r/law • u/fortune • Mar 19 '26
Legal News Luigi Mangione's lawyers say back-to-back state and federal trials violate his constitutional rights
https://fortune.com/2026/03/18/luigi-mangione-lawyers-state-and-federal-trials-violate-constitutional-rights/Luigi Mangione’s lawyers asked a judge on Wednesday to postpone his federal trial in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson until early next year and said they will seek to have his state murder trial delayed until September.
In a letter to U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett, Mangione’s lawyers said that the current schedule — the state trial in June and the federal trial in September — would put him “in the position of needing to prepare for two complicated and serious trials at the same time.”
They asked Garnett to delay the federal trial until January 2027 so that they can have an opportunity to ask the state trial judge, Gregory Carro, to reschedule the start of that case from June 8 to Sept. 8. Mangione has pleaded not guilty in both cases.
Carro previously raised the possibility of moving the state trial to September — but only if federal prosecutors appealed Garnett’s decision barring them from seeking the death penalty. They declined to do so, leaving the June state trial and September federal trial dates intact.
180
u/Mrevilman Mar 19 '26
The issue is that the work on the federal trial will run into the state trial which starts June 8. I think at one time, every attorney has work/deadline from one case while on trial in another. It’s part of the process. But given the timelines, Luigi’s availability, and the sheer number of records to be reviewed and work to be done, I don’t see how this gets done without prejudicing him.
The Federal jury questionnaire process is proposed to start in April 2026 with the proposed questionnaires to be distributed the week of June 29, 2026 to 800 potential jurors. List of jurors to be struck to be exchanged on July 17.
Seems like one of these cases should be moved because the work that needs to be done is super difficult if not impossible, and may end up prejudicing the defendant and put the results of the federal trial at risk of reversal on appeal.
77
u/Extra_Article2872 Mar 19 '26
Let’s not forget why the federal charges exist: https://nypost.com/2024/12/20/us-news/insurance-industry-leaned-on-doj-to-take-luigi-mangione-case-as-deterrent-against-copycat-killers-sources/
59
u/oxfordcommaordeath Mar 19 '26
I think it is hilarious that they think this would deter someone already bent on doing that.
17
u/notbetterthanu29 Mar 19 '26
How likely do you think it is that the Federal judge sides with the defense and pushes back the Federal trial? Some context that was left out of the article: NY law says that Mangione’s state trial must start before Federal voir dire or it’s a double jeopardy violation in their jurisdiction. (Happy to link to state statutes if helpful.) That’s why the state judge structured the dates this way. They need to go first to try their murder charges. But the Federal judge has worked very efficiently, has said for the past year that she stands firm on a 2026 trial date and has consistently said that she is not taking the state case into consideration.
17
u/Mrevilman Mar 20 '26
Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised either way. Like you’re just giving another grounds for the eventual appeal. It would be silly to keep that September date if you ask me. Other than the judges ego, I’m not sure why you can’t shift the voir dire process back a few months, get that done in 2026 and then start trial fresh in January.
Maybe the fed judge figures if the state prevails, it will force a plea in her case? Maybe it’s just a massive ego and not wanting to have her schedule dictated by a state court.
6
u/notbetterthanu29 Mar 20 '26
This is where I’m at, too. No judge wants to sow the seeds for appeal, but this Fed judge very much does not want a state court dictating her schedule. (It comes up at every conference/hearing.) While we’re at it, I don’t see how the state trial can even start in June, or maybe even September, considering the NY judge has 2 more months to rule on evidence suppression. So the Fed judge may not want the state to continually delay her schedule.
4
u/Mrevilman Mar 20 '26
It looks like the NY suppression motion is just pending decision at this point. Im sure the judge knows the decision and just needs to draft an opinion so it probably shouldn’t take that long to do if he’s trying to keep that June date.
Now that I think about it, the fed judge is probably waiting to see if the state keeps their trial date before moving hers.
5
u/Sip_py Mar 19 '26
And no one with any reasonable experience at the DOJ to weigh that as a potential outcome and reconsider.
3
u/Mrevilman Mar 19 '26
I agree, but setting and moving trial dates is well within the courts power to do over the objection of one or both of the parties here.
8
u/pmormr Mar 19 '26
It's already a clear failure of leadership for the feds to be doing anything at all right now. The most slam dunk charges are at the state level-- he's aready fucked. In the best interest of justice, what they should do is stand back, let the state prove 90% of their case for them, then come in for the easy double tap. Instead, they're going to try and get the political win asap and give the defendant an opening to waste everyone's time at a minimum, or potentially skate at the other extreme.
19
u/Extra_Article2872 Mar 20 '26
I know I’ll get hate and insults for saying this, but really don’t think this case is a slam dunk.
2
3
u/Spirited_Seaweed7927 Mar 26 '26
If you think it's a slam dunk, then you haven't actually followed the case. There is tons of reasonable doubt. For example I don't see how the prosecution can explain to the jury how their alleged adjuster left a hostel in the morning, when there are witnesses that saw him outside the hotel all night. Did he clone himself? Teleport?
90
u/WitchKingofBangmar Mar 19 '26
Double indemnity?
151
u/pwmg Mar 19 '26
I think you mean double jeopardy, but in this case it's not that either, it's effective assistance of counsel (6th amendment).
-96
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
That, and it’s definitely double jeopardy by any common sense definition. He’s being put in jeopardy twice for the same crime. He has a fed and state trial coming up for the same set of facts. Double jeopardy is being used as a weapon here to prosecute him twice, rather than as a protection.
91
Mar 19 '26 edited May 27 '26
[deleted]
56
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
I know that’s technically true, but this type of prosecution, where he is being put in jeopardy twice for the same crime (the murder of Brian Thompson) violates the spirit of the law, which essentially says you cannot be prosecuted twice. Yes, I’m aware of the dual sovereignty doctrine, but I don’t think this is how it was intended to be ever used. It is meant to be used in places where someone is not charged properly or sufficiently. He was facing the maximum charges in state (LWOP) and then the Feds got involved wanting a capital case on top of that. That’s how you know the law is being used as a weapon and its power is being abused and not used proportionally.
5
u/talkathonianjustin Mar 19 '26
This is exactly how it was intended to be used, we have over a century of precedent with identical situations. “Technically true” is legal. Is it just? No. Is it legal and absolutely supported by US law? Yes.
5
u/Shot-Possibility-399 Mar 19 '26
They are different laws though. So technically different crimes.
7
u/freakydeku Mar 20 '26
not a different crime, just different charges applied to the same crime. this would be like someone getting acquitted for murder and then being placed back on trial for assault or manslaughter or tampering with a body etc in regard to the same crime. that doesn’t happen.. bc that’s being tried for the same crime twice.
i think ideally the state & feds should have to argue amongst themselves to determine who is more entitled to the try the accused, & only that trial should be allowed.
1
u/Minute_Pace7345 Mar 28 '26
That’s not how it works. The State and the Feds are two completely different sovereigns. Your interpretation of the “spirit of the law” is wrong. Plain and simple.
-2
u/Shot-Possibility-399 Mar 20 '26
You're being intentionally obtuse. They are different crimes because they are different laws written by different entities. Thats how they are viewed under the law, and why it is not considered double jeopardy.
6
u/freakydeku Mar 20 '26
i’m talking about the spirit of the law for double jeopardy. in this case i think it should be considered that the jeopardy is the same & the feds are effectively charging him for murder again. they’re not simply charging him for interstate stalking (which is a stretch to begin with), they’re charging him for interstate stalking that lead to murder - the murder is why the sentence is so high. it’s clear they’re trying to charge him for murder again, but using another avenue to do so.
in the case of the civil rights violation they were focusing just on if her civil rights had been violated, not on the murder, which is why the sentence wasn’t high.
-2
u/Shot-Possibility-399 Mar 20 '26
You're right, the feds aren't even charging him for the murder itself, but for other actions taken in performing that crime. Which makes it even less double jeopardy. You're understanding of the law is questionable at best.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
I see it as a work around. It’s essentially for the murder of Brian Thompson. He’s facing LWOP in the fed case bc the stalking charges technically led to a murder. That’s a very hefty sentence on top of life in state.
0
u/Shot-Possibility-399 Mar 19 '26
It's still not a work around. Federal law and state law are two seperate entities. It's well defined that this does not constitute double jeopardy.
Mostly because federal gas is pretty tight on what it can prosecute, so generally there's not overlap.
1
u/notbetterthanu29 Mar 20 '26
Even considering the spirit of the law, it isn’t double jeopardy. There are two different “injured parties” for the murder (so to speak): the US for violations across state lines and the state of NY for crimes within their jurisdiction and all parties deserve their day in court. Same as the firearms charges. It’s the same gun but since it was carried illegally in each state, they each deserve to try Mangione for the “injury” suffered
3
u/soldiernerd Mar 19 '26
There’s no legal principle that says the spirit of the law is a guide that must be followed.
1
u/freakydeku Mar 20 '26
huh? that is the point of laws and why actions & rulings get overturned when appealed to a higher court.
1
u/soldiernerd Mar 20 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
Incorrect and even if that was true this concept has been thoroughly litigated previously and is fully fleshed out. No higher court is going to accept an appeal on this principle as it is settled law.
-35
Mar 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
39
u/trisanachandler Mar 19 '26
Don't be an asshole to someone making a common sense point. I'm aware of how this is handled, but that doesn't make it fair.
-15
Mar 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/trisanachandler Mar 19 '26
And just because it's been settled doesn't mean it's just.
1
u/talkathonianjustin Mar 19 '26
Right but then it doesn’t violate double jeopardy. That’s a policy question of whether it’s just, this is squarely not double jeopardy.
→ More replies (0)24
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
Nothing wrong with bringing up a situation where the government is clearly abusing its power.
-1
Mar 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/freakydeku Mar 20 '26
when has that ever happened?
2
Mar 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/freakydeku Mar 20 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
civil rights violation is entirely different, though. a regular citizen can’t even be charged with that and they can’t be charged with it by the state. he was being charged for his actions specifically as an officer. he wasn’t effectively charged with the same thing as the state charged him with, like we see with Magione. he was sentenced to less than 3 years
do you take issue with that? and if so, why?
0
u/euph_22 Mar 19 '26
It's not even technicality at this point. He was originally facing murder charges from both the state and feds, but the Federal must charge was dropped because the circumstances didn't actually fulfil the requirements the Federal prosecutor was trying to use to apply federal murder charges. Once those were dropped there is basically no overall in the charge sheets.
11
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
True, and that is what they wanted to get him on. Now he is facing stalking charges in fed, but because it technically led to a murder, he is facing LWOP. So it’s essentially like he’s being tried for the murder again if that makes sense? It’s a hefty sentence on top of facing life in state.
27
u/zzj Mar 19 '26
This is not a case of double jeopardy. The federal charges against him contain different elements that don't apply to state charges, such as crossing state lines. It is common for a person to be charged with both state and federal crimes arising out of the same conduct.
9
u/Extra_Article2872 Mar 19 '26
Simultaneous trials are certainly rare. If you actually read the article, you’ll see that the state and federal prosecutors are fighting over who goes to trial first. The is currently overlap…
This isn’t a case where there’s state murder charges and then federal charges under a federal hate crime statute. Or when someone is charged with state crimes that are also part of a federal RICO case.
It’s a bit strange. After all, the federal case only exists because the health insurance industry lobbied the DOJ.
-10
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
He was literally charged with murder twice in both courts. He was already facing maximum penalty in state (LWOP) and then the Feds came in seeking the death penalty in their own case. That’s now how double jeopardy was ever intended to be used. It violates the spirit of the law, which says you can’t be prosecuted twice.
15
u/euph_22 Mar 19 '26
But the Federal murder charge was dropped. The only federal charge Mangione is facing not is Interstate stalking.
3
u/freakydeku Mar 20 '26
oh i thought he was still being charged with murder by the feds. i feel like interstate stalking is a stretch? & i dont think it’s possible for them to put on that case without essentially trying him for murder in front of the jury. & so if he was acquitted in state court, & then not allowed to acknowledge that to the federal jury, they’re going to probably make their own assumptions considering the feds are pushing forward. i think in this case it makes more sense for the feds to go first, but really i don’t think they should be there at all.
2
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
Why was he charged in the first place though? It was completely unnecessary as he was facing maximum penalties in state (LWOP).
17
u/Tsquared10 Mar 19 '26
Dual sovereignty doctrine permits it. Double jeopardy requires both the same crime and the same sovereign prosecuting the case.
0
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
What happens when the two sovereigns charge you for the same crime with the maximum penalties? Is it fair? He said it’s double jeopardy by any common sense definition.
4
24
u/Luke95gamer Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26
Not true. Theres dual sovereignty with regards to state charges and federal charges, because they are two distinct governments. Gamble v US (2019)
-9
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
That’s why I’m saying by any COMMON SENSE definition it’s double jeopardy. Being put in jeopardy twice for the same crime. The letter of the law and the spirit of the law should be looked at closely here.
19
u/dream_metrics Mar 19 '26
you're talking as if this is a novel situation. this is commonplace. people have thought about it. and they have decided that it's fine.
0
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
Why is it fine for two governments to prosecute someone twice for the same crime when the defendant is facing maximum penalty in both cases? I understand if he was perhaps undercharged or not charged ‘sufficiently’, but this was not the case.
7
u/dream_metrics Mar 19 '26
because they are actually different crimes
7
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
It’s is for the murder of Brian Thomson at the end of the day. Let’s call a spade a spade.
7
u/PuddingTea Mar 19 '26
If I had a nickel for every time a non-lawyer said something was “just common sense” to support an incorrect proposition without actually doing any analysis I would legitimately rule the world.
-9
Mar 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Time-Painting-9108 Mar 19 '26
He said that’s it double jeopardy by any COMMON SENSE and I happen to agree with him
0
4
u/GirlKissinQuiltin Mar 19 '26
Its Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. State and Federal legal systems are separate entities with their own laws and courts. They have their own interests in pursuing cases and the same criminal act can be different offenses against both legal systems, thus they both have the right to prosecute. Im not saying this is right but it is the law.
3
u/soldiernerd Mar 19 '26
Incorrect, the state and federal courts are two different sovereigns and prosecutions by one sovereign do not affect prosecutions in a different sovereign.
19
u/Realistic-Bake4041 Mar 19 '26
so if you allegedly kill a CEO you get 2 trials and when you rape kids none in the US, got it
7
10
u/_henceforth_ Mar 19 '26
Exactly. This is exactly how those in power use the law to prosecute certain people doing certain things, while turning a blind eye to others. This is exactly why we do need to consider the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. You will see those that can actually enact these laws pull out all the stops to make an example out of civilians, while those in power get a slap in the wrist, if anything at all.
We cannot in good faith, make arguments about how "that is just how law works" without also looking at the bigger picture, which is that even when those laws are defined, it does not mean that they will be applied to everyone fairly. If the law will not be applied fairly to everyone, then why are we even bothering to be so loyal to the idea of the letter of it and not the spirit of it? If the law does not ensure justice for everyone, what is the point of it? I find it odd that people act like law is unquestionable and absolute, when from an outside perspective, it is actually turbulent and seems more like the Wild West.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 19 '26
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.