quickly trying to catch up to the victim, the man loses control of his car. After the victim abruptly brakes to make a left turn through her side window. In the middle of the turn, the victim can see the man's vehicle barreling straight toward her at speed, intending seemingly to her, intending an inevitable direct impact with her car. If she had not previously feared seriously bodily injury or death from the conduct up to now, she certainly does. At this moment, the cars in fact collide, and the victim is mortally injured and dies at the hospital shortly thereafter. End quote. So, yeah, that's what I was saying. If you can conceive a situation where you can be guilty of each element of the offense without committing the act of violence, then it falls in terms of whether or not it's eligible for death.

[Anya Cain]

Absolutely.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And that bizarre scenario I just read basically outlines an instance in which a person is guilty of every element of the offense, even though that person never commits an act. Of violence. And under the law, as she explained it, if you can be guilty of every element of the offense without an act of violence, that is not death penalty eligible.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, and that's exactly what the judge found. And therefore, you know, it's, it's not about what happened in this case, it's actually just about what could happen hypothetically. And that's what they have to go on. So this is something that's very good news for Mangione because now the death penalty through the removal of that is, is off the table. New York does not, you know, I mean, like that, that's not coming from New York, that's coming from the federal government. So that's gone. So he is no longer facing the death penalty, cuz count three is gone. So.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So you're saying he got some good news. Did he get any bad news recently?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, yeah, he got some bad news. So his team had been trying to essentially suppress the search of his backpack that occurred when he was arrested on December 9, 2024. And this one did not go as well for him. And again, this is also from the same judge, Judge Garnett, and this is the federal side of things. And she noted in, in this order, which was the same day, January 30th, that, you know, quote, the parties agreed with the summary of undisputed facts provided by the court at the January 9, 2026 oral argument. And then she also noted that, quote, defendant Luigi Nicholas Mangioni had moved to suppress the search of a black backpack recovered from him at the time of his arrest on December 9, 2024, and all items contained therein. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied. End quote. So this is, this is, this is kind of we're going to get into the search. And this is also interesting because it kind of gets us into, you know, we're coming into this case a bit late, gets us kind of caught up on some of the evidence in this case and what it sort of is looking like right now. So I'm going to go ahead and read the relevant facts section of this and we can discuss it. And also I should note that in addition to the black backpack, they were also moving to suppress statements Mangioni made to the police at the time of his arrest. And that was later clarified as the government only wants to use certain statements to police at that time, which was Mangioni identifying himself falsely as Mark or Mark Rosario. So a lot of that is moot. And that motion to suppress was withdrawn. Quote, the relevant facts are Largely undisputed on December 9, 2024, the defendant purchased food at a McDonald's restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and was seated at a table in the rear corner of the restaura. An employee of the McDonald's called 911 to report that a customer, the defendant resembled the person who had been featured in a news report as the possible killer of Brian Thompson, a health insurance executive who had been shot dead on a street in Midtown Manhattan on December 4, 19, 2024. A massive law enforcement operation to identify and locate the government. The gunman had followed Thompson's murder, including release of video and still photographs depicting the potential shooter, to the media. Two officers of the Altoona Police Department initially responded to the McDonald's and approached the defendant at the table where he was sitting a black backpack. The backpack was on the floor near the defendant, leaning against the wall. The officers asked the defendant if the backpack was his, and he said that it was. As the officers proceeded to ask the defendant a number of questions, such as his name and whether he had recently been in New York City, an officer moved the backpack to a nearby table out of the defendant's immediate reach. When it became clear that the officers believed the defendant likely was the person being sought in connection with the Thompson murder and was going to be taken into custody, one of the Altoona police officers did a cursory search of the interior of the backpack for anything that could hurt or injure her during transport to the police station. That comes with a footnote. The defendant contends that this initial cursory search exceeded the bounds of a permissible safety search after the magazine was found. Even if the court agreed that the examples cited by the defendant likely exceeded the scope, that potentially overzealous conduct does not bar the admission of the evidence because of the doctrine of inevitable discovery discussed further below. Resuming the main part in the course of that initial search, the officer found a loaded gun magazine. The backpack was then transported to the police station in one car. While the defendant was placed under arrest and transported in another car at the police station, the same officer conducted a more thorough search of the backpack, recovering, among other things, a handgun, a silencer, a red notebook with writing inside, additional writing, written materials, an iPhone, and various electronic storage devices. Footnote Again, defendant contends that this search exceeded the bounds of a legitimate discovery search under Altoona Police Department's standard policies for such searches. The backpack and its contents were eventually transported back to Manhattan, where Brian Thompson was killed and where local and federal authorities were investigating the murder. On December 16, 2020, 4. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York applied for a search warrant to search the entirety of the backpack and its contents, including any written materials contained therein. The warrant application was based on sworn affidavits submitted by FBI Special Agent Gary Cobb and was approved by a magistrate judge in this district. Footnote the warrant application accompanying affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On December 30, 2025, the court issued an order asking the parties to submit a letter indicating whether either party believed an evidentiary hearing was necessary to aid in the court's evaluation of the government's inventory search and inevitable discovery argument or any other aspect of the defendant's motion to suppress the contents of the backpack. In response, the defendant argued both in writing and at oral argument on January 9, 2026, that the written policies of the Altoona Police Department regarding searches incident to arrest, or inventory searches did not clearly apply to detainee property other than that than that removed from the detainee's body or person. Footnote it is undisputed that the backpack was not physically removed from the defendant's body by the police. After hearing argument, the court ordered a hearing on the limited question of what were the policies and standardized practices of the Altoona Police Department in December 2024 regarding the securing, safeguarding, and inventorying of the personal property of a person arrested in a public place. The court held a suppression hearing on January 23, 2026. The government called one witness, Deputy Chief Nathan Snyder, from the Altoona Police Department and introduced into evidence five exhibits compromising comprising certain policies and procedures of the Altoona Police Department, in effect as of December 2024 a probationary officer Training Task sheet regarding custodial arrest procedures A probationary Officer Training Task sheet regarding the detention of prisoners. Deputy Chief Snyder did not participate in any way in the defendant's arrest on December 9, 2024, and has had no involvement in any investigation into the defendant. Rather, he was presented as a person of suitable authority and expertise regarding the written policies and regular practices of the Altoona Police Department. In December of 20 defendant called no witnesses and introduced into evidence one exhibit Altoona Police Department General Order so, in.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Other words, this hearing wasn't so much about the facts of what happened. This hearing is about was this search conducted in a way consistent with the policies of this particular department?

[Anya Cain]

That's right.

[Kevin Greenlee]

This guy, this chief, he wasn't there. He didn't conduct the search, but he's there to say, here's how we do it. Here are our guidelines.

[Anya Cain]

Did the police do something wrong, violate Mangiano attorney's rights? Those are the questions that they fundamentally want to get down to.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes.

[Anya Cain]

Obviously, if you're the defense, these things that are in his backpack are highly problematic to you going ahead, going forward.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Obviously, anytime the defense tries to get evidence thrown out is generally because that evidence is damaging to them.

[Anya Cain]

And when you're the government, this stuff is pretty crucial to have because obviously, for obvious reasons, I mean, it's evidence. So this is, you know, this is a pretty significant thing. So I'll, I'll go, I'll, I'll return to this and kind of go into what happened. Quote Deputy Chief Snyder testified about his experience working as a field training officer and later a supervisor of Altoona's field training program for new police officers. Throughout his highly credible testimony, he demonstrated a thorough knowledge and of and facility with written general orders of the Altoona Police Department as well as the written materials used to train new police officers and the standardized practices of the department regarding arrests in public places and proper handling of a detainee's property, whether property with him or her at the time of the arrest or property removed from him or his or I'll redo that, whether property with him or her at the time of arrest or property removed from his or her person while being processed at the police station. In sum, the testimony and exhibits at the hearing establish that it is the standardized and regular practice of the Altoona Police Department to secure and safeguard the personal property of a detainee arrested in a public place. Officers are trained to search bags or closed containers that could reasonably contain items dangerous to officers in a way consistent with identifying and securing any such items before the bag is transported in a police vehicle. When the property and the detainee arrive at the police station, the the detainees person should be thoroughly searched and all the detainees property, whether taken from his or her person or secured at the time of arrest, should be searched and logged to the degree necessary to prepare a thorough inventory. The searching and inventorying serve a range of law enforcement purposes, including ensuring the physical safety of detainees and officers, ensuring that accurate records are kept of any property that the Department is responsible for safeguarding and ensuring that any detainee property is returned to a released detainee or properly transferred with a detainee going to another facility.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So so before they they take someone they've arrested in a public place to the police station, they want to make sure that person doesn't have anything dangerous like perhaps an explosive device or something. So you want to thoroughly search the person, understand what they have, safeguard it, safeguard yourself, and then get to the police station.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, it's pretty common sense. And she went on to note that Deputy Chief Snyder said that if items appear to be evidence of a crime are found when they're doing an inventory search, then what they would typically do, or the best practice would be to stop the inventory search, secure a search warrant. Although, frankly, that's a bit of a gray area because the timing of that step could really be like, the totality of the circumstances may not be done immediately or might just be done afterwards after the search. So this is what I'll just kind of go in a little bit of what Mangione's team argued here.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, they said, like, the backpack search didn't need to be done then, because at the time he was arrested, he didn't have access to the backpack. So you didn't need to search the backpack to make sure that it wasn't. Like, if he had a gun in the backpack, he wasn't going to be able to pull out the gun and shoot any officers. He didn't have access to the backpack, so it didn't need to be searched. Is that basically their argument?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. And then, you know, I mean, like, that's certainly true with a gun, but obviously there are other weapons that you could, you know, could be a problem or just even, like, you know, I mean, there's. There's all sorts of possibilities with that. So, I mean, like, I see what they're saying with the gun, but otherwise, you know, they also said it was. The inventory search at the police station was also not valid because it was like they were secretly. It was like a ruse where they were, like, actually looking to do an evidentiary search and therefore went way beyond the scope of what an inventory search should be. They read in, for instance, the. The contents of some of his writings in the backpack. And so they're saying, well, that's not for inventory. You're looking for evidence. And they also said that the inevitable discovery. So the inevitable discovery sort of exception is like, we would have found it anyway. Maybe we did it too early, but we would have gotten there. Right?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. So the argument would be, okay, let's say we shouldn't have searched the backpack then, but we took the backpack away from him at that time, we would have gotten a warrant to search the backpack. So even if we searched it a little bit early, we would have inevitably gotten to look at the backpack, so it wouldn't be in the interests of justice to exclude what was in the backpack.

[Anya Cain]

And they're saying that that should not. Defense says that should not apply because that would have to be based on a permissible inventory search. And they didn't conduct that. So basically that the whole thing is, you know, should be thrown out because they should have done the inventory search that was permissible first. Now, the government on the other side was saying, well, no, all of this is admissible because there are a number of exceptions to a warrant requirement incident to arrest, pre transport safety search, inventory search at police station, and frankly, inevitable.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Discovery we would have gotten even if we shouldn't have searched it when we did. We had information at that time over and above what Mr. Mangione may or may not have said during his arrest. We had enough reason and evidence that we would have gotten a search warrant for the backpack.

[Anya Cain]

And they also had this December 16th federal search warrant, which did not, you know, have any information. So like, they're. They're saying we had that too.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

And this is what the judge said, quote, while the defendant likely has the better of the argument on search incident to arrest, the court need not belabor that point because as explained more fully below, the entire contents of the backpack falls squarely within several exceptions to the warrant requirement, most notably the inevitable discovery doctrine through a combination of either a pre transport safety search or an inventory search followed by the federal search warrant, which plainly was supported by probable cause without reference to any information learned outside of the permissible bounds of either of those two precursor searches. And she also went on in a footnote saying, although neither party argued this point, the contents of the backpack would also likely be admissible under the good faith exception based on the federal warrant. And that says the exclusion of evidence is inappropriate when the governor acts in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant, even when the warrant is subsequently invalidated, end quote. They're acting in good faith, so the.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Evidence is not going to be thrown out.

[Anya Cain]

Nope. So she goes on to kind of get into the safety and inventory search under our Constitution, under our Bill of Rights, the fourth amendment protects us all from unreasonable searches and seizures. And typically a warrant is needed for a search to be considered reasonable. This is all very important and fundamental for all of our rights, but there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. Two of those exceptions are when officer or community safety are on the line. So a safety search, and then other ones in the police station after someone is in custody done to inventory the property. So those are the two types of searches that are kind of coming in here. And those are. Those are an exception to the warrant rule. And they kind of get into the kind of various intricacies of those. I don't think we need to get into them, but this is how it applies to Mangione's case, and I will get into that. So, quote, such. So they're talking about the safety search. At the time of his arrest in the McDonald's, the defendant was suspected of being the person who had gunned down a stranger on a street in midtown Manhattan using a handgun equipped with a silencer and leaving behind shell casings that had been inscribed with the words delay, deny, depose, an apparent reference to the victim's work as the chief executive of a private health insurance company. The circumstances clearly suggested at least the possibility of a political or ideological motive to send a public message through the use of violence about the health insurance industry. And little was otherwise known about the perpetrator, including whether he had acted alone or as part of a group, and whether the Thompson murder was an isolated incident or was part of a larger plot. Contemplating further violence, Police need not have certainty or even probable cause to take steps to protect themselves and the public so long as their actions and the suspicions that prompt them are reasonable. Under these circumstances, police were justified in conducting a safety search of the backpack before it was transported. So, you know, she also noted that on the body camera footage, an officer can be heard saying. Stating that she needed to be sure the bag did not contain, quote, a bomb or anything before she put it in her car. That's what I was thinking. Like, explosives would be something where, you know, if someone has a detonator or whatever.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, it makes sense.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. And so, like, also, they found a loaded magazine. So, you know, and then that. Talking about inventory searches, which is what happens at the police station, these do not violate the Fourth Amendment, quote, because their goals are unrelated to the warrant requirement or the necessity of probable cause, end quote. Now, she did note, the defense argued that the safety search at McDonald's should be disregarded because even if some limited search was justified, it, quote, officers exceeded the bounds of reasonable safety search after the magazine was found when they, for example, cut open a small cardboard sleeve to reveal a computer chip inside. The government does not rely on any of the arguable, arguably excessive aspects of this safety search in opposing suppression. And in any event, whatever may have been done after the discovery of the magazine does not void the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine discussed below. So, you know, they. The officer who transported the backpack arrived at the station, then thoroughly searched the backpack with body worn, camera running for 12 minutes and identified the loaded magazine first found in McDonald's, then located a handgun, a silencer, a bunch of other stuff, logged them, secured them, and quote, the government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the search of the backpack at the Altoona Police department was consistent with the written regulations and standard practices for an inventory search, even if not done perfectly and thus the contents recovered are admissible. I think that's one thing defense attorneys are supposed to kind of harp on, things they, you know, police failed to do. I mean, that's their job and that's what they should do. Police don't have to do everything perfectly for evidence to come into trial. I mean, is that fair? I think so.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's fair to say.

[Anya Cain]

I think I feel like in the commentary I see sometimes people are like, oh, they made a mistake, it's all coming out. And it's like, no. I mean, sometimes a mistake will result in evidence getting thrown out. But it usually, I don't think judges are necessarily quick to be like, oh, oh yeah, I guess you lose the backpack because you, you know, didn't perfectly execute the inventory search. I mean, I don't know, what do you think?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I, I, I agree.

[Anya Cain]

And then they kind of go on and you know, talk about a lot of debate over the Altoona Police department's policies and whatnot. And then she gets into the doctrine of inevitable discovery. This is what she writes, quote. Finally, however, even if the defendant were correct that it was not reasonable for officers to conduct a pre transport safety search of the backpack and thus that the loaded magazine would not have been discovered at the McDonald's or that under the established inventory search procedures of the Altoona Police department, any search should have stopped in favor of a warrant as soon as one or more of the loaded magazine's firearm or silencer were discovered, the contents of the backpack are still admissible in light of the Dec. 15 federal search warrant under the inevitable discovery doctrine. End quote. So why don't we talk a little bit about the inevitable discovery doctrine. So she goes into that. There's a, an exclusionary rule which is a court made doctrine, requires evidence obtained, quote, in violation of the fourth amendment's warrant requirement or recognized exception to that requirement, be suppressed and not offered into evidence at trial.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, basically what you've always heard on cop shows and stuff, I'm sure is fruit of the poisonous tree. If I get some information or some evidence against a potential criminal defendant, Based on having violated a rule, then I'm not supposed to use that. I'm not allowed to use that. That's excluded. If I beat someone up, and by beating them up, I'm a police officer and I beat them up, and I get a confession, and they say, oh, yeah, the evidence is in this place. You know, I can't use that. It's. It's fruit from the poisonous tree. But the question is, what do you do in a situation where potentially you get information through a violation of procedure, but you also have a completely different way of getting that information, which is valid and which doesn't involve any violations? And that's what's called the inevitable discovery. Maybe you did it wrong, but you still would have gotten it even if you'd followed all the other appropriate procedures. And so therefore, it would be inevitably discovered and you're allowed to keep it.

[Anya Cain]

She writes that, quote, the record clearly establishes that the backpack was taken from the McDonald's by the Altoona Police Department as part of their standard safeguarding procedures for the person. So she basically says, in her view, the safety search was fine and that the standardized procedures of the Altoona Police Department, you know, would require an inventory search at the police. At the police station, end quote. Even if the defendant is correct that the standardized procedures procedures of the Altoona Police Department would have required that any inventory search stop in favor of a search warrant once the loaded magazine, the handgun, and or the silencer were found in the backpack. In the course of that inventory search, a search warrant was in fact obtained first by local authorities and then, more importantly for our purposes, by the federal authorities prosecuting the instant case. And that was. And quote, that was authorized on December 16, 2024.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And so even if his rights were violated by the speed with which it happened, the search still would have happened even without any violations. And so therefore, it comes in inevitable discovery.

[Anya Cain]

And that. And that federal search warrant, to be very clear, was written up and based on evidence gathered independent from what the Altoona Police Department did. So, like, they would have gotten to it anyway. So therefore none of this matters. It's sort of a moot point. Quote. Taking all these facts together, the court has little difficulty concluding that whether characterized as inevitable discovery or independent source, the contents of the backpack are not subject to the exclusionary rule under applicable precedents, and the evidence obtained therein shall not be suppressed. End quote. So that's what. That's what she said on the. So the backpack will not be denied. They attach the kind of relevant. They attach the Relevant application for a search and seizure warrant that was then filed. And that was from Special agent Gary Cobb of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And that is a five year FBI veteran. He has worked on different murders, violent crimes and wrote this up. And in terms of kind of like that's what they. This is what. I'll just read a couple of excerpts from it because I find it interesting. Quote, as depicted below, the subject backpack is a black backpack that was seized in incident to the arrest of Luigi Nicholas Mangioni on or about December 9, 2024. As discussed further below, I believe the subject backpack contains evidence, fruits and instrumentalities of Mangione's participation in the murder of Brian Thompson, the victim, on December 4, 2024 in New York, New York. You have some pictures, a very hard to see picture of the subject backpack which is now in the Southern district of New York apparently, at least as at the time of this warrant. And they based probable cause. They talked about the actual murder of Brian Thompson and they talked about how a security camera video captured the guy who shot Thompson wearing a gray backpack, hiding between parked cars, things like that. And yeah, I mean, it's just, it's just interesting. But we can always hold more discussion of this warrant for another time because I think, you know, we've gone into this a lot. But I think I would just say, like, I've seen so much discussion of people, you know, I don't know, making big statements. Like, I remember when some of this stuff about the search warrant was going on, I saw so many takes online that's like the case is falling apart, they're gonna lose the backpack. And I remember being like, I don't know, maybe, but like I. It just reading this, it seems like that was never even a risk. I mean, what do you think?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I agree.

[Anya Cain]

I mean, and I, I just, I want to say this. Like people say sometimes what they want to happen versus what is likely to happen. Maybe they are rooting for Luigi Mangione for political reasons or for their own reasons. And when they're making a big claim like key evidence in a case will get suppressed, I think it's really important to watch like who is correct about that and who is not. Because if someone is consistently incorrect about cases, they're probably just telling you what either they think you want to hear or what they themselves want to be true. And they're emotionally compromised and have no business commenting on something and that you should not listen to them because in that case they're simply not being emotionally compromised. Often means that you're not capable of providing good analysis for whatever reason. And when you just see, you know, when I just see people have the wrong takes on this case again and again, again, not about like they're treating it more like a sports game and rooting for their team than they are providing accurate analysis. I see a lot of stuff like the judge should do this, or the judge should do this, or Luigi should go free or Luigi should get the death penalty. And I'm like, this is a case that is understandably, for a lot of reasons, elicited some big feelings in society. And we talked about that in our last episode. Many people have had awful experiences with health insurance in the United States. And many other people feel that our society has come to really start celebrating really toxic stuff like accused murderers. And all of those feelings can be very valid. And I'm not here to invalidate any of that. But a judge is not sitting there thinking about that. A judge is thinking about the law. It's cold, it's impersonal, it's high level. It's even higher than the facts of this case. In the case of the death penalty thing was all about, like a weird hypothetical and that they're supposed to do that. They're supposed to apply the law dispassionately, fairly. And whether things meet federal statutes or not, whether things meet different definitions or not, it's not a comment about whether the crime is a big deal or not or, you know, one side winning or whatever. It's. It's just how things are supposed to go. I think there's often a really stark difference from how these cases get talked about in the media, on social media, and what's actually going on in the courtroom. And I just would caution everyone in a case like this, as you're listening, as you're looking at this, be careful about who you're paying attention to. Because I think a lot of people end up just getting fed a lot of garbage. I mean, again, a lot of garbage takes on this. And I'm not saying that from the pers. From the position of agreeing or disagreeing or wanting a certain outcome or not wanting a certain outcome. I'm just telling you, if people were saying, oh, this backpack's definitely gone, and then that doesn't happen. I think you have to start paying attention to who's consistently wrong about how things are going to go down. And then I'll just add one last thing. There was on the state side, for Judge Gregory Caro, there was a hearing on 2-6-2026. And there was a little bit of a moment with Mangione.

[Kevin Greenlee]

What happened?

[Anya Cain]

Okay. And first, there was a bit of a moment with the judge. So, cara, Judge Caro was like, quote, and I, I got these. This was reported in the media reports. But he said, apparently, quote, it appears that the federal government has reneged on their argument on their agreement to allow the state that did most of the work in this case to go first in that the judge set a September date, which is the date that the parties here all agreed would be a good day, end quote. I read that as a bit salty. That's what I alluded to earlier when I said the cases, the, the different. Everybody hates each other between the federal and state side. I'm. I'm. I'. I'm just being a little bit facetious for humorous purposes, but it really does seem like he's kind of saying, like, you know, we did, you know, New York did most of the work here, folks, and, and now the federal government's swooping in and trying to go first, but basically, we want to go first. He's saying, they claim the September date. Is that what you're reading?

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's what I'm reading.

[Anya Cain]

And then he said that, you know, now it's. Now the terrorism is off the table, it's going to be shorter, and there's no death penalty. So let's, let's undercut the federal government and go with a new date for ourselves, which is June 8, 2026. And, and the state's like, yep, we're ready to go then. And by the state, I mean, New York. And the defendant was saying, no, no, no, we've been put in a bad position. Our client has been put in a bad position. We need more time. We can't. We can't go that quickly. And actually, the defendant, Mangione himself also spoke up, which is unusual. Why is it unusual to have a kind of a defendant randomly speaking out of turn in court?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, usually the people who speak in court are the officers of the court, the judge, the attorneys and such.

[Anya Cain]

Yes. This is what Mangione is quoted as saying in the press. Quote, it's the same trial twice. One plus one is two. Double jeopardy by any common sense definition, end quote. So he appears to be criticizing the fact that he is getting two trials in the sense that the federal government and the state of New York are both trying him. And again, I saw a lot of people. He's totally right. Regardless of how you feel about how this case has been handled by either the state of New York or the federal government. And, you know, different. Different opinions can exist on that. There's a pretty strong and lengthy precedent for why this is not double jeopardy.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Double jeopardy would be the same government putting the same person on trial more than once for the exact same offense. It's not difficult for us to imagine a situation where you have like a mini crime spree, or you or the crime you're accused of committing actually involves multiple crimes. And maybe those multiple crimes are across state lines. Let's say, hypothetically, Anya finds a grocery store that is right on the border of Indiana and Kentucky, and she steals things from both sides of the grocery store. In theory, Indiana could charge her with a crime. Kentucky could charge her with a crime. Or if she steals something in Kentucky and then transports it to Indiana, maybe there's an interstate offense, that it rises to a federal level.

[Anya Cain]

I'm in big trouble.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You've got a lot of bad nights ahead of you, but that would be okay. That's dual sovereignty.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. So this all goes to the concept of dual sovereignty, the doctrine of dual sovereignty.

[Kevin Greenlee]

What does that mean? If, on the other hand, Anya steals some cereal at an Indianapolis grocery store and she is acquitted, and then they charge her with the exact same offense, again, that's not allowed. That's clearly doubled.

[Anya Cain]

Let's explain what dual sovereignty is. So dual sovereignty. So the, the, the states under our system, the federal government and the states are both sovereign. State courts typically handle situations where someone is accused of breaking a state law. Federal courts, the same thing, but for federal law or for incidents that cross state lines, take place on federal property or involve federal agencies, you, one act, a single act, can violate both state and federal law. And so again, like you use the example of this kind of, I could be trafficking serial across state lines, selling it. This is not unusual. And that's why I'm begging people in the true crime sphere before you're acting like something's crazy and unprecedented. I would just say, like, just because some people have not heard of this does not mean it does not happen. I think it's important for people to speak with knowledge and expertise on this stuff instead of just being like, surprised Pikachu face about everything and acting like it's a big deal. Because look up, look up any, like, you know, interstate drug trafficking case. Firearms crimes often have a federal component. Financial crimes can have a federal component. Not always, but I mean, it's not. If this isn't new, this isn't some bizarre thing that they're trotting out just for the Mangione case. So, you know, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld this again and again. Um, again the double jeopardy clause goes back to the fifth Amendment, which is stating that no, no one should, quote, be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, end quote. So Indiana can't try me twice for the same serial heist. But if I'm charged with like illegally selling that ill gotten gains across state lines to Kentucky with the cereal I stole, you know, the federal government can have a bite at the apple. And it makes sense when you look at the charges. He's charged with murder and other various crimes in New York. What is he charged with on the federal level? He's charged with stalking resulting in someone's death. Yeah, different crimes, same act, different offenses. He's violating, different, he's fighting violating federal law and he's violating state law. And they both have a right to charge him and try him under the doctrine of dual sovereignty because New York is sovereign and the federal government is sovereign. So you know, I think people kind of, I don't know, it's not a usually good idea to, to treat, you know, defend. Didn't like, they're like a philosopher king and making a really good point here. I think I can understand from a defendant's perspective, it's frustrating to be charged twice, but people kind of, I just see people. Yeah. Is that crazy? No, it's not crazy. Educate yourself about this stuff or everything's going to seem like it's crazy. You know, but certainly if, I mean if, if they, if New York tried him for murder, he gets acquitted, he walks, they can't try him again. But he's gonna have to overcome these two hurdles in order to walk. And I'll be really curious to see how that goes. You know, I mean, I do think a lot of people sympathize with the idea of fighting back against health insurance companies. I mean, whether you were, whether anyone likes that or doesn't like that or, you know, I, I just think a lot of people do. But when you look at the evidence in that case, is that going to be, you know, how, how, how, how is the public sentiment going to interact with the evidence? And are people are jury's going to be almost looking for a reason to acquit because they kind of, there's kind of an understanding. Are they going to be saying, no, this isn't the way to handle it? Are they going to believe the evidence is how, how's it all going to happen? I don't know. But it could be happening sooner than later. Sounds like the defense doesn't feel like they've been given enough time to deal with this. It's coming up in June and I feel like typically the prudent thing to do is give defenses continuance to have more time. It really kind of doesn't sound like the judge in New York wants to do that. So I don't, I don't know. What do you think?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Judge doesn't want the feds to get the first bite.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. What like, I don't know.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It'll be interesting.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, I mean, and we're keeping an eye on it.

[Anya Cain]

I would hope that ultimately Mr. Mangioni's rights would be protected and giving his defense team, you know, as much time as they need to put on the best case they can. But certainly at some point they do need to go to trial. And yeah, the, the, you can see why sometimes there can be tension between the state and federal side of things because this does complicate it for everybody. So, yeah, I will be curious to see how it proceeds. But thank you all so much for listening.

[Kevin Greenlee]

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.

[Anya Cain]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com. 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.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with.

[Anya Cain]

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.