Criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Mark Bederow believes that prosecutors in the Luigi Mangione case have already made a significant "mistake."
In an editorial published by the New York Times, Bederow argues that adding terrorism-related charges to the Mangione prosecution was a significant error that could jeopardize what should have been a straightforward murder conviction in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
"By complicating a simple case, [Manhattan District Attorney Alvin] Bragg has increased the risk of acquittal on the most serious charge and a hung jury on any charge," he argues. "Since Mr. Mangione is already being celebrated by some as a folk hero because of his rage against the American health care system, the terrorism charge, which alleges that Mr. Mangione 'intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policies of a unit of government' and 'affect the conduct of a unit of government,' almost certainly will turn the case into political theater."
Convicting Mangione on terrorism-related charges is already difficult enough given precedents set by New York appellate courts, writes Bederow, who then argues that there is already evidence that could exonerate the alleged CEO killer from this particular charge.
"The evidence appears to suggest that Mr. Mangione was bent on assassinating Mr. Thompson rather than intending 'to sow terror,' as Mr. Bragg alleged in his news conference unsealing Mr. Mangione’s indictment," he writes. "Mr. Mangione’s notebook reportedly says that he planned a targeted assassination because he did not want to 'risk innocents.' So while this statement incriminates Mr. Mangione as a murderer, it appears to undermine the terrorism charge."
Added to this, Bederow believes that forcing jurors to focus on Mangione's objections to the American health care system could make them more sympathetic than they would have otherwise been.
"By turning Mr. Mangione’s supposed intent into a central element of the trial they invite juror nullification, in which jurors ignore their instructions to focus on the facts and instead let their points of view influence their verdict, leading to a hung jury, if not a full acquittal," he warns.