Law&Crime Sidebar - Luigi Mangione Begs for Evidence to be Thrown Out in Murder Case

Starting point is 00:00:00 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. views shadows. Joshua Jackson

Starting point is 00:00:32 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.

Starting point is 00:00:48 Luigi Mangione's defense attorney argues his rights were violated. The police conducted an illegal search and seizure out in Pennsylvania that evidence should be suppressed. Does he have a point? Does he have a valid legal argument. How could this affect Mangione's various criminal cases? We're going to bring on a former Pennsylvania prosecutor to discuss it all. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by law and

Starting point is 00:01:11 crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Luigi Mangione's attorney has just made a big accusation. And if true, if they can prove this, this could potentially really affect his prosecution. And it all stems around when Manjoni was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania. We remember how this all went down, right? He was apprehended in a McDonald's after a customer thought he looked a lot like the suspect in the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, who was gunned down on the streets of New York City just a few days earlier as he was on his way to an investors conference. That customer apparently alerted an employee who then alerted police. And at that point in time, remember, images of the suspected shooter were publicized across the nation. We remember,

Starting point is 00:01:57 Shortly after the killing, the NYPD released surveillance images of a man believed to be the shooter. They released images that were captured inside a Starbucks, person wearing a face mask, obscuring his face. This person was also captured without his mask on, smiling in surveillance from the hostel. He was reportedly staying at. There were other images from outside the crime scene, allegedly showing the man, carrying a concealed firearm, acting suspiciously. And then you have another image from the suspect that was captured from inside a taxi cab where he can, once again be seen wearing that mask over his face. And when officers detained him, what did they find? When they detained him out in Altoona, Pennsylvania. I'm going to read you what it says

Starting point is 00:02:39 from Mangione's federal complaint in New York. Quote, members of the Altoona Police Department responded and encountered Mangioni, who they also believed matched the appearance of the shooter. When approached by responding officers and asked for identification, Mangione offered the false New Jersey ID used by the shooter to check into the hostel. Mangione was later found to be in possession of a loaded 9mm pistol and silencer consistent with the weapon used to kill the victim. Clothing that matched apparel that the shooter wore in the security camera videos, a notebook, several thousand dollars in cash, an envelope associated with an FDIC insured bank with a letter addressed to the feds. The notebook contains several handwritten pages that expressed hostility towards the

Starting point is 00:03:22 health insurance industry and wealthy executives in particular. Goes on to say the notebook described how the details are finally coming together. And quote, I'm glad in a way that I've procrastinated because it allowed me to learn more about the, and then it's an acronym for company one. And the notebook entry also stated that quote, the target is insurance because quote, it checks every box. As far as the Fed's letter recovered from Mangione, it stated, I wasn't working with anyone. This was fairly trivial. some elementary social engineering, basic cad, a lot of patience. So in the end, Mangione was criminally charged in three separate cases after he was extradited back to New York.

Starting point is 00:04:00 So in New York State Court, he was indicted on charges of first and second degree murder, possession of a forged instrument and multiple charges of criminal possession of a weapon, and particularly for the first degree murder charge, he could face life in prison. Then he was charged with federal crimes in New York, although he's not yet been indicted. We're talking murder through use of a firearm, two counts of stalking. The murder charge carries the potential of the death penalty. And out in Pennsylvania, he faces state charges of forgery, carrying a firearm without a license, tampering with identification, possessing instruments of a crime, and providing false identification to law enforcement authorities. So it is Pennsylvania that we want to talk about.

Starting point is 00:04:42 Why? Why? Because his Pennsylvania attorney, Thomas Dickey, has argued in a new court filing that any evidence that was seized was obtained illegally and unlawfully, and Mangione's constitutional rights were violated. And in fact, his New York attorney seemingly said the same thing. During a recent hearing, Karen Friedman Ignifalo argued that Mangione's, quote, constitutional rights were violated and said, I think there's a very, very serious search issue in this matter. And there might be evidence that is suppressed, meaning it won't come into trial. By the way, our plan is to keep uncovering these Luigi Mangione updates for you as they happen. And for that, I got to call out

Starting point is 00:05:22 today's sponsor that helped make this episode possible. Saly. Now, if you don't know what it is, Saly is an incredible E-Sim service app. So I recently went on vacation to Italy. And Saly is something I could download on my phone because I used so much data while I was away. Well, everybody else was dealing with roaming fees and having issues with their cell data. You can use Saly as a hot spot to easily plan your activities. And with the Saley app, getting an ESIM really couldn't be simpler because you just buy a plan on the Saly app. You activate it. Once it's activated, you're good to go. You can use the internet wherever you go. And also, once the Saly ESIM is installed, there's no need to install a new one for each country. The same ESIM can use plans that are available in over

Starting point is 00:05:59 190 countries. So go to sally.com slash sidebar or click the link in the description or pinned in the comments to get an exclusive 15% discount on Saly data plans. Be sure to use our code sidebar, check out that's sally.com slash sidebar promo code sidebar. So to talk about this Pennsylvania situation and to go through this filing as it relates to Luigi Mangione, let me bring on criminal defense attorney and former Pennsylvania prosecutor Matthew Mangino. Now I promise we didn't book Matthew because of the names, Matthew Mangino talking about Luigi Mangione, but I don't know, add a bonus.

Starting point is 00:06:33 But thanks so much for coming on, Matthew. It's so good to see you. Yes, thanks for having me. So first question for you, before we even get into the specific. details. Generally speaking, if we're talking big picture, if a criminal defendant is successful in saying and arguing that his initial search and seizure rights were violated in one state and it is connected to the prosecution of him in another state, so you're talking about evidence that was collected that was then used in a different case, does that mean that the charges

Starting point is 00:07:04 in the other state fall apart? In other words, if Dickey is successful here, could it affect mangione's prosecution in new york on a state or federal level i don't think jesse that it would directly affect it now certainly if he makes a successful argument in pennsylvania obviously he has some some reasons for being successful he has some case law that supports what his position is but it doesn't automatically suppress those matters in state court in new york or in federal court in New York. So, so, you know, it's kind of a test run in Pennsylvania whether or not he can make a successful argument with regard to suppression. Let me ask you this. If he has a successful argument, can his New York attorney, Karen Freeman Ignifalo, piggyback that, make the same argument,

Starting point is 00:07:58 same filing in New York and be successful there? Well, yeah, I mean, they could make the same argument, but there would be the possibility that he could be successful. in Pennsylvania, but not successful in New York. Now, when you look at these search and seizure issues, you not only look at the federal constitution, you also look at the state constitution. And in Pennsylvania, Article 1, Section 8, which deals with issues

Starting point is 00:08:27 of search and seizure, is a little tighter than the federal constitution and maybe the New York Constitution. So you could be successful in an argument, say, under the Pennsylvania Constitution, that this was an illegal search, but not be successful federally or in the state court in New York. That's a good point. That's a good point. Also, before we get into the details, his attorney filed a writ of habeas corpus where he outlines how Mangione's rights were allegedly violated.

Starting point is 00:08:58 So talk to us about what is this? What is the writ of habeas corpus here? And what is he asking the court to do? Well, what he's asking, a writ of habeas corpus is an issue. you know, Latin phrase, you know, release the body. You want him released because there was, they're alleging an illegal arrest that his constitutional rights were violated. Now, in Pennsylvania, what we normally refer to this is an omnibus pretrial motion, which means every issue that could be raised pre-trial, you raise it in this motion. And then ultimately, you have a hearing in front of a judge. evidence is presented, your legal arguments are presented, and a determination is made under what we call the exclusionary rule, whether or not this evidence should be suppressed

Starting point is 00:09:50 because his constitutional rights were violated. I think this sets the stage perfectly, Matt, and I'm actually going to go piece by piece with this, and we're going to break it down. So I want to get into the filing, and the way it starts off is it goes over the circumstances by which Mangione was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, at that McDonald's on December 9, 2024. And this is part of the motion to suppress evidence more specifically. And it explains how Mangione was approached by two uniformed armed officers. They had badges.

Starting point is 00:10:20 And how one of the officers positioned himself to Mangione's right, essentially blocking him in, that he couldn't go anywhere. And even at one point suggesting that it was, quote, a human law enforcement wall, when apparently another officer joined him on the side, or as the filing reads, this action taken in order to detain and or totally curtail the liberty of the defendant and to restrict the defendant's path of travel or ingress or egress from the table where he was sitting, these actions were performed to clearly exhibit said officers' authority over defendant. And from there, the filing continues,

Starting point is 00:10:55 no explanation was given to the defendant relative to why the police approached him at McDonald's. At most, police indicated that he, quote, looked suspicious and had overstayed his welcome as patron at McDonald's. It is clear that Altoona Police provides a specious and unreasonable reason for approaching defendant. It must be assumed that defendant was being detained for an investigation to which he was not informed. The filing continues, at no time did the two officers indicate that defendant was free to go, nor did they explain the reasons as to why defendant was being detained. Matt, let's start right there. What are the issues here, potential issues here, and explain the legal significance? Well, Jesse, I don't want to get too far into the weeds with the legal aspect.

Starting point is 00:11:42 But I'll tell you, initially, when they came there, they had what's called reasonable suspicion. So they had a call that somebody, you know, who looked like an individual who's wanted for homicides. side was in the McDonald's. So that provides them what's called reasonable suspicion. And with reasonable suspicion, you can go up to somebody and you can ask them questions and you can even pat them down to make sure they're not armed. It's not a dangerous situation. What the argument is that they're trying to make is because of the police officers and this indicia of power, you know, they got the badge and the gun and three of them come in and it's a wall of police officers. that he wasn't free to leave.

Starting point is 00:12:31 And once you're not free to leave and you're being detained by the police, it becomes what's called a custodial interrogation. So if you ask questions and this person doesn't feel as though they are free to leave, then you need to Mirandize that person because they need to know at that point that they're not free to leave, that they have certain rights to an attorney to remain silent, And if you don't do those things, once you get into that custodial situation, then any statement is subject to suppression because it's made without being Mirandized, without being told what your constitutional rights are. So you can tell by the way they characterize the situation that they're trying to create that issue of custodial interrogation and therefore a violation of his rights by not Miranda. This is their narrative, of course, about what happened, but did police, I mean, if they're

Starting point is 00:13:36 approaching him and let's say they are blocking his right, are they necessarily blocking him in where he would, you know, expect that he couldn't leave? How should they have approached it going into a McDonald's like this? Well, yes. And again, as I said, they have a legal basis to be there. They have reasonable suspicion based on what they know from someone who's called the police. All right. Now, you know, it's tough to make that argument that you're in custody and you're not free to leave in an area like that. So certainly if they grab him, put him in a police car, he's not free to leave. Right, right, right.

Starting point is 00:14:18 If they bring him to the police station, he's not free to leave. Now, at this point, you're trying to figure out, you know, you know, subjectively, you know, what this individual, how he felt, how Luigi Mangione felt, that he felt that he wasn't free to leave, you know, because of the police officers, you know, blocking him in or creating a wall. That's a little tougher, okay? You know, it's a lot different when the police come in, they put handcuffs on you, and they start asking you questions. At that point, there's a clear line. Yeah. You're not free to leave. Here, it's not is clear. Let's go through it a little bit more, and I'll explain what their narrative about

Starting point is 00:15:00 what happens next is. So the filing continues. Upon approaching the defendant, Officer Detweiler immediately made commands and instructions to the defendant, including but not limited to, providing his identification, standing up, placing hands up over his head. Defendant avers that the totality of these circumstances clearly show that he was seized and unlawfully detained at this time and was in custody of the Altoona Police Department and that this was in violation. of the fourth and 14th amendments. Why those amendments? Explain to us why this would connect here, Matt.

Starting point is 00:15:33 Well, the fourth amendment is an illegal search or illegal seizure. So it could be the seizure is the idea of an arrest, the illegal arrest. The 14th Amendment is the amendment that applies the Bill of Rights to individual states. So, you know, originally when the Bill of Rights were created, it was only for federal prosecutions. And it wasn't until the 14th Amendment that those rights that are identified in the Bill of Rights became applicable to states. So, you know, prior to the 14th Amendment, you only had your state constitution to rely on in terms of illegal searches and seizures. Now you have your state constitution and the federal constitution applies to state prosecutions.

Starting point is 00:16:22 Okay. It makes sense. So it continues. It says, quote, both police officers from the Altoona Police Department continue to interrogate and question the defendant without any reading of his Miranda rights, as required by both the Constitution of the United States as well as the Pennsylvania Constitution, what Matt was talking about before. Officer Detweiler further directed and commanded the defendant to stand up in order to undergo a terry frisk, a pat down, although no circumstances existed at that time justifying said action. Matt, jumping in here, your thoughts on this, again, are you sensing the officers doing anything wrong? No. And that's exactly what I spoke about earlier. You know, under Terry versus Ohio, you, if you have reasonable suspicion, which I mentioned earlier, in reasonable suspicion, it was a judicially created term. You know, in the past, you either had probable cause. You could arrest somebody or you were acting on some sort of. sort of hunch. And the Supreme Court created this middle ground called reasonable suspicion. So they get a call. This guy might be the suspect in a high-profile homicide. They can come

Starting point is 00:17:36 there. They can briefly detain him. They can ask him questions. They can ask for his ID. And they can frisk him for a weapon for officer safety. That's all it's about. Hey, we got this guy. we're we're suspicious of him i'm going to check and see if he has a weapon so it's not a danger to us as we know you know that that evolved into stop and frisk which was a controversial issue in in new york and other places where they use terry stops to try to find guns here it's perfectly proper and constitutional to do exactly what they did to that point you mentioned the id let's go there, right? So from there, the filing describes how police allegedly took Mangione's ID and the filing reads, it is clear that the Altoona police officer used the identification

Starting point is 00:18:29 material and other information obtained via their interrogation for use as a background check in other investigative measures. The Altoona Police Department continue to interrogate the defendant. Now, Matt, in other words, is it if they didn't have the right to obtain this, then whatever they learned about Mangione is tainted. So in other words, if they didn't have the right to take his ID or anything about this was wrong, then if they learned something about Mangione or they gathered evidence during the course of their investigation or used it as a background check, it's like fruit of the poisonous tree. Am I understanding that argument? Right. You're exactly right, Jesse. So once, you know, what we've talked about to this

Starting point is 00:19:11 point seems proper. But once they cross that line, and I'm not saying that they did here, but once you cross that line where now you're extending this detention further than it should be without probable cause, okay, then anything that you find on him as a result of that illegal search becomes, as you said, fruit of the poisonous street. And under the exclusionary rule, all that evidence cannot be used against the defendant in the case in Pennsylvania. So from there, the filing goes on to describe how more members of the Altoona Police Department show up. They allegedly block Mangione from leaving. The filing reads in order for the defendant to exit the dining table to venture to the service area of the McDonald's. He would

Starting point is 00:19:59 have had to pass no less than approximately 7 to 10 members of the Altoona Police Department and or other law enforcement personnel and how Mangione believed he wasn't free to go. The filing adds that an agent from the PA, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, was also present there. And the filing continues that, during this period of what Mangione or Dickie describes as being in custody, quote, various members of the Altoona Police Department continue to interrogate the defendant with the intentions of obtaining incriminating statements from the defendant. The totality of the circumstances presented by the Altoona Police Department again make it clear that the defendant

Starting point is 00:20:36 was in custody and that the actions by the Altoona Police Department constituted a custodial interrogation of the defendant. And then it goes on to say for about 15 minutes, Mangione still hadn't been given information as to why he was being held, and he believed he wouldn't be able to leave while the inquiry was being conducted. And here's what happened next, according to the filing. Finally, after approximately 15 minutes of the defendant's unlawful detention seizure and continued custody, he was advised by Officer Detweiler that he was officially under a police investigation. He was not read his Miranda rights at that time. Defendant was then asked who he was, at which time defendant replied that he was Luigi Mangione. He was further interrogated,

Starting point is 00:21:16 by members of the Altoona Police Department. After approximately two more minutes of the interrogation, a member of the Altoona Police Department read the defendant his Miranda rights. At the conclusion of the reading of said Miranda rights, the defendant was asked if he wished to speak to police, at which time the defendant shook his head, no. Officer Fox immediately stated to the defendant that you are not in custody. However, Dickie continues that this statement was materially false,

Starting point is 00:21:41 inaccurate, and contrary to law. It is clear at this time the defendant was in fact in custody, and had been in fact in custody since his illegal and a lawful seizure, detention, curtailment of liberty, and how all this was in violation of his constitutional rights. Matt, are they right? If this is true, if this actually happened the way they said, is this a problem? Well, I think you have to look at it in a way that, you know, helps understand the circumstances. So we talked about reasonable suspicion, and they had reasonable suspicion when they got them.

Starting point is 00:22:16 The question is, when did they determine that they had probable cause to arrest him, to detain him? Okay. So once you have established probable cause, then you have the ability to keep somebody in custody. The question would be this interrogation. Did he answer questions? You know, it's one thing to ask questions. it's another thing if somebody answers those questions and it's a third thing were those questions and answers against his interest so so you you know it's not enough to say oh you didn't

Starting point is 00:22:57 read him his rights well if he didn't say anything it doesn't matter because because the only issue is you know did you say something incriminating when you should have been told they say this search and seizure was illegal based on what you've seen and there's also you know allegation that they removed duct tape with a knife. Could all this evidence be suppressed? Well, it's possible if if a court looks at this and says that, you know, he was in custody and he made incriminating statements or, you know, his bag, it's one thing to search somebody's body. It's a different thing to search a bag. And so, so those, you know, those issues are ripe for review by a court and certainly should be raised, you know, will they be successful? I don't

Starting point is 00:23:46 know. All right. We'll wait and see. Matt Mangino. Thank you so much for coming on. Appreciate your perspective as always, sir. Thank you, Jesse. 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 Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.

Your Ad Here

Law&Crime Sidebar - Luigi Mangione Begs for Evidence to be Thrown Out in Murder Case

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.