Luigi Mangione case: Trump DOJ 'may have violated' fair trial rule, judge warns
The judge said the alleged violations could factor in on whether she grants a defense motion to remove the death penalty.
All the breaking legal news, focused on the principles that matter.
Two high-ranking Department of Justice officials’ social media posts amplifying Donald Trump declaring Luigi Mangione guilty during a Fox interview “may have violated” a federal court’s local rule protecting his right to a fair trial, a federal judge found on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, Mangione’s defense team, led by attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, filed a letter alerting the judge to Trump’s statements to try to take the death penalty off the table in her client’s federal case.
On Sept. 18, Trump told Fox’s audience that Mangione “shot someone in the back as clear as you’re looking at me… He shot him right in the middle of the back — instantly dead.”
Mangione stands charged in state and federal court with murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Commenting on Mangione’s supporters, Trump added: “This is a sickness. This really has to be studied and investigated.”
U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett warned prosecutors early to comply with the Southern District of New York’s Local Criminal Rule 23.1, governing “Free Press/Fair Trial Directives.”
On April 25, Garnett issued an order “directing the prosecution team to ensure that the highest levels of the Department of Justice, up to and including Attorney General Bondi, were aware of and understood they were bound by this Rule,” according to her order.
Mangione’s lawyers notified the court that at least two high-ranking officials — Chad Gilmartin and Brian Nieves — echoed Trump’s words in a social media post on Sept. 20 declaring Mangione guilty.
Gilmartin is the the Justice Department’s Deputy Director of the Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs, and Nieves serves as Todd Blanche’s Chief of Staff and Associate Deputy Attorney General.
Two days later, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt referred to Mangione at a press briefing as a “left wing assassin [who] shot United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson right in the back in New York City.”
Stephen Miller also described Mangione as an example of “radical left terrorism,” a political alignment his attorneys deny.
“The Government has indelibly prejudiced Mr. Mangione by baselessly linking him to unrelated violent events, and left-wing extremist groups, despite there being no connection or affiliation,” the defense legal brief states, following up with a not-so-thinly veiled allusion to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. “A recent, tragic, high-profile murder has only increased this prejudicial rhetoric. The attempts to connect Mr. Mangione with these incidents and paint him as a ‘left wing’ violent extremist are false, prejudicial, and part of a greater political narrative that has no place in a criminal case, especially one where the death penalty is at stake.”
Judge Garnett ordered prosecutors to respond to Mangione’s filing by Oct. 3 and submit “a sworn declaration from a person of suitable authority” about how the alleged violations occurred.
“The Government is also directed to advise the Deputy Attorney General, for dissemination within the Department as appropriate, that future violations may result in sanctions, which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter,” the judge wrote. “The Government’s declaration shall also include confirmation that this message has been conveyed to the Deputy Attorney General.”
The judge added that she “will consider the other statements” by government officials cited in Mangione’s defense filing when she decides his death penalty motion.
Read the order in full here.
Oh for a President who does not have to comment on every falling leaf, who knows how to keep his big mouth shut!
@Adam, why did Judge Garnett not name the executive branch in her order, esp since they "public statements" in question seem to have originated with the President? Being that the plaintive is the "United States of America," are not all government offices liable? Or does it only hold to the DOJ? Thank you.