The Murder of Brian Thompson: The Case of Luigi Mangione: What Happened with the Psychiatric Defense?

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_02] The Temperatures Are Rising, That Doesn't Mean Your Spending Has To. Shop Our Wonderful Sponsor, Quince.

[00:00:05] [SPEAKER_01] Quince is our go-to brand when it comes to clothing. Their pieces look great and feel great. They're clothes that we feel excited to put on again and again. Plus, they go with everything. We're talking about premium-made wardrobe staples that last, that you can wear all the time.

[00:00:21] [SPEAKER_02] Quince doesn't do markups or middlemen. They partner with top ethical artisans and factories to ensure they're giving you the best. And all of their products are 50 to 80% less expensive than what you'd find at competitors.

[00:00:37] [SPEAKER_01] This summer, shop their breathable European linen shorts and shirts starting only at $34. And Quince does more than just clothes. Check out their ceramic cookware line, their premium bedding, and their custom upholstered sofas.

[00:00:49] [SPEAKER_02] Quince. I have two pieces coming in. The 100% European linen relaxed short sleeve shirt in Martini Olive. I'm branching out and trying new things, which means button downs with short sleeves. What a concept. It's casual but put together and perfectly lightweight for the sticky summer months. I also got new pants, the Comfort Stretch Traveler 5 Pocket Pants, Athletic Tapered in Dark Charcoal. They look professional and put together with a great sharp fit and a nice stretch.

[00:01:19] [SPEAKER_01] Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash msheet for free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com slash msheet. This message is sponsored by Greenlight.

[00:01:40] [SPEAKER_02] It's always scary when someone tries to scam your family. We had scammers hack into our relative's email and send all of his email contacts junk. Thank goodness we were all able to fix it and it did not go beyond that. But the problem is huge and growing. Families lost $12.5 billion to fraud last year. With Greenlight Family Shield, you can keep your family from becoming a statistic.

[00:02:05] [SPEAKER_01] Greenlight Family Shield is an app that helps keep your whole family safe from scams and fraud. Not just one person. Your grandparents, your kids, you. That's because Greenlight knows that this affects everybody in your family when it happens. Greenlight Family Shield protects with financial account monitoring, credit locking, and real-time alerts when potential fraud is detected. They offer up to a million dollars of identity theft coverage so you can have peace of mind.

[00:02:32] [SPEAKER_02] Unfortunately, as true crime podcasters, we know that fraudsters and scammers are trying to rip you off all the time. Greenlight Family Shield puts the power back in your hands and it takes just minutes to set up.

[00:02:44] [SPEAKER_01] We love their identity protection services. We also love that they're monitoring our financial accounts and that they'll lock our credit in an instant if something goes wrong. We use Greenlight and you should too.

[00:02:56] [SPEAKER_02] Scammers are not waiting. Neither should you. Go to greenlight.com slash msheet right now to get started. That's greenlight.com slash msheet. Greenlight.com slash msheet.

[00:03:10] [SPEAKER_00] Everyone deserves access to high-quality, affordable healthcare. No matter what. That's why millions of people rely on Planned Parenthood health centers for services like cancer screenings, wellness exams, birth control, STI tests, and more. In fact, one in three women in the U.S. have been to Planned Parenthood for care. So, it kind of blows my mind that lawmakers are trying to permanently shut them down. They already passed a law that blocks patients that use Medicaid from getting affordable preventative care they need.

[00:03:38] [SPEAKER_00] And now, they want to make that law permanent. Nobody benefits when people are getting fewer exams, paying more for care, or just skipping the healthcare they need. And we know that's happening. Planned Parenthood health centers have reported that fewer patients are getting basic care, like breast exams and STI tests since the Trump administration and their backers defunded Planned Parenthood. Patients shouldn't suffer because of their laws. Our communities deserve better. To get involved, text UPDATE to 22422.

[00:04:06] [SPEAKER_00] That's UPDATE to 22422.

[00:04:10] [SPEAKER_01] I'm Anya, and today we're going to be talking about some pretty dramatic updates in the Luigi Mangione case. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of violence and murder. All right, so it's June 22nd, 2026. Last week, there was a kind of a flurry of media reports and all sorts of goings-on social media speculation in the Luigi Mangione case.

[00:04:36] [SPEAKER_01] And it sort of came down to an announcement, basically a revelation in the public, that essentially Mangione and his defense team may be planning to go with a psychiatric defense. And specifically, a defense that is called extreme emotional disturbance. And that was very surprising to a lot of people.

[00:05:06] [SPEAKER_01] And then, as soon as that came up, it went away because it turned out that the defense team then filed, saying, we're not going to go with that. So, there's a lot that we don't know. I mean, like, let's, I'd never want to come out here and be like, ah, yes, this is what that means. I don't think that's responsible. I don't think that's, I mean, we just don't know. None of us are in the heads of Luigi Mangione. None of us are in the heads of his defense attorneys. I think what is more helpful is if we look at what we do know and what did happen, and we can kind of unpack that.

[00:05:35] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah. Can I make an obvious point? Yeah. Which is that at every stage of a criminal defense, you have the option of, like, branching off into different directions. And the very first thing is, if you're the defendant, you can say as a defense, I didn't do it. And then that could lead to all sorts of other branches and options. Or you can say, I did it, but I had a really good reason. Maybe that reason is self-defense.

[00:06:04] [SPEAKER_02] Maybe I had some sort of a mental illness or something like that. But when you say my defense is extreme emotional disturbance, you are implicitly saying, I did it. And that's something that I think surprised some followers in this case, that he was prepared seemingly to admit that he did it.

[00:06:26] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. What you're describing, too, what you described there at the end, I did it, but I have some kind of justification. That's an affirmative defense. And that's where I'm admitting I did what I'm accused of, but I shouldn't be held liable because my actions were, you know, justified or excusable. That can be insanity. That can be self-defense, as you mentioned. There's a couple of different types of that. But that's an affirmative defense. Yeah. People were surprised by this.

[00:06:54] [SPEAKER_01] There are a lot of feelings about the Luigi Mangione case. There's people who I think kind of could be characterized as people who are fans of Luigi Mangione. And I think it's emotionally important for some of those people to either, you know, believe the case is going to have a certain kind of outcome, like an acquittal, or to believe certain things about him. And I would just say, like, you know, I don't think that's ever a very helpful way of looking at a criminal trial.

[00:07:20] [SPEAKER_01] I think it kind of leads people to get overly emotionally invested in that. And that can be, that can lead to a lot of disappointment and frankly confusion. But I think let's look at what we do now and we'll stick with that. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:07:36] [SPEAKER_02] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:07:49] [SPEAKER_01] And this is The Murder of Brian Thompson, the case of Luigi Mangione. What happened with the psychiatric defense?

[00:08:40] [SPEAKER_01] I always like to recap at the beginning of these what happened and why we're all here. And the reason why we're talking about this case is because on December 4th, 2024, an individual shot and murdered Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, a health insurance executive, outside of the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan. On December 9th, 2024,

[00:09:08] [SPEAKER_01] the now defendant Luigi Mangione was apprehended and arrested at a McDonald's restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania after employees there felt that he looked like the shooter, you know, images that had been circulated of the alleged shooter. And on his person, it was discovered that he had a 9mm gun, a loaded magazine, silencer, cash, passport, notebook, whatnot. So, the state of New York, the people have said that

[00:09:38] [SPEAKER_01] Luigi Mangione is the murderer of Brian Thompson. His defense is obviously working to defend him and say that that's not the case. He is currently facing two cases, which has been unusual. On the one hand, the state case in New York. And that's like the murder, right? Kind of what you picture. There are also federal charges that are also going to be going through federal courts. So, that'll come up a little bit. It's a bit, I think it adds a lot more work for everyone and it can be,

[00:10:08] [SPEAKER_01] you know, something that there's differences there. So, on June 3rd, 2026, there was a hearing. The, of course, the, the chief prosecutor, the district attorney of New York is Alvin Bragg. And his office was represented there by Joel Seidman, who is, of course, the, the lead prosecutor on this case, as well as Zachary Kaplan, Alexander Michaels, Kristen Bailey.

[00:10:36] [SPEAKER_01] And the defense team is led by Karen Friedman Agnifilo. She is the lead. Her husband, Mark Agnifilo, is, is on the case. And so is Jacob Kaplan. And so the judge on this is Justice Gregory Caro. He, noted in this hearing, in the, in the, in the, what I reviewed, you know, the defense wanted the minutes of this sealed. And, um, he basically says in the effect, okay, like we're, we're going, you're, you're, you seem to want to go under, uh,

[00:11:07] [SPEAKER_01] 101 B. So, what is that? Let's, let's talk about that to start off with. Because I think, uh, if we can, if we can understand that, then maybe we can, you know, figure out what's going on here. So a CPL, uh, 250.10, that is a formal notice that a defense team, a criminal defendant in New York must give the prosecution in advance and put in, you know, file properly with the court.

[00:11:37] [SPEAKER_01] And that's if they want to use psychiatric evidence at trial. And if you want to introduce that kind of evidence, you need to do that. And this is, this can be something like evidence of a mental disease or defect. This can also be, you know, an insanity defense where you're saying, hey, I lack criminal responsibility for my actions here, or in a case of extreme emotional disturbance. And we'll go into that in a minute of what that means.

[00:12:05] [SPEAKER_01] But what this does is the notice gives the prosecution advance warning so that they can get their own mental health experts and evaluation and whatnot to maybe push back against the claims. And if they do this, the district attorney can have the defendant examined by their own experts and they get reports. And it just, it's a measure of having everyone get what they want here, um, or at least the prosecution.

[00:12:34] [SPEAKER_01] So what I want to be very clear about one thing, this is not an insanity plea, what we're talking about. Okay. Kevin, can you tell us what like insane means? And I mean, I know we like do this every episode I feel, but what does insane mean when we're talking about, not guilty by reason of insanity?

[00:12:54] [SPEAKER_02] Basically, you don't have an understanding of right and wrong.

[00:12:57] [SPEAKER_01] So like, give me a scenario where someone is insane and they're therefore not responsible for their actions.

[00:13:03] [SPEAKER_02] If I shoot someone, but I believe I am shooting an alien from outer space.

[00:13:10] [SPEAKER_01] Okay. So you're, you're, you're totally insane and you don't know right from wrong. So what if you shoot somebody and then you go hide? Does that help or hurt your insanity defense? If you, if you get rid of your gun and go hide,

[00:13:24] [SPEAKER_02] that hurts my defense because if I do something and then try to hide, that shows I'm going to, I'm aware that I've done something wrong. I'm aware that there are consequences I need to hide from. And that shows a degree of rational thought.

[00:13:43] [SPEAKER_01] And that's very important because you don't want to have that rational thought. Because the whole point is I didn't understand. Right. What if someone who let's say has schizoaffective disorder or has schizophrenia, they do that? Are they just automatic? Like whatever they do, are they just automatically insane legally speaking?

[00:14:03] [SPEAKER_02] No, you still have to meet the specific criteria.

[00:14:06] [SPEAKER_01] Right.

[00:14:07] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:14:07] [SPEAKER_01] So let me give an example. That's not a New York example. It's an Indiana example. So Joseph Corcoran was a man who, well, first of all, he murdered his parents. I mean, like, I think I can just say that at this point, he murdered his parents, but he was acquitted for that. Then he murdered his brother, James, his sister's fiance, Robert Scott Turner, and then two friends, Timothy Bricker and Douglas Stilwell. That was in 1997. Okay.

[00:14:36] [SPEAKER_01] He had mental health issues. He had longstanding paranoid schizophrenia. He was diagnosed multiple times. There's no question. I mean, like to me, if you're getting diagnosed that much, like, I think that is fair to say that that man was schizophrenic, but there were certain things he did during this crime that kind of, kind of went against the idea that he was out of control and possibly psychotic at the time of the crime.

[00:15:05] [SPEAKER_01] Because you think what a horrible thing to do. But he apparently took his young niece and took her to a more safe part of the house and left her there. That's something that it's like, okay, if you were just in the grips of insanity, legal insanity, would you really think to do that? It shows, it shows consciousness of guilt. Yes. Because he doesn't want his young niece to get killed. So, by an act of mercy like that,

[00:15:35] [SPEAKER_01] it kind of reveals him to be legally sane. And he was ultimately actually executed pretty recently for that crime. But it was a controversial one, understandably, because I think people understandably were like, well, I mean, he was a paranoid schizophrenic. Is it really right to execute him? Couldn't, I mean, doesn't this look more like just insanity? Insanity. And I think what other people would say back as well, his actions during the crime are what truly matter, not his diagnosis.

[00:16:04] [SPEAKER_01] Some people may disagree with that, but that is typically how the system is going to be working. So, this is not an insanity defense. This is, they're not saying, okay, like, Mangione's going to plead guilty that he was legally insane. What they're going for is something different. So, in New York, when we talk about extreme emotional disturbance, that is a homicide defense, that is an affirmative defense, acknowledging that a person committed the crime.

[00:16:35] [SPEAKER_01] And, basically, what the defendant has to do is prove that they were in a very, very intense emotional state. And, there are three elements. They, they had an extreme emotional disturbance, that they acted under the influence of that extreme emotional disturbance, when the killing actually happened. So, it can't just be like, you got upset a week earlier, and then you came back and freaked out. And then there also has to be a reasonable explanation of like, what that disturbance was. Why,

[00:17:04] [SPEAKER_01] why are we so upset? And, it's not, this is not a defense that's going to lead you to get acquitted. It's really a defense that, what I'm, from what I'm reading, is something that's going to get your murder charge knocked down to manslaughter. So, that is what this defense team was looking into for Luigi Mangione. That is what the judge was aware of, and he was asking them about it in this hearing. And, they were, so,

[00:17:32] [SPEAKER_01] I think we're just going to look at the hearing, maybe read some portions of it to better understand what was going on here. So, a lot of this also was redacted, and like, didn't come into it. But, what the judge, what Judge Caro was telling them was, you need to give the people, aka, the prosecution, the expert's name that you're using for this, and their curriculum vitae, so that they can kind of get their own stuff together. And, this is what they said, quote, quote,

[00:18:02] [SPEAKER_01] the judge, rather, quote, so you have to detail whether the defendant suffers any mental disease or defects that affects him, cause the trigger that caused the extreme emotional disturbance at the time. Um, that has to be detailed. The expert must give me his opinion in writing. And, then they need to give the people's expert, and then basically, he goes on and says that they also need to give the people's expert the opinion, the records, what the opinion's based on, medical or psychiatric records, testing, whatever.

[00:18:31] [SPEAKER_01] And, um, then Friedman Agnifilo speaks. She says, quote, so we acknowledge by requesting that this remain under seal, that this is extraordinary, but we believe an essential remedy, that this is part of proceedings remain under seal, despite there being a presumption of openness to court proceedings, end quote. So she's not, she's noting basically like, I know it's wild for us to ask for this to be under seal, but we have a reason. She goes on about how they're trying to be narrow about it.

[00:19:00] [SPEAKER_01] She talks a lot about the seal and stuff, but, you know, I think we, we got it. We got it. We got it. Everything's expensive. Prices are high. So we like to look for affordability and high value when we're shopping for clothes. That's why we adore our sponsor, Quince.

[00:19:15] [SPEAKER_02] Quince is perfect for your summertime wardrobe refresh.

[00:19:19] [SPEAKER_01] Seriously, all their pieces are 50 to 80% less expensive than what you'd find at their competitors. They keep costs low by cutting out middlemen.

[00:19:29] [SPEAKER_02] Readable European linen shorts and shirts starting at only $34. Soft t-shirts that you love wearing. lightweight cotton sweaters for the bonfire. Quince has got what you need.

[00:19:41] [SPEAKER_01] Here's what I just ordered for the summer. I bought their 100% European linen fit and flare midi dress in deep navy. It came in super fast and I love it. Honestly, most of the time I'm not daring enough for dresses without big sleeves to cover my arms, but this one I made an exception for. I absolutely love the way I look in this dress. I love the fit. It makes me feel super confident. Depending on how I style it,

[00:20:06] [SPEAKER_01] I feel like I could wear it on a fancy date night with Kevin or even just to a friend's summer barbecue. I adore the dark blue color and the A-line silhouette and the lightweight linen. It feels great. It fits great. And it's the perfect dress for summer. I have a feeling I'll be wearing it constantly.

[00:20:22] [SPEAKER_02] Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. quince.com slash msheet. This message is sponsored by Greenlight.

[00:20:46] [SPEAKER_01] Scammers are no joke. We've all gotten those sketchy emails and texts and calls. Sometimes it feels like we're all being bombarded by scammers. If you're like us, you've even had scammers try to get access to your relatives' confidential information.

[00:21:00] [SPEAKER_02] Families lost $12.5 billion to fraud last year. With Greenlight Family Shield, you can keep your family from becoming a statistic.

[00:21:09] [SPEAKER_01] This app protects your whole family from fraud and scams. I'm talking about your kids, your grandparents, your elderly parents. Greenlight Family Shield takes care of everything.

[00:21:20] [SPEAKER_02] Greenlight gives you up to a million dollars of identity theft coverage, financial account monitoring, and credit locking. They give you real-time alerts when fraud is detected.

[00:21:32] [SPEAKER_01] When it comes to scams, crime is up. It's rampant. We're living in a golden age of fraudsters. So fight back. Don't let these creeps steal your money, time, and peace of mind. Don't let them target your family. 6.5 million family members trust Greenlight to protect them.

[00:21:49] [SPEAKER_02] Greenlight Family Shield gives us complete peace of mind. We're able to use their dark web monitoring systems to ensure that our sensitive information does not end up on the web. We really appreciate getting their real-time alerts. It keeps us safe, and it puts the power back in our hands. We use Greenlight, and you should too.

[00:22:10] [SPEAKER_01] Scammers aren't waiting. Neither should you. Go to greenlight.com slash msheet right now to get started. That's greenlight.com slash msheet. Greenlight.com slash msheet. But basically they're saying we want to preserve his right to a fair trial, and we want basically what she's saying. The judge kind of gets annoyed about this.

[00:22:33] [SPEAKER_01] She's saying we've not done any of this testing that is required by what we're trying to do here with the extreme emotional disturbance. We're asking for us even asking for this to be under seal so we can basically finish up our testing first and, quote, determine whether or not we proceed with an extreme emotional disturbance defense, which will obviously occur well before the trial, which is three months from now.

[00:23:02] [SPEAKER_01] This is what Judge Kara responds to this with, quote, I'm going to stop you. You haven't completed your testing. What do you make of that?

[00:23:12] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, I can understand why the judge is frustrated there. You expect they've had a lot of time to work on this.

[00:23:19] [SPEAKER_01] Well, what Freeman Aguifilo says, I'm going to get to that momentarily, the classic stall. But Judge Kara goes on, you've changed your reason for the sealing over time. Okay, first it was death penalty. The defendant was facing the death penalty. Then it goes redacted. And then he comes back with, you obviously were working on mitigation. My thought is that the only mitigation that you would be presenting to the feds would be some kind of psychiatric mitigation. So this has to have been all in the works for a long time.

[00:23:52] [SPEAKER_01] So Friedman Aguifilo says it is. And then says basically, can you let me finish? So I'll explain what we are doing and continue to do. And hopefully that will answer your question. I mean, I definitely read between the lines. I think the judge is annoyed. Yes. But Friedman Aguifilo has a reason that she says, you know, it's kind of explains why this has been not done. Quote, our reasoning, though, has not changed.

[00:24:20] [SPEAKER_01] The posture of the cases have changed. And so that is correct that with the death penalty, there is a mitigation portion. But that occurs at sentencing, not during the trial. Not during the trial phase, which the sentencing phase is a much later phase in a federal death penalty case. So yes, this has been in the works since the beginning. And if I may just be able to explain to your honor what it is that we've done, we would appreciate that opportunity right now.

[00:24:45] [SPEAKER_01] So here, there is an overriding interest that closure is essential to preserve higher values. And our request is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. This is an extraordinary case in several regards. Number one, that there is this companion federal case. And number two, that there is an extraordinary amount of publicity in this case, almost unprecedented. In fact, this Friday night dateline is airing yet another special on this case.

[00:25:14] [SPEAKER_01] And is being billed as having interviews with two major case detectives that are being interviewed on camera in detail. Who they say worked on this case specifically. Mr. Mangione has been prejudiced by law enforcement since day one in this case. The reason continued sealing is necessary here is because of the potential defense that is available. Extreme emotional disturbance.

[00:25:37] [SPEAKER_01] That we serve notice of our intention of exploring this defense on September 30th, 2025, nine months ago. And as you know, your honor, if a defendant goes with an EED defense, they're essentially admitting publicly that they committed the crime.

[00:25:54] [SPEAKER_01] And due to the high publicity in this case, not only will making this public before we know for sure whether we are going with this defense, it prejudices both this case and the federal case because of the extraordinary publicity affecting potential jurors. And this is important because we are still in the process of testing Mr. Mangione to determine what we will be doing. We are not delaying this testing intentionally. And we have been working on testing and obtaining all records since the case's inception.

[00:26:23] [SPEAKER_01] We're only in this position, not because of any fault of the defense. It's because Mr. Mangione has two cases that he's being prosecuted for. The same event twice. We've been informing the court and the people that we need more time. And let me now explain why. Mr. Mangione logistically is in federal custody. So any testing that we need done for this case has to get a court order by the federal judge, even though this particular testing is not related to a defense in her case.

[00:26:52] [SPEAKER_01] We then have to organize it through the Bureau of Prisons and logistical hurdles are immense, to say the least. In addition, we had to obtain voluminous medical records that we have had to gather from multiple states. This is not New York or Maryland only. This is multiple states throughout the country. That's records that we have to try to get and have been getting. It's not easy and it is not fast.

[00:27:17] [SPEAKER_01] So we also have to face multiple levels of cooperation from these medical facilities. Because of the notoriety of this case, some doctors have refused to cooperate, which is required as to go through the interstate subpoena process and through their attorneys and have litigation in that regard.

[00:27:35] [SPEAKER_01] So we submit, your honor, that if this were his only case and we presented your honor with the information that we are presenting you with, in addition to the voluminous medical records, we believe that you, your honor, would give us more time to continue to do the testing.

[00:28:01] [SPEAKER_01] It's not the case. We have been diligently trying to run this defense down from the beginning and we will continue to do so.

[00:28:23] [SPEAKER_01] Until we know the extent of his medical issues, we are simply not in a position yet to know whether we can and will move forward with this defense and whether we will call an expert. And the people have demanded a report from an expert. Yet no expert can write a report until all this testing is complete. The expert is telling us, our experts, and there are multiple ones, are telling us what needs to be done. And then they will guide us as to what expert we should call and who will testify at trial.

[00:28:49] [SPEAKER_01] It's not necessarily the case that experts we are consulting with who are telling us what type of testing to be doing and who will be administering testing are the same ones who can testify about criminal responsibility and to what extent these issues are in play from a forensic standpoint at any trial. So, the people have been on notice since September 30th that we are exploring this defense. They have had nine months to gather records, as we have been, but apparently and inexplicably have not done so yet.

[00:29:15] [SPEAKER_01] They've also inexplicably not sought to test Mr. Mangione themselves, which is their right under 2050-10. Therefore, by their own admission, they too are not ready for this case to proceed to trial in September either. Yet, we are being pushed by this court to proceed solely for the purpose of preventing double jeopardy. That's the only reason this case is going in September. There's no reason why this case has to proceed in September other than this desperate attempt to beat the feds and get Mr. Mangione prosecuted twice.

[00:29:44] [SPEAKER_01] Since this court has declined the defense's numerous and repeated requests for more time, we do respectfully request that this part of the proceeding remain under seal for the time being. And I want to assure the court, as an officer of the court, we are proceeding as fast as we can in order to be ready for September. These are not intentional delays. These are logistical, legitimate hurdles, given the volume of records that exist in this case and the additional testing and logistical hurdles that are in play.

[00:30:13] [SPEAKER_01] I just want to thank the court for giving me this opportunity to make this full record. Okay, what do you think? Okay, so we are not intentionally delaying anything. The state thinks we're trying to delay things because they want, they think we want the federal case to go first so we can jeopardy them out. Double jeopardy. So basically if he's convicted, I mean, what do you think about that first of all?

[00:30:40] [SPEAKER_02] I think that's a rational interpretation of what the defense is doing here.

[00:30:43] [SPEAKER_01] And, you know, it's the defense's job to do that, right? Yeah. I mean, you know, no fault to them on that. That's vigorous, I would think, defense of your client. So in addition to that, we're having problems because he's held in a federal prison and he is therefore, you know, not, it's hard to get to him. And we have to go through the federal courts, even though this is for the state court and it's complicated.

[00:31:10] [SPEAKER_01] And we have all these different experts and we got to determine through testing which one even makes sense, if we're going to go with any of this. In the meantime, the police have been talking to Dateline. And if people find out that we're doing this extreme emotional disturbance thing, they're just going to throw up their hands and say he's guilty. And so this has to be sealed. Is that right?

[00:31:30] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, that seems to be the gist there.

[00:31:31] [SPEAKER_01] What would you say to people who kind of look at something like this and say, well, a defendant must be guilty if they're going with this?

[00:31:39] [SPEAKER_02] Well, I mean, it's complicated because obviously if your defense is I did it but I have a good reason, that means speaking from a factual point of view, they are admitting that he took the action which resulted in the death of this man.

[00:31:55] [SPEAKER_01] So you're saying you're right.

[00:31:57] [SPEAKER_02] But just because you did it, again, doesn't mean you didn't have a good reason. So I think it's right to interpret that if they go with this defense, they're acknowledging that he shot and killed this man. But that doesn't mean that maybe he had a really good reason. Maybe he was in a state that somehow mitigates it, this extreme emotional state.

[00:32:21] [SPEAKER_01] To me, it's like an extreme emotional state would be like my beloved mother was just denied coverage by UnitedHealthcare and I'm really angry and I immediately go kill somebody associated with UnitedHealthcare. Like that would be a defense. Yes. I mean, I don't know. I'm just spitballing here. I'm not an attorney. It becomes more difficult the more removed it is.

[00:32:43] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, the classic example is you go home and you find your spouse cheating on you and you take out a gun and you shoot one or both of the others. Obviously, in this case, there seems to have been a lot of preparation on Mr. Mangione's part. Allegedly.

[00:33:01] [SPEAKER_01] We have a situation where he's, you know, essentially accused of stalking Brian Thompson and putting in a lot of planning here. It's not, you know, I think that really is harmful to what we've discussed. Like if you catch your spouse cheating and you shoot them immediately, maybe that's an EED. Maybe if you run out of the house and then you kind of make up with them later and then a week later they end up dead.

[00:33:31] [SPEAKER_01] That's, I think that becomes harder. Maybe you can get an expert to testify for you of like, oh, it was just hitting them. They were in denial. And then, you know, I mean, maybe you could do something with that. I don't know. I'm not an expert. But it just seems like that's, it's a very risky, you know, it's a risky thing. But frankly, I think the case against Mangione leaves the defense team with few options.

[00:33:58] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:33:59] [SPEAKER_01] The evidence against Mangione is strong. There are a lot of bad facts. You may not hear that from like the social media commentary because I think a lot of that is very pro-Mangione. And people see being pro-Mangione is basically saying like, it's a weak case. He's innocent. It's all going to get dropped. I think the reality is different. And I think that it's going to be a challenging case to defend.

[00:34:27] [SPEAKER_01] I've made comments on here saying stuff like, well, maybe they'll get lucky and they'll get a juror on there who loves Mangione and hates insurance and is, you know. But the thing is, jury nullification is very rare. Like, that's a rare thing. Certainly not a strategy to bank on.

[00:34:47] [SPEAKER_01] So I see them looking at options like this as a strategic defense team that is making moves that are trying to put their defendant, put their client in the best possible position. And that means looking at options. That means looking at a psychiatric defense. So, I mean, I don't think they're doing anything crazy or bad here. It's just, you know, it makes sense that they would be looking at everything.

[00:35:12] [SPEAKER_02] Absolutely.

[00:35:13] [SPEAKER_01] So the judge follows up by being like, okay, well, why don't you, do you want to read part of this?

[00:35:19] [SPEAKER_02] I can. What page are we on here? Okay.

[00:35:21] [SPEAKER_01] Are you in the murder? Okay. Go to the bottom of page nine. And I'll start as Mr. Seidman and then you go as the court. Okay?

[00:35:31] [SPEAKER_02] Okay.

[00:35:32] [SPEAKER_01] Okay. Your Honor, may I be heard?

[00:35:34] [SPEAKER_02] Yes, but not at this moment. Just a few things. It was always this court's intention that this case would start in the fall of 2026. I think I certainly inferred that. It was never supposed to start in June like it was. So that's one. Number two, well, maybe the defendant should be transferred to city corrections so you would have more access and your doctors would have more access to do whatever testing they want to do, which can be done from Rikers Island.

[00:35:59] [SPEAKER_01] Mr. Mangione's custody status is not in our control. We've explored that early on because we thought the same thing. We actually requested this and were denied that request by the federal government.

[00:36:11] [SPEAKER_02] Okay. Go ahead.

[00:36:13] [SPEAKER_01] Okay. Now I'm switching characters. I was Ms. Freedman Agnifilo there and now I'm going back to being Mr. Seidman because he's going to give a whole response and we're going to get to see what the people say. As to the 2050-10 notice, council has used shifting goalposts. First, it was the death penalty. That went away. But basically, they're taking the odd position that their defense somehow would prejudice them.

[00:36:40] [SPEAKER_01] Now, in the litigation over the sufficiency of the terrorism charge as a part of the record we have defended submissions in his manifesto, it's hard to say how the notice of extreme emotional disturbance would impact us in any greater sense. In my 41 years, I have never seen such a notice sealed, nor is there any statutory or case law authority for such a notice to be sealed.

[00:37:03] [SPEAKER_01] I should also say that we have asked continuously for proper notice both under 250-10 and 245-20 subdivision 4. We will be ready on September 8th and we see this attempt as nothing other than attempt to jeopardy out the case by claiming we have to review all these records. I'm somewhat shocked by the idea that council could write in a letter that they're not calling an expert and then come to this court under seal and say, well, look, we have to do testing.

[00:37:32] [SPEAKER_01] We may call an expert. Well, what have they been doing for the last 18 months? They have attempted against the specific statute 250-10 and 245-20 subdivision 4 to somehow shift the burden of this disclosure to us. It's not our burden to get records which support their defense. If we choose to do so, we will do so. As it were, we have already gotten the court to sign subpoenas which will be domesticated.

[00:38:01] [SPEAKER_01] We will be ready on September 8th come hell or high water and we see this as nothing other than an attempt after 18 months of doing nothing to try to run out the clock on us. It's hard to see how Ms. Friedman Agni Filo can say this was a surprise. For them to have slept on their rights over the last 18 months and come to this court and say, we can't try this case because we need records. I think that if the court looks at our letter, looks at the dictates both of CPL 250-10 statute,

[00:38:29] [SPEAKER_01] People v. Almonor, People v. Sidberry, People v. Bender, which was decided in 2026, the slip opinion, There's ample basis right now to preclude the defense from introducing such a defense. So how is it that our expert could focus on this theory? How is it their expert could go in and make a determination as to what? Questions to ask of the defendant. How is it that our expert could research scholarly articles by saying it's under 250-10?

[00:38:57] [SPEAKER_01] That notice is defective. And I think what the court should do is require them to give notice within a deadline, require them to indicate whether they're calling this witness within a two-week deadline so the court could adhere to its schedule. There is nothing other than really a negative attempt to jeopardy us out. To say otherwise, it wasn't our obligation during the last 18 months. The other thing, it's clear the council has in its possession medical records that they may seek to rely upon, and they're playing hide the ball.

[00:39:24] [SPEAKER_01] That was the whole essence of what People v. Almanor was speaking of. This shouldn't be trial by ambush. This shouldn't be trial by surprise. We haven't gotten any notice worth anything, and we're entitled to it, and we've retained an expert who's willing to go and examine it. By the way, we would choose not to examine. We could choose not to examine. That's not us sleeping on our rights. That is a tactical decision. But as the court is well familiar, and council should be also,

[00:39:50] [SPEAKER_01] we have no basis to know what the focus should be without proper notice. We should be clear also to the court and council that even if the only source of this EED defense were the defendant, that too would require notice. People v. Rivers, in that case, it says that oral notice is not notice. We have no basis really now as it stands to do the sort of examination which was contemplated by 250-10 by 245-20 subdivision 4.

[00:40:19] [SPEAKER_01] I asked the court, in order to ensure the fact that the September 8th schedule is adhered to, to set hard and fast deadlines for reports to order them to turn over records that have been in the possession that may relate to this defense. Reciprocal discovery should mean reciprocal discovery. It shouldn't be a one-way street. We've turned over terabytes of information and have gotten nothing in return. Should the court allow the defendant to try to run out the clock, it's one of two things that will happen.

[00:40:47] [SPEAKER_01] We'll be deprived of our day in court in a case which was investigated by NYPD, by DANY, by OCME in Altoona, which impacted the city of New York. And as the court indicated, this is the proper place for it to be tried. Where the other alternative is, they give this notice at a point solely in the game that this would serve mid-trial for us to have to figure out the logistics of examining the defendant and getting a report while the jury sits in the jury room cooling their heels.

[00:41:17] [SPEAKER_01] Either result is an unfortunate one, which the court can prevent by ordering them to do what they should have done months ago. And I think there is no other conclusion that one can draw from this other than the fact that this is an opportunity, I think, that Ms. Friedman Agnifilo mentioned it candidly in June, I believe, in one of the court appearances where she said that it would be ineffective assistance of counsel not to try to jeopardy out the case. That, in essence, is what this is about. It's plain and simple.

[00:41:45] [SPEAKER_01] So, the two things we're asking is to unseal the record, there's no basis for it, give them hard deadlines to comply, and let us try the case on September 8th and not deprive the people of the state of New York of their day in court. End quote. Some fiery stuff. So what do you think, Kevin?

[00:42:04] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, so there's a lot of frustration there, obviously, just beneath the disservice.

[00:42:08] [SPEAKER_01] He said they're not complying with discovery, they're not giving them their, you know, what they're supposed to be giving them as far as medical stuff, and basically, like, we don't even need to examine stuff because, like, maybe we don't want to sometimes. But basically, they think this is all just a plot, a heist, a ruse, if one will, to jeopardy out the case. You know, basically have the feds go first, and then that blows up their ability to do what they want to do.

[00:42:36] [SPEAKER_01] So the court responds, but Kara responds by saying, well, you know, this is, we're going on September 8th, you know, like, he's very adamant about that. And he notes that the federal court agreed that the case would go first. And any delay will just delay all of it starting. It's not going to lead to what the state says the defense wants.

[00:43:01] [SPEAKER_01] He also notes he's ordered that an order on the record, which is that any reports, any medical records that the expert relied on and the CV must be turned over for the expert that's going to be called at trial. And basically that has to happen.

[00:43:28] [SPEAKER_01] And now Friedman Agnifilo gets her chance to respond to what Seidman was saying. I'm going to say, I'm going to do that. Okay. I'm both of these people. I'm arguing with myself.

[00:43:38] [SPEAKER_02] Yes. So it's Tuesday.

[00:43:41] [SPEAKER_01] My last two brain cells arguing. Let's see. I just wanted to respond to something Mr. Seidman said. You know, Mr. Seidman has been a prosecutor for four decades and he's an expert in many areas. In particular, he is an expert in the area of psychiatric defenses, I assume. And that is one of the reasons the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, in their discretion, assigned someone that has such expertise to a case like this. Because I believe he too thought this had a potential for a psychiatric defense.

[00:44:08] [SPEAKER_01] So for him, for the last nine months, to not be gathering these records, I think is really, since we orally indicated to him that in addition to Mr. Mangione's extensive writings, which Mr. Seidman already has, and as well as the medical records of Mr. Mangione, we indicated all records will be relevant. I'm sure if Mr. Seidman actually obtained these records and reviewed these notes with his extensive expertise in psychiatric cases, he wouldn't be this sort of, we don't know, we have no idea that we're relying on and what we're doing here.

[00:44:37] [SPEAKER_01] It's pretty self-evident when you review that. And again, with his expertise, I think he would be much less surprised than he is indicating if he had obtained these records that we suggested that he obtain, Your Honor. We have all the medical records. If Your Honor is ordering us to turn them over, it's going to take us some time to put them together because we got them in many different formats. It's going to take us a little time to be able to put that together to turn over to Mr. Seidman. We are concerned, however, because there is sharing between both the state and federal prosecutors of information,

[00:45:07] [SPEAKER_01] and we are getting discovery from the feds that is coming straight from DANY. And we know this from watermarks. We are concerned with these records. Again, if we decided not to go with this defense, ultimately a trial, that is something we don't do. We are concerned that these records would be turned over to federal prosecutors, that they do not have the right to have these confidential medical records because it is not relevant to their case in chief. That's one reason why we object to being forced to turn over these records,

[00:45:36] [SPEAKER_01] that they themselves can get easily, because we have agreed they don't have to go through what we went through to domesticate the subpoenas. And then Caro interjects saying, That's easy. The people can't share these medical records with the federal authorities or any other authorities. However, they certainly can share them with their experts for review. And then Friedman Agnifilo comes back with, Thank you, Your Honor. And we were not saying we're going to be ready on September 8th. Just so Your Honor is clear, we're doing everything we can.

[00:46:06] [SPEAKER_01] The problem with Your Honor's order to turn over a CV of an expert is we have not yet determined what expert we would be calling because we're still learning exactly the specific nature of these issues. Do you want to go back in this kind of pointed back and forth on page 18, starting with you're going to have to turn everything over?

[00:46:29] [SPEAKER_02] Okay, let me find that.

[00:46:31] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, it's the top of 18.

[00:46:35] [SPEAKER_02] You're going to have to turn everything over.

[00:46:37] [SPEAKER_01] That is absolutely not what is happening.

[00:46:39] [SPEAKER_02] You can't do this on the eve of trial and say, Here's our expert. We got it. You can't do it.

[00:46:43] [SPEAKER_01] I understand.

[00:46:44] [SPEAKER_02] The expert will be precluded from testifying on the eve of trial. So you've got to move on it. I really don't see the basis to continue to seal this record. Obviously, the record today, anything that is discussed, any medical issue, that anything in some of the sealed motions that deal with any medical, we can redact. But other than that, this is no longer going to be sealed.

[00:47:04] [SPEAKER_01] Would Your Honor give us a month?

[00:47:05] [SPEAKER_02] I will give you 10 business days to comply with turning over any record that have been reviewed or going to be part of any expert's opinion.

[00:47:14] [SPEAKER_01] Will Your Honor also give us that time to keep this sealed so that we can do what we can do to try to tell Your Honor if we're going to do this or not? Can we have 10 business days to keep this sealed?

[00:47:23] [SPEAKER_02] To determine whether you're withdrawing notice or not? Is that what you're saying?

[00:47:27] [SPEAKER_01] Correct. And then Seidman interjects, Your Honor, it's always been one reason, another reason, another delay. There is no authority for it. There was an authority on the death penalty thing. The mere fact of this filing of notice is of no probative value. And then you rejoin.

[00:47:45] [SPEAKER_02] Mr. Seidman, didn't you say when you made your first remarks a two-week deadline? Isn't that what you said? I'm sorry. Didn't you say you wanted a two-week deadline?

[00:47:53] [SPEAKER_01] Two-week deadline for the discovery of the information, not for sealing the record.

[00:47:57] [SPEAKER_02] Well, the information they should give you immediately, I already ordered that.

[00:48:01] [SPEAKER_01] Well, counsel asked for two weeks. It was my understanding that she was asking for two weeks to unseal. All that I'm asking for is if it can be unsealed immediately. I have no problem with them saying if they need us to bring a hard drive or whatever electronics they need for us to be able to have this available to say tomorrow by end of business, we will send over to them. I'm talking about the fact that they're asking for additional time to unseal, and I'm asking that it be done immediately.

[00:48:27] [SPEAKER_02] So what was the end result of all this?

[00:48:29] [SPEAKER_01] That everyone's fighting. So, okay. I mean, this is where it kind of is. They go back and forth. Everyone's fighting about this. And on June 18th, a very short filing came out from the defense. The defense respectfully withdraws CPL 25010 notice at this time. Signed, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Mark Agnifilo, and Jacob Kaplan.

[00:48:57] [SPEAKER_02] So basically they were going to say he did it, but he had a good reason, and now they're saying, well, never mind.

[00:49:04] [SPEAKER_01] That same day, Justice Gregory Caro responded, quote, in light of the defendant's withdrawal of CPL 25010 notice, the court's previous order sealing certain transcripts, emails, and documents remains in fact. So now the psychiatric evidence seemingly will not be unsealed and things like that. But the New York Times, which I also kind of looked at on this latest development,

[00:49:28] [SPEAKER_01] noted that, you know, essentially that they were a bit, you know, this is kind of significant because it's the first time the lawyers had made any sort of tacit admission that he did do the crime. But at the same time, they've revoked that, so they're not going with that anymore. So I know that can, like, so it doesn't matter from a legal perspective in that sense, but from, like, a public perspective,

[00:49:58] [SPEAKER_01] I'm wondering if it'll kind of impact how people view this whole situation.

[00:50:02] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, I think it will.

[00:50:04] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. What do you think? I mean, like, on the one hand, I'm kind of like, like, let's, you know, I would hope that a jury would just be determining based on what's at trial. As far as, like, people looking who are not going to be on that jury, like, I think we can use our common sense here. I think that's okay. I mean, actually, I think that's appropriate and good. I think that's well said. Yeah. And, yeah, I'll be curious to see if this actually goes on September 8th.

[00:50:31] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, it seems like the state really wants it to and the defense really doesn't. But we'll have to see what happens.

[00:50:38] [SPEAKER_02] We'll keep an eye on it.

[00:50:39] [SPEAKER_01] Absolutely. Well, thank you all so much for listening.

[00:50:41] [SPEAKER_02] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:51:01] [SPEAKER_01] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:51:25] [SPEAKER_02] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:51:35] [SPEAKER_01] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join The Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.