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 also confused me at first. Here’s what i (not an expert) make of it: sounds like mangione and his lawyer had a phone call which should have been private. The district attorney probably was listening to mangiones other calls, and this attorney call was recorded or handed over to district attorney in error. The district attorney initially said they immediately stopped listening once they recognized it was an attorney call, but they actually listened to the entire thing which is a huge violation of attorney-client privilege
Stuff like that should be grounds for a mistrial
Mistrials aren’t generally automatic. One side or the other has to submit a motion. I’d guess the defense doesn’t want a mistrial because that would only delay things even further and it’s already going to drag on forever.
The defense attorneys would know that Mangione’s personal calls are being monitored by default. They’d also know that even if the prosecution intentionally listened in to their privileged conversation, which they’re not supposed to do, nothing they hear can be used or submitted in court.
Edit: I haven’t been following this case but apparently they haven’t empaneled yet so I don’t think they can even motion for a mistrial. Maybe this would be prosecutorial misconduct and that’s why there’s the change in prosecutor?
That is not the problem here. The problem is that they could come up with things they “had an idea” to investigate and claim it didn’t come from the call. It also means that they cannot speak openly with each other, which inhibits their defense and thus infringes upon the right to due process.
I understand why it’s not good that a paralegal made a mistake and overheard a privileged conversation. I was offering a potential insight into rationale the defense maybe applied in deciding not to motion for a mistrial.
I’m not an attorney myself but I have to believe any attorney willing to take this case would be smart enough to be very cautious about their phone conversations with anybody incarcerated.
haha good one
If only the system wasn’t completely corrupt in favor of the kind of people Luigi definitely didn’t shoot.
He needs to be acquitted. Cops/prosecutors can’t illegally collect evidence (in theory). Charges are dropped when it’s proven in court.