Law&Crime Sidebar - 'Hidden' Notes Found in Luigi Mangione's Socks

Episode Date: March 28, 2025

New York prosecutors say notes of support were found hidden with Luigi Mangione’s sock before a recent court hearing. The defense has now responded, calling the inclusion of the secret notes “inadvertent.” This comes as both sides are making arguments regarding claims of leaks, a laptop for Mangione, and the use of the word “manifesto.” Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber discusses it all with trial attorney Rich Schoenstein.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Love Notes in Sox, Allegations of harassment, a laptop request, claims about leaks, and the term manifesto, there are so many new issues coming out between the prosecution and the defense in the criminal case of Luigi Mangione, the suspected murderer of the United Healthcare CEO, and we want to discuss it all for you right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So many updates in the Luigi Mangione case that we got to talk about. Love notes, gifts, access to a laptop, evidence, whether the term manifesto can

be used. So Mangione is, of course, the 26-year-old accused killer of United Healthcare CEO, Brian who was gunned down on the streets of Manhattan on December 4th of last year. He's currently facing a slew of charges in multiple jurisdictions. So Mangione, he was arrested out in Pennsylvania to McDonald's and Altoona after a week-long manhunt, faces charges there, a forgery, carrying a firearm without a license, tampering with identification, possessing instruments of a crime, and providing false identification to law enforcement authorities. When he was extradited back to New York, he was indicted by the state on charges of first

and second-degree murder, multiple counts of criminal possession of a weapon and possession of a forged instrument, and under those current charges, potentially faces life in prison. And then at the federal level in New York, you have a criminal complaint that lays out charges of stalking, a firearms offense, and the most serious charge, murder through use of a firearm, which potentially carries the death penalty. So what is happening right now? Why are we talking about this? Well, as I mentioned, there is a lot going on.

So for that, I want to bring in New York trial attorney. friend of the show, Rich Schoenstein, in person. Rich, good to see you. Thanks for taking the time. Great to be here, Jesse. So first thing I got to start with is the big kicker. The idea that Mangione is what he's wearing to court and these apparent love notes that he's receiving. So let me amplify this a little bit. So this is in connection to whether Mangione is receiving special treatment. In a recent letter to the court, the prosecution wrote about an incident that they say is evidence of when accommodations were made for Mangione. that special treatment was violated.

Quote, whereas most incarcerated defendants must wear jail-issued clothing at their calendar appearances, the people have ensured that this defendant has had the opportunity to change into different clothing when producing him to court. Prior to the February 21st, 2025 court appearance, Major Mike McKee, a New York State court officer,

assisting in defendant's transport, was given a bag of clothing for the defendant by members of the defense team. Among the items of clothing was a new pair of Argyle socks wrapped around cardboard. Secreated in the cardboard were two personal heart-shaped notes, one addressed to an unknown person named Joan, and the other to Luigi, stating in part, know there are thousands of people wishing you luck. In spite of this, the defendant was permitted to wear the Argyle socks, which he first changed into and later changed out of because he felt that they did not look good.

Fortunately, the items smuggled were handwritten notes and not contraband capable of harming the transporting officers. Now, the defense, in a letter of their own, responded, quote, because of the highly unusual and difficult circumstance that the defendant finds himself in, namely that we are denied access to him both before and after court appearances, he arrives to court wearing the prison clothing that is given to him at MDC. Out of respect to the court, Mr. Mangione, like many other defendants, refers to wear court-appropriate clothing during his appearances because he has already been thoroughly prejudiced through the Altoona mugshot being released online,

as well as the televised perp walk. It's orchestrated by the mayor's office and the unnecessary shackles at the last appearance. This is in reference to when he was met on the helipad in New York wearing the orange jumpsuits, surrounded by a ton of police, New York City, Mayor Eric Adams. Quote, given our lack of access to him and in the haste of the situation, the defense inadvertently did not see that there were two heart-shaped notes contained within the socks. And there's actually a picture of this note on pink paper in the shape of a heart that appears to read, we are all rooting for you, keep your head held high, and know there are thousands of people wishing you luck.

And by the way, as you know, we have been constantly following this Mangione story as it develops, there's always new things happening. And so for that, I got to thank our sponsor and partner, Morgan and Morgan, because it's with their support that helps us to keep on doing this. Now, this is a firm with over 1,000 attorneys. You know why they have so many? Because they win a lot. In the past few months, Morgan and Morgan secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a $5.6 million verdict for another car accident victim in Atlanta, and not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance. offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so

simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash LC sidebar. The defense continues. This was obviously inadvertent as one of the two heart-shaped notes was not even addressed to Mr. Mangione. The district attorney's office ostensibly realized the innocent nature of this event and that it was not a genuine danger or concern, as they did not bother to alert the court at the time. If this incident is the basis for the danger the prosecution is referencing, we submit that this does not meet the standard to allow them to deny our reasonable requests. Instead, the district attorney raises this incident now to make the court aware of how the

special treatment of the defendant's benefit was violated when the people made accommodations for defendant's fashion needs during the last court appearance. As the district attorney's office well knows, allowing an incarcerated defendant to wear normal clothing at a court appearance is not special treatment or an accommodation for defendant's fashion needs as this accommodation is made to many incarcerated defendants. Rather, the prosecution raises it now simply to deflect attention from counsel's reasonable and standard request for discovery. The prosecutors are withholding, access to a laptop, which we're going to talk about, and an extension of the motion schedule. Rich, there's a lot there. We want to get to this,

but what do you make of that back and forth regarding the note and the clothing? There's a lot to get to. So first of all, I agree with that statement. Okay, let's start with what you wear to court. Every defendant wants to wear civilian clothes to court, mostly in front of a jury, because when you're in front of a jury, you don't want to be in prison garb, then you look like a convict. You want to be in regular clothes, then you look like a regular person. Now, he's nowhere near a jury yet. We're not to trial. We're not in front of a jury. We're just in front of a judge. But this case also has a lot of media attention, so there's cameras around, and he probably prefers to be in civilian clothes for all of his appearances.

I don't have a problem with that. That seems okay to me that he can be in civilian clothes, but there has to be adequate security. And a note in his sock is silly and not dangerous and not harmful to anybody. Not surprising, either. And not surprising, giving everything that's going on, but also shouldn't they have looked and found it? Like, what if it wasn't a note? What if it was something else in his sock? I mean, that's what the concern is from the prosecution's point of view. Yeah, this time it was a heart-shaped note. Next time it's a shiv-shaped shiv. So they're a little bit worried about

the procedure and maybe making the argument that we don't have to worry about any of this if we just keep them in prison garb. And one of the big issues was in terms of, you know, their requests, right? Their discovery request, a request for a laptop, which now I want to get into. It was all in connection with, is he receiving special treatment? Is there a danger? So let's talk about the laptop. And by the way, this is an issue that came up also in Sean Combs case, because he too is housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn like Mangione. So Mangione's defense counsel wants him to have access to a laptop while in lockup so he can properly view evidence in the case. The prosecution opposed this. They argued that his team hadn't shown really

why he needs it, that the MDC generally objects to this, that Mangione could use desktop computers in the unit to review discovery, do legal research, send emails, and he already has access to paper discovery. And they make the argument that there is a danger that Mangione could disseminate civilians on video surveillance, disseminate the footage so that, I don't know, maybe people could see who the civilians are in the footage. Now, the defense countered that. And they argued, so the prosecution is okay with Mangione having thousands of loose pages of discovery in his cell where other people could see it. I mean, I'm talking maybe 15,000 pages, but they have a problem with him using a laptop kept by MDC guards and under supervision and in public areas.

And they also argue that the thousands of hours of video can only be viewed on specific video players and they need to be specially loaded on the laptop. Now, the New York state judge overseeing this, Gregory Caro, said that he had no objection in the end to Mangione's request for a laptop that it could be configured to allow him to review the discovery, review the evidence in this case. But it's ultimately going to be up to the federal authorities who oversee the MDC to make this happen and where he's going to see it. But is that the right decision in the end? I think so. You have to balance two things. He's got a constitutional right to defend himself. So he has a right to

prepare for trial. He has to have access to the materials that are going to be used as evidence at trial so he can go through them and he can communicate with his lawyers about him. He's entitled to that. On the other hand, you have to maintain security and you have to be careful that he isn't connecting with the outside world in a way that's going to be dangerous. To me, I don't know what the difference is. The prosecution seems to be saying he can go on a desktop, but not a laptop. Like, I'm not sure why that matters. The technology, maybe there's certain things of a laptop, like you can play those videos. Yeah, but that's an issue about the technology. Like, there's a different issue. Should he have access to social media? Probably not. Should he have free 24-hour access

email and to be able to reach out to people. Probably not. Prisoners have limited rights to reach out, but should he have a laptop where he could look at the evidence that's all loaded onto the laptop? If it's on the laptop and he's not accessing it over some internet connection, then I'm less concerned about it. Then it's just like he has a stack of papers, as you say, in his prison cell, except instead of a stack of papers, it's a file on a laptop.

I guess the question is, how much does the high-profile aspect of this case factor into a decision like this? You know, you always wonder, is he getting special treatment? Is his case being treated differently because of how high-profile it is? Do other inmates at the MDC have access to a laptop? Or maybe their case doesn't have 15,000 pages worth of discovery? I mean, how do you balance that? I think you have to accept that this case is being treated differently. High profile cases are treated differently. It is under a microscope. He has a bunch of supporters out there that are watching this. There are people that are concerned about due process. You mentioned the perp walk. I happen to think that perp walk was an abomination. So that's something I agree with the defense team on. And I think it's just natural that that kind of case, also it was a high profile victim. This was the head of a major health care organization.

who was shot and killed, Brian Thompson, don't forget him. So it's a public victim and a public case and a high-profile matter, and it's going to get different treatment. It just is. It's interesting you talk about the high-profile nature because that leads to another really important issue in this case. The, and I'm using air quotes here, the manifesto. I'm using it in air quotes because the term manifesto has now become an issue. Let me bring it up here.

So these are the purported writings of Mangione that were seized upon his arrest. And remember what some of those writings were, writings that said, quote, frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder, the U.S. has the number one most expensive health care system in the world, yet we rank roughly number 42 in life expectancy. Actually, again, it is more the term manifesto that's an issue, or one of the issues. So the argument, as I understand it from the defense, is that law enforcement allegedly leaked the contents of Mangione's purported writings. And there was a goal to create the response from the public to justify, the murder terrorism charges. This is for first-degree murder and one of the second-degree murder charges.

They're based on the idea that he committed this in furtherance of terrorism, namely, quote, to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. When the police released Mr. Mangione's notes to the public and declared that they were his manifesto, law enforcement was falsely creating the element of terrorism. And they also make the argument, I think this is interesting, that it's not a manifesto, because to be a manifesto, it has to be released by the person who wrote it.

So Rich, do they have an argument here? Because there's a lot of different things to break down. Well, they have arguments. There's arguments all over this thing, and they're interesting, right? Is it a manifesto or is it a journal or a diary? If he keeps a private diary, that's for a different purpose than a manifesto. And as you say, it all ties into the terrorism charge. They've got this terrorism charge in order to bump this up to murder one with a potential

penalty of life in prison without the opportunity of parole. If they don't have terrorism, they don't have without the opportunity for parole. So that's why terrorism has been alleged is in the mix. A manifesto would seem relevant to the terrorist terrorism allegation because it indicates the reasons he allegedly committed this crime and that he might have been trying to send a message. So the defense argues he wasn't sending a message. He didn't release the manifesto. He didn't release the document. He's just writing to himself. I bet the prosecution's going to argue plainly he thought that document would eventually be found and released. That document is written, right? What you just read is not Dear Diary, I'm going to go kill a guy. It is

an argument about the health care system in the United States. And it's directed to, remember, to the FBI and things like that. I mean, what happens if you write a and you're caught before you could release it. Yeah. It's not a manifesto? Right. If you write a manifesto in the forest, it's still a manifesto. I think arguably it is.

If you wrote it intending it to be released, and the prosecution's argument here is what he was doing was intending to send a message to frighten health care people and to spur public thought about it. So that parts I find even more interesting. that, you know, law enforcement released it, wanted everybody to see it, to drum up public fervor and justify their terrorism charge. Now, I find that interesting on many ways. I think that's an interesting argument, but also the idea of if Mangione really did commit this crime, what was he going to do next? Was he going to release it?

Was he going to go after somebody else? I mean, you make a good point. But what do you make of that argument that they purposely did it to justify the terrorism charge? So I think it could be true because if your process... prosecuting this case, you're probably concerned about how much vocal public support there has been for him. You're concerned about the state of the jury pool. And so if you could sneak out a little evidence to give your side of it, you might be inclined to do so or to sort of

temper the narrative in his favor. You want to know what one of my favorite arguments is right now in this case? Can I tell you? So the defense is arguing that the terrorism allegation contradicts the stalking allegation that's being made in the federal case because the only way they've gotten federal murder charges is to allege violations of federal stalking statutes. And the defense says, well, wait a minute, if the allegation is that he was stalking this guy, that's a personal thing.

That has nothing to do with terrorism. So how can you argue stalking on the one hand and argue terrorism on the other hand? The different, so generally, if I were just to say stalking, right? People would be like, you could stalk a target before you assassinate them, right? But the problem is if you look at the definition of what stalking is, correct me if I'm wrong. Wouldn't Brian Thompson have had to know that he was being stopped to put that person in reasonable fear of their life? I don't know.

I'm not sure of that, but I agree it's an issue. I agree that the stalking charge in the federal case makes it a much harder case and the terrorism charge in the state case makes it a much harder case, right? They have whatever evidence they have that he is the killer. They're arguing, I think, that he was found with the weapon. They have whatever video they have. They can trace him being in New York. They can put together whatever case.

But these additional components that are necessary to try to enhance the penalties that are on the table, those make the cases much more difficult. Yeah, I think it's a more straight. forward case to get him on murder, too, you know, intentional killing. And I do wonder if the potential weaknesses in the higher charges could jeopardize their whole case. But let me ask you this. Is there a possibility? This manifesto gets stricken, doesn't come into evidence? Writings, whatever you want to call them. Is there a possibility? Yes, there's a possibility. I think the defense might argue relevancy, but I have a hard time. It'll get into evidence,

I think. If they can confirm that it's his writing, it certainly seems relevant. I want to read you this. I thought this was interesting. This is from the prosecutor. quote, the people's limited statements to the media have fully comported with Rule 3.6, which is about trial publicity, out of court statements. The defense, however, has on the other hand cried foul when entities outside the people's control have made public statements or gestures, while on the other has itself fan the flames of the public attention. And in a footnote, it reads, notably the defense ensured the defendant was furnished

with a green sweater to wear consistent with what his sympathizers were calling for supporters to wear at his calendar appearance. In addition, defense counsel addressed reporters outside the courthouse before a group of Mangione supporters, ironically repeating and reinforcing the very acts of law enforcement she claimed to prejudice her client. The defense made public statements by setting up a website. They're talking about Luigi Mangione Info.com. That website contains statements made by counsel both in court and out of court. To the extent defendant's application relates to actions on the part of the district attorney's office,

we will continue to conform our behavior to the rules of professional conduct, and guard against any prejudicial, extrajudicial statements, and controvert any allegations to the contrary, we expect the defense to do the same. Quite the attack on the defense. What do you make of that? So inside a courtroom, I always think the prosecution has the advantage. In a lot of ways, they go first. I mean, they have a higher burden of proof, but they go first.

The judge is usually slightly on the side of the prosecution in most cases. Outside of the courtroom, the defense has the advantage. they can make public statements that you would never see a prosecutor office make. Prosecutors rarely comment on the substance of the cases outside of the courtroom for good reason, while the defense sometimes strategically has to do so. And this defendant, I mean, they're fundraising for his defense, right? So they have a website to collect money. They have a website about him.

They are occasionally speaking to the press. I don't think they're overdoing it. Well, I think the fund was set up a point. separate apart from his actual defense attorneys like it was separate a separate fund i mean he could use it right well one of his defense with his pennsylvania defense attorney appears to be very involved in in that okay okay and and i have questions about i have a lot of questions about that fund i read a lot of the fine print and the terms and conditions i think people ought to read before they give to it so i have a lot of issues that i don't think we're going to deal with right here but this public

effort of the defense they have a right to speak until and unless there's some kind of gag order by the court. If the court thinks they're running a foul and they're tainting the jury pool, it would be a different thing. But as a general matter, they have a right to communicate. And they have that advantage outside of the courthouse. So the green sweater was potentially purposeful. I mean, I didn't know about the green sweater. Neither did I until I read this. I didn't know about the green sweaters. It's an allegation. By the way, talking allegations. So you heard it from the prosecution. Let me just flip it right now. This is an interesting line in the defense filing when they make the argument that the prosecution hasn't turned over all of the necessary

discovery. They're right. It is not a coincidence that of all the evidence the district attorney could conceal from the defense. It conceals the evidence of this supposed terrorism. How is the defendant supposed to defend against terrorism charges that require that his actions were intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population when the prosecution refuses to provide the defense with both what community he allegedly intimidated or coerced and the discovery related to this theory. In the discovery and the redacted grand jury minutes provided thus far, their theory is not apparent. What do you think about that? Well, I don't know everything that's been provided. I know that defendants are always going to poke at the prosecution about the

adequacy of discovery. I mean, these are common themes. You've done a million of these cases, right? The investigation was no good. They didn't give us all the discovery. I mean, we see those in case after case. So that's not out of the ordinary here. But I do think, Thematically, the defense is on to something, again, this terrorism charge is hard to prove. Who were they trying to terrorize? Was he trying to terrorize? And how? Right? They do have to be specific about that if they're going to prosecute the guy for terrorism. They can't just, it's not some vague charge you could just throw out there. And it was like influence unit of government or something like that. Well, you're right. There's an influence unit of government. That doesn't seem applicable here.

No. He wasn't trying to influence the government. He's either trying to scare. the public or maybe people who work for health care companies. But the prosecution is going to have to come home and be specific about that. So, yeah, there is also back and forth about discovery, the defense saying that we can't file the appropriate motions. We need more time because prosecution hasn't turned over all of the discovery and the possession, you know, civilian witnesses, any police identification of Mangione by San Francisco police officers,

discovery surrounding the prosecution's theory of terrorism, the contents of any electronic devices that were, recovered for Mangione. For example, they say they were produced 320 pages of grand jury minutes, but they estimate 130 pages have been withheld by the state. The prosecution responded as like, we gave you so much, we gave you body-worn cameras, interrogation video, surveillance footage, forensic files from the New York ME's office for DNA testing, lab reports, photos, and you're seeing this back and forth. Where I think it's really interesting is this protective order, and that's what I want to finish off with. So this protective order. So the prosecution argues

We shouldn't be prevented from filing a necessary protective order in this case in the next few weeks. They write, quote, while defendants attempted litigation of the merits of a protective order are premature, even a skimming of the news media, which defendant often cites to, highlight the concern for the safety of individuals who cooperate with the people's investigation. Defendant's conduct has directly led to several instances of harassment, backlash, and death threats against both individuals who have cooperated with the investigation, as well as prospective witnesses, including employees of the Altoona McDonald's where defendant was arrested, members of the Altoona Police Department who simply did their duty

and health care professionals both associated with United Healthcare and others in the industry generally. The acts of those who sympathize with defendants show that nobody associated with the cases off limits to acts intended to intimidate and coerce. As a result, the people will seek to protect the identities of all civilian witnesses and the extent of their cooperation with the instant investigation. The defense responded in their letter saying there's simply no evidence that Mr. Mangione is responsible for any of these threats, directly, indirectly, or in any manner. Mr. Mangione has been nothing but cooperative, peaceful, and has shown concern for others. This is the guy who was accused of murdering somebody, but anyway, quote, for example,

when the defendant was arrested and contained in the people's statement notice on December 9th, 24, among the first words out of Mr. Mangione's mouth was an apology and a concern for the very McDonald's employee who they are saying is now receiving threats. Quoting from their notice, I apologize for the inconvenience of the day. Followed by, they aren't going to put the cashier for McDonald's information out there, are they? It wouldn't be good for her. A lot of people will be upset I was arrested. This is the very opposite of someone who is seeking to terrorize anyone or wishing harm or violence to anyone.

Wow, Rich. I'll give you the final thoughts on that. So this is a really hard issue to navigate because he has a right to do process and a right to put on a defense and a right to know who is. accusers are, a right to know who the witnesses are, a right to do whatever examination, his very good defense team wants to do about that so he is prepared for trial. But also, there's this social media element and this people out there who will harass witnesses. And I'm not saying most of his supporters will do that. I think most of his supporters won't do that. But there are some who will. And the witnesses should not be harassed. The guy,

who worked at McDonald's is just a witness he's going to come the court and say what he saw. There should be no harassment of that person. But there are some people out there who will go that far or we'll do things that maybe aren't quite harassment but are intrusive. And I can understand why the prosecution would want to keep names secret. And have a protective order. And just to be clear, a protective order is not punishing the defendant. This is your fault that this is happening on the outside, but this is a real concern that's

going on. And that's why, right. So his response that I haven't harassed, well, of course, you haven't harassed anyone. You're sitting in prison. But they're also making the argument. Are you, you know, amplifying it because you're wearing the green sweater, things like that? Right. It relates to what we were just talking about.

If they're out in public, if they have websites, if they're promoting his innocence and his arguments in public, are they fanning the flames of that. But as I said, they have a right to speak publicly in defense of him. You know, where is that line cross from? speaking publicly in his defense to inciting illegal acts against witnesses. It's really an interesting issue and very, this is very difficult stuff for a judge to navigate. Very difficult stuff for all of us to navigate as we continue multiple cases in the Luigi Mangione saga. Rich Schoenstein, thanks so much for coming on. Thanks for coming here. Really appreciate it. I love being here. Thanks, Jesse.

Got it. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.