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.
I think Mojo’s comment is meant sarcastically. I.e. UCH does murder sick people.
But to your question: the presumption of innocence. You’ve got the burden-of-proof backwards; it’s not “prove he didn’t commit murder” but rather “prove he did”. What I’ve seen is: some blurry pictures of a white man with brown hair in NYC, security footage of a white man with brown hair doing the killing, and the police say that they found a confession-manifesto and a ghost-gun on Mangione when they arrested him.
As a white man with brown hair who doesn’t trust the police, I feel concerned about this standard of evidence!
The physical evidence would seem pretty strong but: a manifesto is something you mail, not carry around with you waiting to be arrested. And a ghost-gun is something you throw away immediately, not hang on to across state lines.
My main point here isn’t that it’s a slam-dunk “no possible way he could have done it”. But that it’s just not a ton of evidence. And the pressure to get a conviction and execute someone is incredibly strong. I’d say there’s decent evidence that the NYC cops are corrupt and setting up an innocent man to make themselves look good. If we’re going to jump to a verdict before the trial, what made you pick the one you picked?
I agree with your point, I’m not really convinced he’s the shooter but the general feeling I have, from my limited knowledge of how the police, the judicial system and murderers work, the pictures that everyone saw and all, is that there’s a real possibility he’s the shooter. But of course we have to let the courts decide.
I’m just tired of everyone saying he didn’t do it based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence and a general hatred for anything that looks like a cop.
I’m old enough to have known a time when online discussion was mostly rational and respectful, and it bothers me how it has slowly become so polarized and emotional.
“I’m just tired of everyone saying he didn’t do it based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence…”
Oh, but you’re fine with the cops using weak, disjointed evidence that’s not in any way conclusive? Jeeze, it almost sounds like you’re using motivated reasoning just as much as everyone else!
Besides, the standard is supposed to be, “innocent until proven guilty”, not “I trust the cops more than my own lying eyes”…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
I don’t disagree with you, but I don’t put a lot of value in that judgement. Like, if I was the VP of Denying Claims at UnitedHealthcare, I guess I would avoid being in a room with him and a gun just to be safe? I donno…
When I see people saying he’s definitely innocent, I mostly read that as a reaction against the media which portrays all suspects as 100% guilty. And that’s a pretty fucked-up thing, right? Like, suppose there’s a real trial and we all get to see that the evidence against Manione is garbage and that he’s clearly innocent and he gets correctly exonerated. Even still, he’ll spend the rest of his life as “Luigi, that dude who killed the CEO!” because that’s what people saw on TV long before his trial.