Judge Drops Two Federal Charges Against Luigi Mangione, Eliminating the Death Penalty
Mangione will be charged with causing UnitedHealthcare CEO’s Brian Thompson’s death under two federal stalking laws, meaning that he will face up to life in prison without parole.
Judge Margaret Garnett of the Federal District Court dropped Counts Three and Four against Luigi Mangione, one of which would have had him face the death penalty.
IMPORTANT: This is for the federal case against Mangione, not the state case.
Mangione is accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on December 4, 2024.
Mangione originally faced these federal charges:
- Count One: 18 U.S.C. § § 2261A(1)(A) and 2261(b)(1) – interstate travel for the purpose of stalking Thompson, causing his death.
- Count Two: 18 U.S.C.§ § 2261A(2)(A) and 2261(b)(1) – use of electronic communication systems for the purpose of stalking Thompson, causing his death.
- Count Three: 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) – murder of Thompson through the use of a firearm during and in relation to the stalking crimes charged in Counts One and Two.
- Count Four: 18 U.S.C. § § 924(c)(1)(A)(i),(ii),(iii) and (c)(1)(B)(ii) – use of a firearm, which was brandished, discharged, and equipped with a silencer, during and in relation to the stalking crimes charged in Counts One and Two.
Count Three would have put the death penalty on the table under Section 924(j):
(j)A person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm, shall—
(1)if the killing is a murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and
(2)if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in that section.
“The crimes charged in Counts Three and Four require that the stalking crimes in Counts One and Two meet the federal statutory definition of a ‘crime of violence’ as a matter of law,” wrote Garnett. “The Defendant has moved to dismiss Counts Three and Four on the ground that this requirement is not satisfied.”
Garnett granted the motion, but said the case will proceed on Counts One and Two.
So Mangione will be charged with causing Thompson’s death under two federal stalking laws, meaning that he will face up to life in prison without parole.
Here’s the definition of 18 U.S. Code § 16 – Crime of violence:
The term “crime of violence” means—
(a)an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b)any other offense that is a felony and 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.
Garnett admitted that her analysis “may strike the average person-and indeed many lawyers and judges- as tortured and strange, and the result may seem contrary to our institutions about criminal law.”
Garnett said that Supreme Court precedent constrains her.
“But it represents the Court’s committed effort to faithfully apply the dictates of the Supreme Court to the charges in this case,” stressed Garnett.
I am still reading through this opinion, trying to hash it out because, yeah, as she said, it is strange, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anything like this before.
Justice Gregory Carro already dismissed the terrorism charge against Mangione in the state case.
Mangione faces a second-degree murder charge in that case.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sigh. It sucks, but I can understand the legal reasoning here. Is there any information on count 4 (use of a firearm with suppressor)? Is that still on or is that somehow not a crime if you can’t attach it to a murder?
Semper – I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you basis for understanding the legal reason for the dismissal of the death penalty count 3 ( so i am not arguing against you). I agree that stalking in and among itself may not be a crime of violence, but the murder is a crime of violence. But the inclusion of “during and in relation to the stalking crimes charged in Counts One and Two.” can make murder not a crime of violence.
Any just my thoughts. please feel free to elaborate
If you are one of the people here who are always claiming you will not vote for a Republican senate candidate…..
Congratulations on waking up to reality. If you are not voting for the Republican senate candidate this is something you have caused. The only reason not to vote for the Republican senate candidate is if you are too sick in which case you should have requested an absentee ballot in order to vote for the Republican senate candidate.
+1 on your sentiment, but common sense seems to have vanished with the activist judge got seated.
No need to write this article – just replace Cannon – Grants name in previous article with Luigi’s , spruce things up a bit and good to go.
Two tier justice.
We need a modern day Jack Ruby . . .
So now he’ll plead guilty and male a deal.
Fact is… life in a supermax is no picnic. Worse than death imo anyway.
I disagree. Death is better for society. We don’t have to pay for this “left heroic” pile of human garbage.
Agreed.
In the meantime, we will have to hope he eventually develops rectal cavity calluses.
Or deal with the hybristophiles lusting after Mangione’s junk.
speaking as a former correctional officer ..
they need jobs also
Few people actually facing the death penalty seem to share that sentiment. They all seem to fight like hell to avoid the death penalty
The imposition of the death penalty sends a message, though, that life imprisonment doesn’t.
Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen both deserved the death penalty, and, didn’t receive it. Myriad Muslim terrorists deserved it, and, didn’t receive it.
This decision is part of a pattern of leniency, in federal criminal courts.
The murderer-reprobate in this case will receive correspondence from his myriad female fans, exercise time, crafts time, conjugal visits, etc. It’s more than this piece of excrement deserves.
Also, imposing the death penalty isn’t merely about achieving retributive justice and a societal deterrent effect — it’s also about giving some measure of peace to the victim’s family members; a peace that is denied, by having this POS alive, in prison, eating three square meals a day and receiving fan letters.
Life wastes tax dollars.
And a smart (and not lazy) prosecutor would deny that. “Nope. We’re goin’ to trial, baby!”
We need to clean house and rebuild the federal court system from the ground up
One of the basic parts of the modern Social/Political Contract. No Leftist who commits a crime [even one spelled out in statute] against a non-Leftist will face the full force of the law.
Subotai Bahadur
So, counter me if I’m wrong, but…
Wouldn’t proving 1 and 2 necessarily allow a re-charging on 3 and 4? Isn’t that what the judge is saying?
The Word Salads justify the means.
If I’m reading this right, this is a police powers question.
The murder is the easiest fact to demonstrate because the victim is clearly dead.
But the fedguv can’t prosecute murder directly because of police powers.
Apparently, though, they can prosecute stalking and wire crimes directly, and then enhance if they resulted in a murder.
It’s the whole “we can prosecute stalking and wire crimes, but we can’t do anything about murder” disconnect that makes our brains rebel.
Sounds like the judge has batty eyes for the lefty adonis.
BS
am perhaps confused but thought was established that mangione knew the identity of the victim–pursued / stalked / monitored the victim over a period of time with a suppressed weapon designed to minimize detection by the authorities / the public when it was used in the commission of the crime
how could this possibly be considered as a crime of opportunity / random attack ?–or as second degree murder / manslaughter ?
lord
Disappointing, but not surprising
Biden* appointee.
How long before the simply cut the little murderer loose?
Life in prison should come with pain killer only medical care.
“Garnett admitted that her analysis “may strike the average person-and indeed many lawyers and judges- as tortured and strange, and the result may seem contrary to our institutions about criminal law.”
—————————
Since when have Dhimmi-crat activist-“judges” on the federal bench been shy about flouting SCOTUS precedent, when it suits their ideological agenda and aims?
The activist, so-called “judge” in this case admits that her reasoning is flawed as interpreted by both legal laypeople and attorneys — thus conceding its unavailing logic — then greasily hides behind SCOTUS, in an effort to rationalize it.
Who believes a jury in NY will find this guy guilty? 🤷♂️🤔
Maybe they’ll convict him of mopery.
He will be convicted only of being too sexy for his shirt, much less an orange jumpsuit,
At this point, buy him a new suit, cut him loose and apologize for wasting his time with a pesky arrest
A question from abroad (Italy): is it legal? Because if it is, then you must change the way you write your laws.
It’s a function of the fact that the federal government was set up to be FEDERAL (among the states), not NATIONAL (directly over the people). It was not given police powers, so it has no jurisdiction over plain murder. It does have jurisdiction over “interstate” crimes (such as stalking, commerce, and communications), and if they result in a murder it can use that to enhance penalties for the others. Changing any of that would change our federal government into a national government which would be a bad thing. It is already de facto largely a national government anyway, and we want much less of that, not more. In a properly operating country, we could trust New York to prosecute this assassination fairly and not bother the federal courts at all.
So are the charges being dropped because the Judge is a Biden appointee and thus Mangione is a hero of the people rather than a criminal, or are the charges being dropped because murder is not a federal crime but a state matter, generally speaking?
The first 2 matters are non-violent interstate matters, and thus federal, but the culmination, i.e. the actual murder (Count 3) with a silenced firearm (Count 4), was not interstate violence – that would require shooting across state lines or something. Except NY used unspecified federal charges to turn expired state misdemeanours into active state felonies so clearly there’s some flexibility for Leftists!
“So are the charges being dropped because”
De jure, the second; de facto, who knows.
Makes sense. After ignition you get:
O2 + Ti —> TiO2 (mostly)
But this is so exothermic (> 1,800°) that Ti can react with water:
Ti + 2H2O —> TiO2 + 2H2
And then the Hydrogen burns in air, adding even more heat and steam explosions.
Also, at that high temperature Titanium can react with Nitrogen also. I generally don’t think of Titanium as a nasty, problematic element like Tin, but geez!
I think you are posting in the wrong story
Hard to see how traveling to NY with a prohibited firearm and walking up to shoot someone to death from behind isn’t an act of violence. It is nice to know that you can murder people in NYC and not worry about being put to death for it.
This is actually the correct ruling, and well reasoned. Too bad so many political decisions out of leftist judges have eroded our trust in the judiciary. BTW – for a fair view of both sides of the death penalty issue, please pick up my book Death Penalty Debates – Net Positive or Net Negative.
Sickening. The judge is as depraved as Mangione.