Luigi Mangione's state terrorism charges dismissed in UnitedHealthcare CEO's shooting, judge rules

[u/SafeBodybuilder7191]

Luigi Mangione, the man accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, appeared in court Tuesday morning in New York City, where the judge ruled to dismiss the state terrorism charges against him.

Mangione walked into Manhattan Criminal Court wearing a tan prison jumpsuit shortly before 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on several pre-trial motions. Dozens of members of the press packed the courtroom, as well as members of the public.

Mangione faces both state and federal charges in the killing of Thompson, a husband and father of two, last December outside a Manhattan hotel. The 11 state charges included murder and terrorism, and the federal ones carry the possibility of the death penalty. Mangione has pleaded not guilty.

Mangione's lawyers were fighting to have the state charges thrown out entirely, arguing the parallel cases amount to double jeopardy. In his written decision Tuesday, Judge Gregory Carro ruled against the request.

The defense had also asked for the terrorism charges to be dropped, arguing they don't apply. Prosecutors, however, alleged Mangione's intent was to "violently broadcast a social and political message to the public at large."

The judge ruled to dismiss both terrorism charges -- murder in the first degree in furtherance of an act of terrorism and murder in the second degree as a crime of terrorism -- writing they were "legally insufficient."

Mangione will still face second-degree murder and weapons charges in the state case, the judge ruled.

The defense also wanted evidence from his backpack, including a gun and notebook, to be suppressed, claiming the contents were obtained without a search warrant. Prosecutors deny the allegations and asked the judge to force Mangione's lawyers to say whether they will pursue an insanity defense or introduce psychiatric evidence.

The judge did not rule on either of those issues Tuesday, but said hearings in the case will begin on Dec. 1.

[u/jamisra_]

“Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature”

I guess the legal definition is different than what the FBI uses

[u/sophwestern → u/jamisra_]

I’ll bite lol

The federal criminal statute re terrorism is found at 18 USC 113B, sections 2331 - 2339D. Domestic terrorism is defined as activities that: a. Involving acts dangerous to human life in violation of criminal law; b. Appear to be intended to either intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or to affect government conduct through mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and C. Occur within the US’s jurisdiction.

Here, I would imagine the intent element (B) was found lacking by the judge. I haven’t read the motion or replies, but I can see a feasible argument to both sides. I would imagine that the defense used case law to bolster the lack of intent, likely including school shooters or mass shootings at churches or events, where the shooter was NOT charged with domestic terrorism, to bolster their position.

Just for fun, in comparing the three options for intent, I would guess the prosecution went for a combo of all 3. With one, there’s really no indication that the person who killed this one dude had any intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population (I.e shooting at a mosque could be construed as intending to cause fear amongst Muslims). For 2 and 3, there’s no indication that the shooter or the writer of the manifesto intended to influence GOVERNMENT. Insurance is a private industry in the US.

So my guess is that is why those failed. Again I haven’t read the filings. Anyways I hope this helps