Mangione's Double Jeopardy & Superstar Lawyer on Trial

0:03Holly Barker:Every small business owner has that one moment that could have broken them, but remarkably, it didn't. Hi, I'm Ben Walter, CEO of Chase for Business, and on Season 3 of The Unshakeables, my co-host Kathleen Griffith and I are bringing you more incredible stories of overcoming the impossible. We're really proud to share that The Unshakeables is nominated for Best Branded Podcast at the 2026 iHeart Podcast Awards. Listen to The Unshakeables wherever you get your podcasts and learn more at chase.com slash podcast. JPMorgan Chase Bank and a member FDIC. Copyright 2026, JPMorgan Chase & Company. So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises.

0:43June Grasso:So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need.

0:50Holly Barker:Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise.

0:59June Grasso:Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off. Deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM.

1:09Holly Barker:If you follow markets, you know the value of long-term thinking. You plan, you diversify, you prepare for volatility. But in life, even the best strategies can't prevent every bad day. A fire, a loss, a disruption that demands immediate attention. When that happens, what matters isn't just what you planned, it's who shows up. That's where Cincinnati Insurance comes in. For more than 75 years, they've helped individuals and businesses navigate life's toughest moments with care, expertise, and personal attention. Together with independent agents, Cincinnati Insurance focuses on relationships, not transactions.

1:47Holly Barker:Their approach is grounded in experience, follow-through, and trust built over time. Bad days happen, and when they do, you deserve an insurance partner who understands risk, respects what you've built, and is ready to help you move forward. The Cincinnati Insurance Companies. Let them make your bad day better. Find an independent agent at CINFIN.com. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2:31Holly Barker:Luigi Mangione pleaded not guilty to murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December of 2024. The public hasn't heard much else from Mangione until his outburst after a tense hearing setting setting the date for his state murder trial. As he was let out of the courtroom, Mangione shouted, It's the same trial twice. One plus one is two. Double jeopardy by any common sense definition. And state and federal prosecutors have been engaged in a virtual tug-of-war over who will try Mangione first. And even the judges seem to be jockeying for position, with the state judge setting a trial date of June 8th, only after the federal judge set a trial date of September 8th.

3:23Holly Barker:My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English. Bob, this is what you'd think of as a typical state murder case. A person was killed on the streets of New York City. It was investigated by the New York police in conjunction with the Manhattan DA. The federal government didn't get involved until two weeks after the shooting. I mean, why is the federal government trying him as well?

3:49June Grasso:Well, you're exactly right. Murder cases are typically prosecuted in state courts. But in this case, federal prosecutors have said that he crossed state lines to stalk and ultimately kill health care CEO Brian Thompson. And that gives them federal jurisdiction to prosecute the case. The other reality of what's going on here is that this is a very high profile case. And both the Department of Justice and the Manhattan DA's office both want to take a shot at trying this case. And that's why we're seeing a virtual tug of war between federal prosecutors and state prosecutors as to who is going to try this case first.

4:30Holly Barker:And both the state and the federal government overcharged Mangione, didn't they?

4:36June Grasso:In both the state case and the federal case, judges dismiss charges before they even went to trial. That is something that is exceedingly rare. Most times, prosecutors charge cases. The case at least goes to trial. The defense can make a motion to dismiss a charge at the end of the case once all the evidence has been presented. But it's unusual for prosecutors to bring charges and for a judge to decide based solely upon the law that those charges should not even reach a jury. Now, what we saw in this case was in the state case, Mr. Mangione was indicted on 11 counts, including two state terrorism charges that carried a sentence of life in prison without parole.

5:22June Grasso:The terrorism charges were dismissed in September. He still faces a secondary murder charge, which could be 25 years to life and eight other charges. But those terrorism charges were dismissed by the state court judge. In federal court, we saw a similar thing happen where the federal judge also dismissed charges. In that case, Mr. Mangione faced four charges, two counts of stalking, a firearms offense, and one count of using a firearm to commit murder, which carries a maximum sense of death. The federal judge dismissed the latter two charges and took the death penalty off the table in the federal trial.

5:59June Grasso:So in both cases, both federal and state, the maximum penalty is life without parole.

6:06Holly Barker:Now, you mentioned this tug of war. So the federal prosecutors and the Manhattan prosecutors are fighting over who gets to bring him to trial first. Normally, isn't that something that's worked out between the federal prosecutors and the state prosecutors?

6:24June Grasso:Generally, prosecutors do try to work together. And what they do is they look at the federal case and the charges that are brought there. They look at the state case and the charges that are brought there. And they make a decision objectively as to which office has the stronger case and the higher likelihood of conviction. So in many cases, the state charges will have slightly different elements than the federal charges, and the penalties may be different. And so prosecutors will essentially agree which is the strongest case and lead with that. In this case, there seems to be no cooperation between the federal government and the Manhattan DA's office.

7:04June Grasso:And there is a virtual tug of war between the two, a battle as to which case is going to be tried first. We even saw at a hearing before the state court judge, the judge make a very unusual comment saying that U.S. prosecutors had essentially reneged on an agreement to let the state trial proceed first. So we're seeing here a very unusual situation where the federal judge has set the trial date for September 8th, which has prompted the state court judge to set a June 8th trial so that the state court case can proceed and be completed before the federal case goes to trial.

7:42Holly Barker:Yeah, aren't the judges also jockeying for position a little bit here? The federal judge said that she was proceeding as if the federal case was the only case unless one of the parties raised an issue with her. And the state court judge only sets a trial date when it looks like the federal trial may go first. How do judges usually handle it when there are competing trials?

8:07June Grasso:Well, just like with prosecutor's offices, there is no set process by which state and federal judges must interact with one another in terms of setting trials or anything else. It's just usually a pattern in practice that there is some degree of cooperation and some understanding as to which case should proceed first. Here we saw a case where the state made the arrest first and the first appearance was in state court. But then the case got somewhat bogged down in state court, which has slowed that process. And in fact, there was a hearing in December, an important hearing regarding the exclusion of certain key evidence in the case.

8:47June Grasso:State prosecutors had argued that evidence from the backpack that was seized by police when Mr. Mangione was arrested at the McDonald's in Altoona should be admitted into evidence. It includes some key evidence, including a 9mm handgun, a silencer, a loaded gun magazine, and a diary, which according to state prosecutors, includes some very incriminating statements made by Mr. Mangione, including a comment that Brian Thompson, the healthcare CEO, quote, had it coming, that you whack the CEO at the annual bean counter convention. So that's all very critical evidence to prosecutors. There was an extended hearing in December as to whether or not that evidence was going to be admitted into the state trial.

9:34June Grasso:The trial judge expects to rule on that decision in May. So the trial judge is taking some time to make what is a very critical decision about what evidence may or may not be admitted in the state court. Interestingly, the very same motion was argued in front of the federal judge, and the judge rather expeditiously ruled that all of that evidence will be admitted, denying the defense's argument that the police improperly searched the bag without a warrant. So that case, in some sense, is teed up and ready to go because that critical decision about what evidence may be admitted to The trial has already been decided in federal court.

10:15June Grasso:But state court prosecutors are adamant that their case should go first based on the theory that the New York Police Department investigated the crime. And federal prosecutors only became involved two weeks after the murder. They say that they have a greater stake in the case. And in fact, it's only the state court case in which murder is being charged. It's second degree murder. The federal charges are stalking charges, which carry a serious penalty because as a result of the stalking, a death occurred. But the murder charges are only the state court charges. And so state court prosecutors are saying that the case should be tried in state court first and that federal prosecutors should try the case only after the Manhattan DA's office completes their prosecution.

11:02Holly Barker:Mangione had an outburst in court saying this is double jeopardy, trying him twice. And the average person might look at this and say, that's right. He's accused of committing one crime. So why are both state and federal prosecutors trying him for that crime? But the law of double jeopardy isn't that simple.

11:25June Grasso:Yeah, double jeopardy is a nuanced concept in the law, although it does have a common sense understanding. understanding basically the fifth amendment precludes a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offense but there are some exceptions one of them being separate sovereigns so for example if the federal government and the state government want to prosecute the same defendants for the same act often that has been permitted if you go back to the days of the civil rights movement you may remember instances where a white defendant was tried for the murder of a black person and acquitted in state court.

12:04June Grasso:And then we saw federal prosecutors come in and essentially try the case again, alleging civil rights violations in federal court and often could get convictions in federal court when state court convictions were not possible due to the makeup of the jury pool. So there is a long history of cases that are substantially similar being tried by different sovereigns, the federal government and the state government. Interestingly, on the federal level, double jeopardy is controlled by a 1932 case called Blockbuster versus United States that basically says that if there are different statutory elements of a crime, then you can be tried in separate cases.

12:48June Grasso:So in other words, if in state court you're being tried for murder and there are certain elements to convict somebody for murder, but you're being tried in federal court for violations of someone's civil rights, and there are different elements, in other words, prosecutors have to prove different facts in order to gain a conviction, then those are considered separate crimes and do not violate the double jeopardy clause. In New York State, however, the laws of double jeopardy are actually broader than the protection that the federal constitution applies. And that's why we're seeing this interesting interplay between the Mangione defense and federal prosecutors saying that they would rather be tried in federal court first because that will give them at least an argument that the New York state case should be blocked by the double jeopardy clause if the federal case proceeds first.

13:40Holly Barker:And the New York state double jeopardy law is why this fight over which trial goes first is so critical.

13:47June Grasso:The New York State double jeopardy law is broader than the federal constitution because under federal law, it looks at that blockbuster test, which is only looking at elements of a crime, while the New York State law looks at the second prosecution as the same offense or the same criminal transaction. And so it gives defense lawyers a chance to argue that even though the elements may be different, it's really the same offense and the same criminal transaction. In this case, my opinion is it will be an uphill battle for the Mangione defense team to convince the court that the New York state case is barred by double jeopardy, but there's no question that they will have a better argument if the federal case proceeds first, and then they are in state court arguing that the state prosecution is barred by the prior federal prosecution.

14:37Holly Barker:The defense attorney complained about the timing of the trials. Right now, they're three months apart if they go off as scheduled. Karen Friedman Agnifilo told the state court judge Gregory Caro, the defense will not be ready on June 8th, and Judge Caro said, be ready. Basically, having to prepare for two trials at once does seem like a lot for one defense team.

15:02June Grasso:Generally, judges are pretty solicitous of defense lawyers who say they need additional time to prepare for a trial because what the judge does not want to have happen is they go through an entire trial, and ultimately there's a conviction, for example, and then on appeal, the higher court looks at the case and decides that the defense was not provided adequate time to prepare for the defense, and the whole case gets thrown out and has to be retried again. So what we're seeing here is that the federal judge set that September 8th date for the federal trial, and the state court judge then counted backwards from that date in order to set a trial beginning on June 8th to allow that trial to be completed first.

15:50June Grasso:But as you say, the defense has strenuously argued that they will not be ready by June 8th, and that it is an undue burden for them to have to try the state court case only to then approximately three weeks later have to be sitting in federal court ready for another trial. What the defense is arguing is that the defense team is unfairly burdened because they have to prepare for two trials while prosecutors only have to prepare for one trial each.

16:19Holly Barker:Also, Bob, you talked before about how the state court judge hasn't decided yet about whether that critical evidence from the backpack will come in at trial. Judge Caro said he's going to make the decision by May 18th, but they're supposed to go to trial on June 8th. Even though it's unlikely that the judge is going to suppress that critical evidence, shouldn't the defense know that definitively while they're preparing for trial?

16:47June Grasso:No, you're exactly right. And the federal judge has already heard argument on that very issue and allow that evidence to be admitted. So I think we can expect the state court judge to rule the same way. It would be a devastating blow to prosecutors if the state court judge were to suppress that critical evidence, and it would make it much more difficult for them to gain a conviction. But nonetheless, from the defense standpoint, if you don't know for sure whether that evidence is coming in until the middle of May, and you've got to begin the trial in the beginning of June, it doesn't give you a lot of time to reset your case and to prepare for trial.

17:24June Grasso:And that's exactly what they're going to argue. So it's going to be very interesting to see whether these dates hold. One possible issue that could push the dates back is that if federal prosecutors decide to appeal the federal judge's decision to throw out the death penalty charge in the federal case, the state court judge said that he would likewise move back the start of the state court trial. So it's possible that the defense team will get additional time if federal prosecutors appeal that decision. But they will still have the argument that they have to try these cases in close succession and that they're not going to be adequately prepared to try both cases.

18:05Holly Barker:It'll be interesting to see whether either of these trials goes off as scheduled. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mintz of McCarter in English. Coming up next, a superstar lawyer takes the stand at his criminal tax trial. This is Bloomberg. This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card members can earn unlimited daily cash back on everyday purchases wherever they shop. This means you could be earning daily cash on just about anything, like a slice of pizza from your local pizza place or a latte from the corner coffee shop. Apply for Apple Card in the Wallet app to see your credit limit offer in minutes.

18:44Holly Barker:Subject to credit approval Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch Terms and more at applecard.com So there's a lot of noise about AI But time's too tight for more promises

18:55June Grasso:So let's talk about results At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology Right into the systems they need Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000

19:04Holly Barker:Can use AI to fill their HR questions Resolving 94 % of common questions Not noise

19:11June Grasso:Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business, IBM. Support for the show comes from Public. Lately, it feels like there are two types of investing platforms. Some are traditional brokerages that haven't changed much in decades, and others feel less like investing and more like a game. Public is positioned differently. It's an investing platform for people who are serious about building their wealth. On Public, you can build a portfolio of stocks, options, bonds, crypto without all the bugs or the confetti.

19:46June Grasso:Retirement accounts, yep. High yield cash, yes again. They even have direct indexing. Public has modern design, powerful tools, and customer support that actually helps. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market.

20:11June Grasso:SEC Registered Advisor. Crypto services by zero hash. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures.