The top federal prosecutor in Manhattan has been recused from Luigi Mangione’s case.
“The Government also writes to inform the Court that United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, is recused from this matter,” attorneys from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York said in a letter to Judge Margaret Garnett on Wednesday.
Newsweek has contacted the district for comment via email. Mangione’s attorneys have also been contacted for comment via email. Luigi Mangione in court
Mangione, 26, is facing federal and state charges in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a New York City hotel in December.
He pleaded not guilty to a federal murder charge last Friday. Federal prosecutors have declared their intent to seek the death penalty. Mangione pleaded not guilty to state murder and terrorism charges in December.
The letter did not explain why Clayton recused from the case, but said that Perry Carbone, the district’s criminal division chief, will serve as the attorney for the United States in the case.
“Mr. Carbone has conveyed the same to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, which confirmed that it will in turn notify the Attorney General,” the letter said.
President Donald Trump announced in April that Clayton, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, would serve as interim U.S. attorney for Southern District of New York while the administration pursues Senate confirmation for him to serve in the role full-time.
Wednesday’s letter also amended an earlier letter to Garnett that described the handling of a recorded jail call between Mangione and his attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo.
The earlier letter has said that a paralegal at the New York County District Attorney’s Office (DANY) had “immediately stopped listening” to the call after recognizing it as an attorney call.
“In fact, the paralegal listened to the entire call, then subsequently informed DANY prosecutors about the identities of the people with whom the defendant spoke,” Wednesday’s letter said.
“DANY thereafter handled the matter as described in our previous letter. Moreover, DANY notified defense counsel of these facts in an email, dated April 22, 2025, thus, counsel was aware of this information prior to arraignment.”
Mangione is next due in federal court on December 5. His next appearance in the state case is set for June 26.
No trial date has been set in either case, but his defense team have said they want the federal case to take precedent because it involves the death penalty.
It’s very weird to see people say they love this guy for being such a revolutionary action based chad sticking-it-to-the-man straight shooter. And then you ask “Because he shot a CEO of an Insurance Company?” and they say “No.”
At least with OJ, the premise of his innocence was that he actually didn’t shoot Nicole Brown Simpson and the police were just being racist against a black celebrity. But juggling the contradiction on Luigi is just mind numbing.
First of all, I think Luigi is innocent. Honestly, and also due to the way we SHOULD think about this, innocent until PROVEN guilty.
However I also feel 0 sympathy for the CEO. Did he deserve to die? Who knows, probably. The shit insurance companies profit off of is disgusting. There’s I think an actual case for “self defense” if they ever find who actually shot him, because of the death toll that private health insurance has contributed to.
In my own experience, these are two different people.
One who hasn’t thought about the actual evidence or legal burden. They just saw on the news that the suspect is definitely guilty and their reaction is: “yeah, guilty of killing someone who deserved to die. Rock on murderer-dude.”
The other person is thinking about the law and the evidence presented so far and finds it pretty thin. They might or might not feel like healthcare CEOs should be executed, but I have not heard this type of person lauding Mangione for the killing because they are skeptical that he had anything to do with it.
It may be that your friends are less internally-consistent.
I mean I’ll say it, yeah it’s because he (whoever he was) shot someone that indirectly killed thousands upon thousand for money. Am I supposed to feel bad for that? Is killing one person with a gun somehow worse?
He didn’t “indirectly” kill, his policies killed them. Its no more indirect than a Mob Boss ordering one of his men to kill an enemy. That murder is a direct result of the Mob Boss’ demands, as surely as if he pulled the trigger himself.
This CEO was a Corporate Serial Killer for Profit, and whoever killed him was “acting in defense of others,” and is not guilty of murder.
He did not shoot the guy, but he has a recognizable face, name and background so we just roll with it. It doesn’t matter if he’s the shooter or not, the shooter is a hero what the internet calls Luigi isn’t the individual anymore, but the idea behind him.