Inside the Mangione Motion
One Defendant, Two Courtrooms, and a Long Constitutional Argument
On April 30th Luigi Mangione’s legal team filed a sweeping motion in New York Supreme Court aimed at suppressing key evidence, dismissing terrorism-related charges, and potentially ending the state’s prosecution altogether.
In this filing, Mangione’s lawyers, Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Marc Agnifilo, paint a damning portrait of a series of constitutional violations that began with Mangione’s December 2024 arrest and continued through the handling of evidence and charging decisions.
I’ll quickly outline the six central arguments laid out in this motion.
Miranda Violations
Mangione was interrogated by Altoona police for nearly 20 minutes without being read his Miranda rights. He was not free to leave, was surrounded by law enforcement, and was, in practical terms, in custody.
Illegal Search and Seizure
Mangione’s backpack was searched twice: once in the Altoona McDonald’s and again at the precinct. Both times, the searches took place without a warrant or any valid claim of exigent circumstances.
Improper Identification by Law Enforcement
The motion seeks to bar Altoona police from testifying that they “recognized” Mangione from surveillance footage, which forms the foundation for why they felt they had probable cause to search him in McDonald’s. The defense cites a 2024 New York Court of Appeals decision (People v. Mosley, 41 N.Y.3d 640) limiting this kind of lay, non-eyewitness testimony, specifically, testimony from a person who was not present at the scene of the crime but claims to be able to identify the defendant from surveillance footage or photos.
This is worth lingering on for a minute. In People v. Mosley, the Court held that this kind of testimony is only admissible if it meets two standards (and it must meet both):
1.) The witness is sufficiently familiar with the defendant to make their testimony reliable.
2.) The jury requires assistance in identifying the person depicted in the footage/image.
According to this motion, the District Attorney wants to have three officers (including Detwiler and Frye) identify Mangione from surveillance video. Friedman Agnifilo is arguing here that this “identification” of Mangione in the McDonald’s violates the Mosely standard because the officers had no prior familiarity with Luigi Mangione (remember, he was unnamed/unknown at the time).
Their identification would be based solely on their own comparison of Mangione, the guy in the McDonald’s to the person in the video of the shooting. This is something any juror would be capable of doing without special knowledge.
So the Mangione defense team argues that the prosecution's proposed police identifications based on surveillance video violate the Mosley standard because the officers had no prior familiarity with Mangione and there's no reason to believe the jury needs help recognizing him in the footage.
Misapplication of Terrorism Charges
The New York terrorism up-charges have been among the stranger aspects to the state’s case against Mangione (and, therefore, the federal government’s case). Most observers feel the uneasy fit of a terrorism charge in this case is likely the result of a shoehorned up-charge in order to make the case death-penalty eligible.
As you know, Mangione has been charged with first- and second-degree murder under New York’s terrorism statute. His attorneys argue that prosecutors have failed to meet the statute’s legal threshold: that the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was intended to intimidate the civilian population or coerce government action.
This is not “throw everything against the wall” kind of stuff. This is one of more compelling legal arguments made by Friedman Agnifilo and Marc Agnifilo, and in my opinion, it lays bare some of the weaknesses of the state’s (and federal government's) cases against Mangione.
Double Jeopardy and Due Process Violations
Mangione is facing simultaneous prosecutions by state and federal governments for the same alleged act. While the federal government seeks the death penalty, New York pursues life without parole.
The defense argues that this dual-track prosecution jeopardizes Mangione’s rights to fair trial protections, including his ability to avoid self-incrimination and maintain coherent legal representation.
What exactly is “coherent legal representation”? This interesting term (well, interesting to me, but I’m a word nerd) refers to the practical and strategic chaos that is caused when a defendant has to defend himself in multiple overlapping criminal cases at once, especially with differing stakes. Including the death penalty.
Think about it: any move Mangione’s lawyers make in state court—like putting Mangione on the stand (ha) or challenging evidence—could potentially backfire in the federal case. Maybe the defense reveals too much in one trial and it hurts them in the other.
One speculative example of this would be if Mangione testifies in state court to fight the terrorism charge and that testimony is used against him the federal death penalty case. Maybe he feels pressured to not fully defend himself in the state case in order to avoid harming his chances in the federal case. Of course that would negatively impact his right to meaningfully participate in his own defense, a Constitutionally guaranteed right.
Request for a Stay or Other Relief
Finally, and related to the “coherent legal representation” question explored above, the defense has asked the court to halt the state case until the federal proceedings are resolved. Without a stay, the defense will be forced to fight two battles on different fronts with overlapping but incompatible strategies.
What’s emerging here is not just a challenge to the charges against Mangione but a broader critique of the prosecutorial posture in totality. It seems like the motion places a spotlight on what has become a blurry line between criminal prosecution and political messaging, especially when the charge of “terrorism” is invoked to pre-define guilt and sidestep scrutiny.
Regardless, of how the court ultimately rules, what Friedman Agnifilo’s motion makes clear is that the Mangione case is not just about defending one man against murder and terrorism charges. It’s about how the criminal justice system functions when it is stretched across jurisdictions. Or when political incentives meet constitutional guardrails, especially when those guardrails are being ignored by our government.
Mangione’s guilt or innocence will play out in court in the usual way, but the arguments laid out by the defense in this motion reminds everyone that a person accused of even the most serious of crimes must still be tried within a justice system that safeguards fairness, due process, and the right to a meaningful and “coherent” defense.