The article doesn't explain clearly why, even though no one seems to be disputing the murder, the murder charge is being dismissed.
It's because of jurisdiction.
Normally, only states have jurisdiction over murders. The feds can charge murder if and only if the murder is connected to some other federal "crime of violence" (e.g. killing a federal official, murder-for-hire across state lines).
Here, the federal 'hook' was interstate stalking. But the federal stalking crime apparently isn't a "crime of violence" because you can stalk without intentional force.
Because the stalking charges don't legally qualify as "crimes of violence", the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the alleged murder.
The term “crime of violence,” used in a number of federal criminal statutes, is notoriously unclear and subject to a lot of litigation: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45220 (“Since the CCCA's enactment, reviewing courts have had to interpret and apply the statutory definition of a crime of violence, sometimes reaching disparate conclusions over the scope of that term.”).
While I can't name any specific case, I seem to recall a true crime involving two separate trials, one for federal charges and one for state charges. The person was acquitted of one and was then tried for the other. Somehow, this doesn't count as double jeopardy. It felt morally wrong to do so, but apparently legal. It is called "dual sovereignty doctrine".
it's not double jeopardy because they are being tried for different crimes at each court. splitting up trials is not uncommon. not just because of jurisdiction.
How about premeditated murder? Stalking is part of the premeditation, presumably. I think this technical argument/decision reeks of politics. Nearly all US murders take place in some state or another so they need to have federal prosecution potential.
> Nearly all US murders take place in some state or another so they need to have federal prosecution potential.
What do you mean here? They usually get prosecuted by the state.
Because NY state law doesn't allow for the death penalty, and the federal government wanted the death penalty, they intentionally moved it to a federal jurisdiction.
There's a Twitter thread[0] that seems like a reasonable explanation.
> The article doesn't explain clearly why, even though no one seems to be disputing the murder, the murder charge is being dismissed.
I mean, its literally being dismissed because the defendant successfully disputed the murder (as even a valid charge under the prosecutors own allegations.) He also, in the parallel state case which does not rely on the much narrower federal murder statute used in the federal case, is disputing the alleged murder as a matter of fact.
So, it is inaccurate to say “no one is disputing the murder”.
This is not accurate with respect to the federal ruling. The judge is not disputing the murder.*
"Murder" refers to an offense under any number of legal provisions, most of them at the state level. Nearly everyone is at least passingly familiar with at least first-, second-, and—since Chauvin—third-degree murder. Many are also familiar with the concept of felony murder.
Nobody is disputing that the premeditated killing alleged in this case legally constitutes murder under New York State law.
Instead, it does not constitute murder for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(5)(B)(i) because the underlying federal offense—stalking—is not a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).
That statute defines a crime of violence as one that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another" or "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense" (emphasis added).
Physical force is not an element of stalking, nor is there a substantial risk that physical force will be used in the course of stalking, even though it's not altogether uncommon for stalking to lead to acts of violence.
That is what a trial is for but you doubt that a person picked up for looking like the shooter on video, who also had a beef with the company the victim worked for, AND had a relevant manifesto in his possession, is the guy? Come on... There is an unusually high amount of evidence for this one.
Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered Manhattan federal prosecutors last April to seek the death penalty against Mangione.
...
Judge Margaret Garnett dismissed a federal murder charge that had enabled prosecutors to seek capital punishment, finding it technically flawed.
How many gross errors of basic law and procedure has the current AG made and overseen to date?
In 2020, Bondi was one of President Donald Trump's defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial. By 2024, she led the legal arm of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute. On November 21, 2024, President-elect Trump announced his intention to nominate Bondi for U.S. attorney general after former congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration.
Personal lawyer, legal advisor for political think tank, second choice after Matt "F-ing" Gaetz ...
You don’t seem to understand the legal issues here if you’re saying this was an “error of basic law.”
What happened is that the feds took an aggressive but plausible legal position, and the district court disagreed. There are concurrent federal and state prosecutions. Ordinarily, murder is a state law charge. Some nexus to the federal government is required to elevate it to a federal crime.
Here, New York doesn’t have the death penalty, so the feds invoked 18 USC 924(c) in connection with a federal stalking charge. That allows the death penalty where someone is killed with a firearm during a federal “crime of violence.” So the question is whether stalking is a “crime of violence.” Seems like it could be, right?
The term “crime of violence” is the subject of a ton of litigation: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2025-04-25_LSB11293_4ec.... So the feds made an aggressive argument to secure the death penalty, and the district court disagreed. There’s nothing incompetent at all. Federal prosecutors sometimes take aggressive legal positions, and federal judges sometimes reject those positions.
You didn’t mention that Bondi was Florida’s AG for 8 years. Even Democrat Senators who voted against her acknowledged she is well qualified: https://www.welch.senate.gov/welch-votes-against-advancing-p... (“Pam Bondi is qualified. She has done outstanding work as an Attorney General, both as a County Prosecutor and as the Florida Attorney General, and I actually quite admire the grit that she had to take on a challenging statewide campaign to become Attorney General”).
> You didn’t mention that Bondi was Florida’s AG for 8 years.
Fair point.
I honestly considered adding that but really didn't feel the need to drag her that much given Florida is the state that has Dr. Joseph Ladapo as surgeon general.
I also left out:
U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield’s ruling against acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone III is the fifth time that judges have ruled that a top prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi was serving in the position unlawfully.
I don't have any experience in Article III criminal litigation but normally that wouldn't be possible.
The appellate court cannot review something that isn't before it, and a conviction on other offenses does not bring counts 3 and 4 of the indictment before the appellate court.
Normally, I would expect there to be a process for an interlocutory appeal when a ruling is fatal to a charged offense. However, again, I'm not familiar enough with title 28 to say if that is in fact the case here.
Noem at the Senate hearing : "Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to ..."
After senator cut her off and explained what habeas corpus really is, Noem responded:
"I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not."
The article says why the death penalty is no longer on the table — because the federal murder and weapons charges were dismissed, and the remaining charges do not qualify for capital punishment.
The article does not say why the charges were dismissed, though.
Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over murders by default. There are two obvious cases where they do (murder of a federal official, murder on federal land) and a shaky third category of "murder pursuant to another federal crime".
In the past that third category has been used to charge organized criminals, anything that touches the interstate commerce act (drug trafficking/contract killing/etc), and terrorism.
Charging Mangione with federal murder connected to a federal stalking charge was relatively unprecedented, but they might get it to stick on appeal. Stalking is threatening but maybe not inherently violent, but that seems similar to bank robbery (where FDIC insurance is frequently used to grant federal jurisdiction over involved homicides).
Mangione is charged with killing a man (in New York, with New York state jurisdiction) and stalking a man (across multiple states, the federal charge). There is no such thing as a federal crime of fleeing across state lines or owning a list of assassination targets.
> not sure why so many people believe that what - jury nullification? - is going to happen
Eh, if I thought Mangione was justified or effective it would be an easy way to feel good for a while with zero real-world consequences apart from my moral integrity. (Which, to be clear, is mine and mine alone. I have friends–good people whom I love and respect–who would nullify Mangione. They're just never getting seated on his jury without perjuring themselves.)
$1.4M defense fund (so far), exceptional legal team, jury nullification, lots of paths to success. His case is going well so far, and appeals are always an option. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is the bar.
How confident are you there isn’t at least one juror who hasn’t been harmed by their health insurance, financially or medically? Only takes one.
> How confident are you there isn’t at least one juror who hasn’t been harmed by their health insurance, financially or medically?
Who doesn't perjor themselves during voir dire, thereby triggering a mistrial? Pretty confident. Maybe he gets lucky in federal court because Bondi is an idiot. But the state charges are solid, and New York isn't Reddit.
I actually think it's so bad in our country right now that if someone showed up at the court and snuck a gun in and shot Luigi in the back and killed him ... THAT guy would definitely get the death penalty. (he should, but so should Luigi)
> Why should either of them get the death penalty?
Pardons. If he's pardoned there is a good chance he'll kill again. (And inspire copycats.)
We need to eliminate pardons across our system of justice. Between Biden pardoning his son and Trump pardoning the J6'ers, there should be a bipartisan case for closing this.
Why would he need to be pardoned to inspire copycats? Why wouldn’t his death cause him to become a martyr and inspire others?
Why would he be pardoned by the governor at all? Why do you believe Hunter Biden being pardoned is on the same level as J6 being pardoned, when the reasoning (accurately) was to protect him from a perversion of the law in turn?
Your entire argument is essentially “kill them before they can prove they’re not still a threat”.
The article doesn't explain clearly why, even though no one seems to be disputing the murder, the murder charge is being dismissed.
It's because of jurisdiction.
Normally, only states have jurisdiction over murders. The feds can charge murder if and only if the murder is connected to some other federal "crime of violence" (e.g. killing a federal official, murder-for-hire across state lines).
Here, the federal 'hook' was interstate stalking. But the federal stalking crime apparently isn't a "crime of violence" because you can stalk without intentional force.
Because the stalking charges don't legally qualify as "crimes of violence", the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the alleged murder.
The term “crime of violence,” used in a number of federal criminal statutes, is notoriously unclear and subject to a lot of litigation: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45220 (“Since the CCCA's enactment, reviewing courts have had to interpret and apply the statutory definition of a crime of violence, sometimes reaching disparate conclusions over the scope of that term.”).
While I can't name any specific case, I seem to recall a true crime involving two separate trials, one for federal charges and one for state charges. The person was acquitted of one and was then tried for the other. Somehow, this doesn't count as double jeopardy. It felt morally wrong to do so, but apparently legal. It is called "dual sovereignty doctrine".
it's not double jeopardy because they are being tried for different crimes at each court. splitting up trials is not uncommon. not just because of jurisdiction.
How about premeditated murder? Stalking is part of the premeditation, presumably. I think this technical argument/decision reeks of politics. Nearly all US murders take place in some state or another so they need to have federal prosecution potential.
> Nearly all US murders take place in some state or another so they need to have federal prosecution potential.
What do you mean here? They usually get prosecuted by the state.
Because NY state law doesn't allow for the death penalty, and the federal government wanted the death penalty, they intentionally moved it to a federal jurisdiction.
There's a Twitter thread[0] that seems like a reasonable explanation.
[0] https://x.com/adamscochran/status/2017284770158485767 / https://xcancel.com/adamscochran/status/2017284770158485767
> The article doesn't explain clearly why, even though no one seems to be disputing the murder, the murder charge is being dismissed.
I mean, its literally being dismissed because the defendant successfully disputed the murder (as even a valid charge under the prosecutors own allegations.) He also, in the parallel state case which does not rely on the much narrower federal murder statute used in the federal case, is disputing the alleged murder as a matter of fact.
So, it is inaccurate to say “no one is disputing the murder”.
This is not accurate with respect to the federal ruling. The judge is not disputing the murder.*
"Murder" refers to an offense under any number of legal provisions, most of them at the state level. Nearly everyone is at least passingly familiar with at least first-, second-, and—since Chauvin—third-degree murder. Many are also familiar with the concept of felony murder.
Nobody is disputing that the premeditated killing alleged in this case legally constitutes murder under New York State law.
Instead, it does not constitute murder for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(5)(B)(i) because the underlying federal offense—stalking—is not a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).
That statute defines a crime of violence as one that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another" or "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense" (emphasis added).
Physical force is not an element of stalking, nor is there a substantial risk that physical force will be used in the course of stalking, even though it's not altogether uncommon for stalking to lead to acts of violence.
Does ANYONE doubt that this was a cold blooded and premeditated murder?
Looking at various tech and hacker chats/social media and adjacent? 100% yes.
I find it disgusting
I have big doubts it's this guy but that's what the trial is for.
That is what a trial is for but you doubt that a person picked up for looking like the shooter on video, who also had a beef with the company the victim worked for, AND had a relevant manifesto in his possession, is the guy? Come on... There is an unusually high amount of evidence for this one.
[dead]
How many gross errors of basic law and procedure has the current AG made and overseen to date?
Personal lawyer, legal advisor for political think tank, second choice after Matt "F-ing" Gaetz ...These are impressive credentials.
You don’t seem to understand the legal issues here if you’re saying this was an “error of basic law.”
What happened is that the feds took an aggressive but plausible legal position, and the district court disagreed. There are concurrent federal and state prosecutions. Ordinarily, murder is a state law charge. Some nexus to the federal government is required to elevate it to a federal crime.
Here, New York doesn’t have the death penalty, so the feds invoked 18 USC 924(c) in connection with a federal stalking charge. That allows the death penalty where someone is killed with a firearm during a federal “crime of violence.” So the question is whether stalking is a “crime of violence.” Seems like it could be, right?
The term “crime of violence” is the subject of a ton of litigation: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2025-04-25_LSB11293_4ec.... So the feds made an aggressive argument to secure the death penalty, and the district court disagreed. There’s nothing incompetent at all. Federal prosecutors sometimes take aggressive legal positions, and federal judges sometimes reject those positions.
You didn’t mention that Bondi was Florida’s AG for 8 years. Even Democrat Senators who voted against her acknowledged she is well qualified: https://www.welch.senate.gov/welch-votes-against-advancing-p... (“Pam Bondi is qualified. She has done outstanding work as an Attorney General, both as a County Prosecutor and as the Florida Attorney General, and I actually quite admire the grit that she had to take on a challenging statewide campaign to become Attorney General”).
> You didn’t mention that Bondi was Florida’s AG for 8 years.
Fair point.
I honestly considered adding that but really didn't feel the need to drag her that much given Florida is the state that has Dr. Joseph Ladapo as surgeon general.
I also left out:
and other clangers.Administrations wrangling to work around delays in Senate confirmation is hardly unusual: https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/02/3-biden-officials...
Vacancy Act litigation is just a part of dealing with changes in administrations these days: https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/the-vacancies-act-a-prece...
> and the district court disagreed
Which, once Mangione is convicted, will almost certainly be reviewed at the appellate level.
I don't have any experience in Article III criminal litigation but normally that wouldn't be possible.
The appellate court cannot review something that isn't before it, and a conviction on other offenses does not bring counts 3 and 4 of the indictment before the appellate court.
Normally, I would expect there to be a process for an interlocutory appeal when a ruling is fatal to a charged offense. However, again, I'm not familiar enough with title 28 to say if that is in fact the case here.
Noem at the Senate hearing : "Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to ..."
After senator cut her off and explained what habeas corpus really is, Noem responded:
"I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not."
Source?
PBS News Hour, Question and response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPK41OPq6VY
Such confidence. Even some brazen lies about following court orders sprinkled on top.
It's the kind of confidence that would normally lead to a jail term.
Fucking a...
Why?
The article says why the death penalty is no longer on the table — because the federal murder and weapons charges were dismissed, and the remaining charges do not qualify for capital punishment.
The article does not say why the charges were dismissed, though.
> because the federal murder and weapons charges were dismissed
Why were these charges dismissed?
Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over murders by default. There are two obvious cases where they do (murder of a federal official, murder on federal land) and a shaky third category of "murder pursuant to another federal crime". In the past that third category has been used to charge organized criminals, anything that touches the interstate commerce act (drug trafficking/contract killing/etc), and terrorism.
Charging Mangione with federal murder connected to a federal stalking charge was relatively unprecedented, but they might get it to stick on appeal. Stalking is threatening but maybe not inherently violent, but that seems similar to bank robbery (where FDIC insurance is frequently used to grant federal jurisdiction over involved homicides).
Wouldn’t his interstate escape and target list let the federal murder charges stick?
Mangione is charged with killing a man (in New York, with New York state jurisdiction) and stalking a man (across multiple states, the federal charge). There is no such thing as a federal crime of fleeing across state lines or owning a list of assassination targets.
no they dont say why, not here. apparently the cops acted like the 4th didnt exist, so the backpack contents were disqualified as evidence.
federal stalking charges have stuck so now life in prison is on the table.
This is a better source:
https://apnews.com/article/mangione-unitedhealthcare-death-p...
The judge ruled the backpack evidence can be used.
He’s going to walk.
> He’s going to walk
If you actually believe this you can more than 10x your money [1].
[1] https://polymarket.com/event/luigi-mangione-out-of-custody-b...
Prediction markets are notoriously unreliable from a resolution perspective.
Keep dreaming.
I'm not sure why so many people believe that what - jury nullification? - is going to happen.
> not sure why so many people believe that what - jury nullification? - is going to happen
Eh, if I thought Mangione was justified or effective it would be an easy way to feel good for a while with zero real-world consequences apart from my moral integrity. (Which, to be clear, is mine and mine alone. I have friends–good people whom I love and respect–who would nullify Mangione. They're just never getting seated on his jury without perjuring themselves.)
$1.4M defense fund (so far), exceptional legal team, jury nullification, lots of paths to success. His case is going well so far, and appeals are always an option. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is the bar.
How confident are you there isn’t at least one juror who hasn’t been harmed by their health insurance, financially or medically? Only takes one.
> How confident are you there isn’t at least one juror who hasn’t been harmed by their health insurance, financially or medically?
Who doesn't perjor themselves during voir dire, thereby triggering a mistrial? Pretty confident. Maybe he gets lucky in federal court because Bondi is an idiot. But the state charges are solid, and New York isn't Reddit.
I’ll bet you a bottle of a beverage you enjoy. Let me know.
Laws are just loose rules we sometimes collectively adhere to, people are mostly emotion driven. Sometimes the law matters, but sometimes not.
> I’ll bet you a bottle of a beverage you enjoy. Let me know
I’ll take it! If he’s found not guilty on all counts in his state and federal trials, I owe you.
> people are mostly emotion driven
Sure. A prosecutor’s (and judge’s) job is to remove these people from a jury pool.
I actually think it's so bad in our country right now that if someone showed up at the court and snuck a gun in and shot Luigi in the back and killed him ... THAT guy would definitely get the death penalty. (he should, but so should Luigi)
It's all political at this point.
> THAT guy would definitely get the death penalty
If they did it in a federal court? Probably. If they did it in the state court? Probably not. New York doesn’t have the death penalty.
Why should either of them get the death penalty?
> Why should either of them get the death penalty?
Pardons. If he's pardoned there is a good chance he'll kill again. (And inspire copycats.)
We need to eliminate pardons across our system of justice. Between Biden pardoning his son and Trump pardoning the J6'ers, there should be a bipartisan case for closing this.
Why would he need to be pardoned to inspire copycats? Why wouldn’t his death cause him to become a martyr and inspire others?
Why would he be pardoned by the governor at all? Why do you believe Hunter Biden being pardoned is on the same level as J6 being pardoned, when the reasoning (accurately) was to protect him from a perversion of the law in turn?
Your entire argument is essentially “kill them before they can prove they’re not still a threat”.
or…if we’re at the point we need to neuter the power of the elected office,
just randomly appoint people, and stop pretending what we’re doing is working.
> if we’re at the point we need to neuter the power of the elected office
Eliminating pardon power doesn’t neuter the Presidency or Governorships. The Romans didn’t even automatically grant the power to dictators.
“begin neutering”, then.
Not arguing for the pardon power - just demanding better leadership.
Only if he has $2M and mentions how much he loves red hats.
[dead]