Judge: Gun, notebook allowed as evidence in Mangione murder trial

Key evidence said to have been found on the suspected killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson will be allowed to be presented at trial, despite a challenge from the defense. A New York court made the determination on Monday.

The alleged evidence—a gun and a notebook with content that could arguably describe a motive—was found in a backpack being carried by Luigi Mangione, the 28-year-old Maryland native accused of shooting Thompson in New York City in December 2024.

Judge Gregory Carro of the New York Supreme Court ruled that the search of Mangione violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution, as police conducted the search of the man’s belongings without him being taken into custody—and also isolated Mangione from his backpack, leaving him unable to decline a search.

As such, most of the backpack’s contents were ruled inadmissible—including a loaded magazine for the handgun, a passport, and other personal items.

The gun itself, and the notebook, will still be allowed in. Carro concluded those items would have inevitably been discovered, as police later obtained a search warrant to look in Mangione’s bag for a weapon and evidence pertaining to the killing of Thompson.

Why the magazine for the handgun was excluded is complicated, but it gets to the nuance of the judge’s decision: Carro agreed that the magazine was found as part of the initial search, which was not conducted lawfully and not subject to inevitable discovery based on the wording of the coming warrant.

The gun also posed a risk to public safety. When a warrant is being sought, police are generally permitted to secure weapons under Pennsylvania law. That alone was not sufficient to make the weapon admissible, but Carro sided with prosecutors who argued, given the chain of custody associated with a search warrant and subsequent arrest, the gun would have been lawfully discovered.

Carro also denied requests from Mangione’s defense to suppress statements the accused made to police while he was being questioned. Such statements would not be admissible if the defendant was still being questioned after requesting legal counsel—but that was found not to be the case in this instance.