Luigi Mangione's team asks court to remove 'shackles,' bulletproof vest on UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect
Attorneys for Luigi Mangione have filed a motion urging a New York judge to allow the suspect in the 2024 assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson to appear in court without handcuffs or a bulletproof vest, arguing that the visible restraints are unnecessary.
The Tuesday motion comes ahead of Mangione's scheduled court appearance on June 26.
The request, submitted to Justice Gregory Carro of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, calls for Mangione to be allowed to sit at the defense table with unshackled hands and in standard courtroom attire.
His legal team argues that the security measures, particularly the use of shackles and a bulletproof vest, serve no legitimate safety function and instead reinforce a damaging public narrative that depicts Mangione as dangerous. They argue that the visual impact of such restraints, frequently captured by the media, undermines his presumption of innocence.
Luigi Mangione Argues Double Jeopardy In Bid To Drop Murder Case, Suppress Evidence
Pointing to one photograph of Mangione's shackled ankles while seated in court that garnered more than 36 million views on X, his defense argued that it is impeding the accused killer of his right to a fair trial.
Read On The Fox News App
The motion also says that Mangione has not caused any trouble since his arrest in December 2024. He didn't resist arrest, cooperated with law enforcement, and hasn't been a problem in jail. He's being held in a regular part of the federal jail in Brooklyn, meets with his lawyers almost daily without shackles, and has been assigned work inside the prison.
READ THE MOTION – APP USERS, Click Here
Accused Ceo Assassin Luigi Mangione Indicted On Federal Charges
The defense said that in federal court, where Mangione faces the possibility of the death penalty, he was only made to wear leg shackles and did not wear a bulletproof vest or handcuffs.
They also say that making Mangione wear a bulletproof vest doesn't make sense because everyone is required to go through a metal detector.
GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE True Crime Hub
Mangione, a Maryland man, is the suspect in the assassination of Thompson on Dec. 4, 2024 in New York City.
Thompson was shot from behind outside a New York City Hilton hotel just hours before a shareholder conference. At the crime scene, police discovered bullet casings with handwritten words: "depose," "deny," and "defend," which drew comparisons to the book "Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don't Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It."
The now 27-year-old was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, while eating breakfast after a McDonald's customer and employee recognized him from a wanted poster.
A federal grand jury indicted Mangione on four counts: murder through the use of a firearm, a firearms offense and two counts of stalking. If he is found guilty, he could be eligible for the death penalty.
In addition to the federal indictment, Mangione has been charged in Pennsylvania and New York.
In Pennsylvania, where he was arrested, Mangione has been charged with carrying a firearm without a license, forgery, providing false identification to law enforcement, and possession of instruments of crime. These charges remain pending.
In New York State, Mangione faces 11 charges, the most serious being first-degree murder as an act of terrorism. Prosecutors allege the murder was committed to intimidate or coerce a group and to influence government policy. Other charges include multiple counts of criminal possession of a weapon related to a ghost gun and silencer, as well as criminal possession of a forged instrument for using a fake New Jersey driver's license to check into a hostel near the crime scene.
His next state court appearance is set for June 26, while his federal court hearing is scheduled for Dec. 5.Original article source: Luigi Mangione's team asks court to remove 'shackles,' bulletproof vest on UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Van Hollen on Abrego Garcia's return to US: ‘A victory for the Constitution'
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) celebrated the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported and detained in El Salvador's CECOT prison, calling it 'a victory' for the rule of law. The Trump administration doubled down on the deportation, accusing Abrego Garcia, who illegally immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador in 2011 but was later protected from removal to his home country, of having gang ties. His legal team has denied these allegations and urged for his return to the U.S. On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi, after months of fighting against Abrego Garcia's return in court, announced that he was transported back to U.S. soil to face criminal charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. 'This is a victory for due process. It's a victory for the Constitution. It should not have taken this long. I mean … the Trump administration dragged its feet for a very long time and ignored a 9 to 0 order from the Supreme Court,' Van Hollen said during a Friday appearance on MSNBC. 'But it's important that Abrego Garcia now come home and have his due process rights upheld in a court of law,' he added. The Maryland lawmaker visited Abrego Garcia while he was detained overseas to check on his well being and champion his release from El Salvadoran custody, which White House officials originally said would never happen. Van Hollen on Friday said that the court battle Abrego Garcia will now face should have been launched prior to his removal. 'If they're now going to take this case into the courts, as they should have, you know, from the beginning, before they just took him off the streets of Maryland and deposited him in a gulag in El Salvador, then that is — that is the due process that we've been fighting for,' he said. 'And, again, not just for his case, but for others. And — and I think that Americans understand that everybody deserves to have their rights, you know, respected. That's what the Constitution is for.' Abrego Garcia's attorney said on Friday that the criminal case is just another attempt to persecute his client. 'This shows that they were playing games with the court all along. Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice,' attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg previously told The Hill in a statement. 'The government should put him on trial, yes—but in front of the same immigration judge who heard his case in 2019, which is the ordinary manner of doing things, 'to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,' as the Supreme Court ordered.'
Hamilton Spectator
41 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Utah judge rules a convicted killer with dementia is competent to be executed
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A convicted killer in Utah who developed dementia while on death row for 37 years is competent enough to be executed, a state judge ruled late Friday. Ralph Leroy Menzies, 67, was sentenced to die in 1988 for killing Utah mother of three Maurine Hunsaker. Despite his recent cognitive decline, Menzies 'consistently and rationally understands' what is happening and why he is facing execution, Judge Matthew Bates wrote in a court order. 'Menzies has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his understanding of his specific crime and punishment has fluctuated or declined in a way that offends the Eighth Amendment,' which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, Bates said. Menzies had previously selected a firing squad as his method of execution. He would become only the sixth U.S. prisoner executed by firing squad since 1977. The Utah Attorney General's Office is expected to file a death warrant soon. Menzies' lawyers, who had argued his dementia was so severe that he could not understand why he was being put to death, said they plan to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. 'Ralph Menzies is a severely brain-damaged, wheelchair-bound, 67-year-old man with dementia and significant memory problems,' his attorney, Lindsey Layer, said in a statement. 'It is deeply troubling that Utah plans to remove Mr. Menzies from his wheelchair and oxygen tank to strap him into an execution chair and shoot him to death.' The U.S. Supreme Court has spared others prisoners with dementia from execution, including an Alabama man in 2019 who had killed a police officer. Over nearly four decades, attorneys for Menzies filed multiple appeals that delayed his death sentence, which had been scheduled at least twice before it was pushed back. Hunsaker, a 26-year-old married mother of three, was abducted by Menzies from the convenience store where she worked. She was later found strangled and her throat cut at a picnic area in the Wasatch Mountains of northern Utah. Menzies had Hunsaker's wallet and several other belongings when he was jailed on unrelated matters. He was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes. Matt Hunsaker, who was 10 years old when his mother was killed, said Friday that the family was overwhelmed with emotion to know that justice would finally be served.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court gives DOGE access to millions of Americans' private Social Security data
The Brief The Supreme Court ruled DOGE can access personal data from the Social Security Administration. The case marks the first Supreme Court decision involving DOGE, once led by Elon Musk. The dissent warned the decision puts Americans' sensitive information at risk. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday gave the green light for the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access one of the country's most sensitive databases — the Social Security Administration's internal systems — which hold information on nearly every American. The 6–3 decision, split along ideological lines, marks the first major Supreme Court ruling involving DOGE, the controversial agency once led by Elon Musk. The Court's majority reversed a lower court's order that limited DOGE's access under federal privacy law, siding with the administration's argument that the restrictions were hampering its anti-fraud mission. Liberal justices dissented, warning the decision erodes vital privacy protections. The backstory The Department of Government Efficiency — or DOGE — was established during President Trump's second term and tasked with rooting out government waste and inefficiency. Its first director was Elon Musk, who called the Social Security program a "Ponzi scheme" and repeatedly targeted it as a key source of fraud. Although Musk has since stepped away from DOGE, the department has continued aggressive efforts to audit and investigate various federal programs. Social Security has remained a top priority. The administration argued that unfettered access to the SSA's internal systems was essential to detect abuse, duplication, and improper payouts — particularly in disability and survivor benefits. Dig deeper The case originated in Maryland, where U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander ruled that DOGE's demand for open access to Social Security data amounted to a "fishing expedition" based on limited evidence of wrongdoing. She blocked broad access but allowed DOGE staff with training and security clearance to view anonymized data, and permitted expanded access only if a specific need was documented. The Trump administration appealed, arguing the court was overstepping its role and interfering with executive branch operations. An appeals court upheld the partial block, but the Supreme Court has now lifted it entirely. Solicitor General John Sauer told the Court the restrictions "micromanaged" DOGE's work and undermined its mission. The other side Opponents of the ruling, including the plaintiffs represented by the advocacy group Democracy Forward, argue that the Social Security Administration contains deeply personal data: salary history, school records, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. They warned that handing this information to a politically driven agency without individualized review poses massive privacy risks. Labor unions and retiree groups joined the lawsuit, saying the system could be weaponized against vulnerable Americans. The dissenting justices agreed. "There is no meaningful check here on the breadth or use of the data," one wrote. "We risk turning privacy law into an empty promise." Why you should care This decision expands the Trump administration's ability to conduct sweeping audits across government agencies using personal data. While supporters frame it as a win for accountability and fraud reduction, critics say it weakens safeguards that prevent misuse of federal databases. It also sets a precedent for how much control the courts can — or cannot — exert over federal agency operations, a core issue as Trump's administration continues to consolidate executive power. What's next With the Supreme Court's backing, DOGE is expected to move quickly in analyzing Social Security data. Critics worry this could lead to mass denials of benefits or politically motivated reviews. Supporters say it could lead to cost-saving reforms. The agency, which has faced more than two dozen lawsuits, remains under scrutiny. Legal challenges are ongoing regarding its personnel decisions, data practices, and oversight authority. The Source This report is based on coverage from the Associated Press and court documents related to the Supreme Court decision in the DOGE v. Democracy Forward case. Additional background was gathered from statements by the U.S. Solicitor General, District Court Judge Ellen Hollander's original ruling, and legal filings from the plaintiff groups, including labor unions and the nonprofit Democracy Forward.
