The Waiting Game
Three months without an indictment: What’s behind the delay in Luigi Mangione’s federal case?
As most of you know, there were developments in both the federal and the Pennsylvania state cases against Luigi Mangione on Monday, March 17th. This post will focus on the federal case. As always, with any posts having to do with the legal aspects of the Mangione affair, please know that I am not a lawyer and I don’t even play one on TV, though I’ve sometimes played one in my nightmares.
As many of you know, March 19th was the deadline for the expected indictment. That has now been postponed to next month, as confirmed by a recent court docket entry. There was no specific reason given for the delay beyond standard generalities.
The delay reflected in the order of continuance (first page is below) essentially pushes back the deadline for the federal indictment.
It’s interesting that despite (or perhaps because of) the warp speed of the federal government’s decision to charge Mangione—a sign of confidence in a suspect’s guilt and the prosecution’s chances of getting a conviction— a federal grand jury has yet to formally indict him for the crimes he’s accused of committing.
While I’ve seen some people online claiming that a year-long wait for an indictment is “common” (it’s really not), the fact is that in a high-profile case like Mangione’s, where there’s a lot of pressure on the prosecution to move quickly, a delay like this is more unusual and could suggest complications, whether it's with gathering evidence, dealing with legal issues (like Thomas Dickey’s motion to suppress evidence), or coordinating with state authorities.
In fact, in the vast majority of federal cases, an indictment follows within thirty days of charging due to the Speedy Trial Act.
The fact that Mangione has not yet been indicted by a federal grand jury raises some interesting possibilities.
The Government Needs More Time
This falls under “duh.” Insurance industry leaders reportedly leaned on the DOJ to charge Mangione quickly to make an example of him and deter other “vigilantes.” Recall that public response to the shooting of Brian Thompson was not one the corporate class or the corporate media expected; instead of outrage, they saw indifference, which they mischaracterized as “celebration.” Recall also the frantic and seemingly coordinated efforts of the mainstream media to scold the public into appropriate displays of grief—and how those efforts failed.
So if the swift federal charges were, in fact, a result of corporate class pressure, then it’s possible the feds filed charges before fully building a case against Mangione that could hold up in court.
It’s also possible that federal prosecutors are still gathering evidence, such as forensic analysis and digital records, or tracking down witnesses, before presenting to a grand jury.
Could the feds be slow-walking the indictment in order to avoid possible speedy trial claims, which might force them to go to trial before they’re ready?
Potential Weakness in Evidence
I won’t get into the developments in Mangione’s Pennsylvania case having to do with the search of his person and seizure of evidence (I wrote about that a couple of weeks ago). I’ll assume you’re aware of Thomas Dickey’s filed motion to suppress the evidence gathered by Altoona police, and the nature of that evidence. It’s likely this evidence is part of both the New York and the federal cases.
If key evidence is either shaky or may potentially be excluded, federal prosecutors may be less sure they can secure an indictment (they probably still could) or a conviction (meeting a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could be tough).
Complex Legal Considerations
This is a possible death penalty case. Death penalty cases are complex, introducing legal procedures and considerations not present in non-death penalty cases. It’s possible this is what has led to the delay, though this doesn’t explain the delay in the indictment itself. Some more cynical takes online include the possibility that the feds are intentionally doing this to “hold the death penalty over” Mangione’s head, and the heads of his defense team, keeping them in a kind of limbo and also forcing them to play nice for now.
Waiting out the New York Trial
If there’s any chance that state proceedings could yield new information, the feds might hold off moving forward with their own indictment until they see what comes out of that trial, adjusting their strategy accordingly.
What about Due Process?
It’s interesting that federal prosecutors requested the delay without an explanation. In general, a request for an extension generally needs to cite specific reasons. One reason or a delay might be a need for additional time for investigation, evidence-gathering, and witness work.
Another reason might be because a plea deal is forthcoming (highly unlikely). Yet another is problems with key evidence or witnesses. If evidence is delayed or—I don’t know—the subject of a suppression motion, it might take longer for prosecutors to present a solid case.
But there was no reason given in today’s extension request, leaving us to read tea leaves. It’s possible a delay without stated reason might suggest a weak case. Are federal prosecutors facing challenges in building a case strong enough to justify an indictment, let alone a conviction? Do they think it’s a real possibility that the Altoona evidence may be suppressed?
Or does the delay have to do with coordination between the state and federal teams?
Regardless, a potential violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights is something I’m sure Mangione’s legal team is watching carefully. Theoretically, they could have challenged the delay as a violation of their client’s due process rights. However, they agreed to it (in legal fact, it was “jointly” requested).
But does Mangione’s legal team want to expedite the case?
Maybe they’re waiting to see if the grand jury actually will indict Mangione. In federal cases, if a grand jury doesn’t return an indictment, the case could collapse. But, as someone once said, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, so this outcome is highly unlikely.
What is likely is that this case will go to trial, so any extra time to prepare could be welcome. After all, this is a possible death penalty case—the stakes could not be higher. Friedman Agnifilo and her team may feel the pressure on the prosecution is mounting, and they can use this time to continue to build the strongest defense possible once the indictment finally comes in. Fewer motions now could give them leverage down the road.
It’s also possible that Mangione’s lawyers feel that the longer the feds dither, the weaker the case becomes. Though I doubt this will happen, it’s theoretically possible that if the delays continue and there is still no indictment, Mangione’s legal team could argue that the case against him is unconstitutionally stalled and that the delay in proceedings is itself a form of prejudice. Again, with the death penalty on the table, though, this kind of aggressive move is unlikely.
As we await further developments in the federal case, one thing is clear: the delays and the lack of indictment raise serious questions. Mangione's legal team is certainly watching these delays carefully. Maybe we’ll see a challenge to the fed’s sluggish pace. Maybe the fact is that the chaos in the Trump administration has infiltrated the DOJ and the Southern District of New York.
In any case, the next few weeks could prove pivotal—either the grand jury will act, or the defense might force the government’s hand, possibly accelerating a resolution that’s been far from swift.
Since April 18 is on Good Friday, it's highly unlikely the court will be in session. Without an indictment, it's merely another holding date in a continuing series.