Motion Filed to Dismiss Death Penalty in UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder Trial

• “The defense argues that the display was intended to dehumanize him and prejudge him as guilty.” – Defense attorneys

By Vanguard Staff

Luigi Mangione, the 27-year-old charged in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, is mounting an aggressive legal fight against the federal government’s pursuit of the death penalty. In a 114-page motion filed Friday in the Southern District of New York, Mangione’s defense attorneys argued that the federal death penalty is unconstitutional and that Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s public comments and actions fatally tainted his right to a fair trial.

The case has attracted national attention since December 2024, when Thompson was shot and killed on a Manhattan street. The CEO’s death immediately drew speculation about possible motives tied to UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest health insurer. The company has faced repeated criticism for its role in Medicare Advantage claim denials and other policies viewed by some as placing profits above patient care.

Mangione, who was arrested days after the shooting in Pennsylvania, was transported to New York in a heavily publicized event his lawyers describe as a “staged perp walk.” Surrounded by armed law enforcement in tactical gear and flanked by the New York City mayor, Mangione was paraded in shackles before cameras and reporters. The defense argues that the display was intended to dehumanize him and prejudge him as guilty.

The defense motion details six constitutional violations it claims warrant dismissal of the indictment or, at a minimum, the striking of the government’s notice to seek the death penalty. First, the filing cites Bondi’s April 1 press release in which she announced her directive to pursue death. “After careful consideration, I have directed federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in this case as we carry out President Trump’s agenda to stop violent crime and Make America Safe Again,” Bondi said at the time. Mangione’s attorneys contend that the statement violated grand jury secrecy rules and prejudiced the panel that later indicted him.

The defense also points to Bondi’s subsequent Instagram posts, where she described the killing as a “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America.” In the motion, attorneys argue that such statements went beyond acceptable prosecutorial commentary and undermined the presumption of innocence. They further allege that neither Bondi nor other law enforcement leaders reminded the public that Mangione remained innocent until proven guilty.

Second, the motion asserts that the government allowed grand jurors to be influenced by these public statements. Defense lawyers had requested that potential jurors be screened for exposure to Bondi’s comments, but that request was denied. Third, they argue that prosecutors refused to allow the defense to present mitigating evidence before the decision to seek the death penalty, instead following what they call a politically motivated agenda.

The motion further contends that the Federal Death Penalty Act itself is unconstitutional. According to the defense, the Act is imposed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, violating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. The filing draws on decades of Supreme Court precedent, pointing to concerns that the death penalty has been applied inconsistently across jurisdictions. It also claims that the law lacks constitutionally required procedures because Congress has not directly approved some of the mechanisms used by the Justice Department.

The filing devotes considerable space to criticizing the conduct of public officials surrounding Mangione’s arrest. In particular, it highlights the December 2024 press conference in which the New York District Attorney and police commissioner described the shooting as a “well-planned targeted murder” and “an act of terrorism.” The defense notes that terrorism-related charges were later dismissed in state court for lack of evidence. The motion argues that these statements, along with leaks to the press describing Mangione’s private writings as a “manifesto,” created a prejudicial environment that made a fair federal trial impossible.

The defense also paints a portrait of Mangione’s background, describing him as a gifted student and athlete. Born in Maryland, Mangione was valedictorian at Baltimore’s Gilman School and went on to earn both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in computer science and engineering from the University of Pennsylvania in just four years. Teachers and friends described him as bright, humble, and compassionate. His attorneys argue that these qualities, as well as his lack of any prior criminal record, underscore why the death penalty is inappropriate.

The political context surrounding the case is central to the defense argument. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum declaring that his administration would aggressively pursue capital punishment in a wide range of cases. Bondi, sworn in as Attorney General the next day, issued her own memorandum vowing to “revive” the federal death penalty and criticizing prior administrations for restraint. Defense lawyers argue that Mangione’s case became the test case for that policy shift, pursued for symbolic and political reasons rather than legal merit.

Even if the constitutional claims fail, legal observers note that the odds of Mangione actually receiving a death sentence remain slim. Federal death penalty trials are rare, and juries are reluctant to impose execution. The number of federal executions has been extremely limited in recent decades, with most capital cases resulting in life sentences.

Still, the filing reflects an effort not only to defend Mangione but to attack the legitimacy of the death penalty itself. “By refusing counsel’s request to present mitigating information prior to a decision on whether to authorize a capital prosecution and by explicitly basing a death penalty decision on a political agenda, this decision to pursue the death penalty was arbitrary and capricious,” the defense motion states.

The judge has not yet ruled on the motion. If granted, it could strike a blow to the Trump administration’s stated effort to expand capital punishment. For now, the case remains one of the most closely watched criminal proceedings in the country, both because of the high-profile victim and the broader constitutional questions it raises.

Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook.  Subscribe the Vanguard News letters.  To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue.  Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.

Categories:

Tags: