# Luigi murder case--15,000 documents? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 25, 2025, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091 "2025-03-25T14:14:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2025, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/81 "2025-12-10T18:24:14Z")
> [@zimaane](#): > > The evidence suppression hearing has now lasted several days, which is quite unusual. IANAL but I think such procedures are usually only a few hours. Maybe the judge is being extra careful in a high profile case? The judge doesn’t control the timing. If the defence wants to call a lot of evidence on a suppression issue, the judge generally has to sit and listen. The judge has to respect the accused’s right to defend themself. (Unless the evidence gets duplicative or something.) And then if the prosecution needs to call a lot of evidence in rebuttal, it’s got that right. Normally the defence doesn’t have the money to spend a lot of time on individual motions. In this case, Mangione appears to have considerable legal resources. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2025, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/82 "2025-12-10T20:58:31Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Do they even need what was in the backpack to convict him of murder? Aren’t the eyewitnesses enough? As I understand, the connection between “guy who stood there and shot” vs. “guy we think is the same guy, in coffee shop, in hostel” is marginal, circumstantial? No smoking gun, so to speak. The backpack provides the (no longer smoking) gun. Can you arrest someone for a fake ID? What’s the charge? OTOH, he provided the same fake ID they were searching for, that he used in the NYC hostel. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/83 "2025-12-11T03:22:19Z")
> [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](#): > > If it came back as fake, plus the guy looks like the guy in the photo, that might be enough for “inevitable discovery” (which I had never heard of until now) to apply. People often think that slick lawyers are able to get criminals freed based on technicalities. That’s rarely the case. To the contrary, all of the technical exceptions to the rules usually favor law enforcement. inevitable discovery is a good example. (Another is “good faith exception”) Basically, if the police would have been able to obtain a warrant at a later time, the fact that they didn’t have one _at the time_ they conducted the search shouldn’t prevent the evidence from being used at trial. Here, I won’t be surprised if it carries the day for the prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/84 "2025-12-11T04:25:50Z")
People have heard me say this before: I hate the word “technicalities” in this context. Is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States a “technicality”? Because that’s what is in issue in this motion: Did the agents of the state breach an individual’s constitutional rights? ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/85 "2025-12-11T14:45:32Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States a “technicality”? Because that’s what is in issue in this motion: Did the agents of the state breach an individual’s constitutional rights? Maybe my use of “technicality” was misplaced, but what I was referring to is the fact that the courts will often say, “yes the amendment was violated, but it doesn’t _really_ matter, so we’ll excuse it.” The doctrine of “inevitable discovery”, which is apparently being argued by the government in Mangione’s case, is but one example. I mentioned “good faith” above: in a recent Florida court case, the court ruled that the smell of marijuana alone is not a basis to search a car anymore (since it’s quasi legal, in that you can have it with a prescription). They’ve even extended that to the smell of burnt marijuana, since it’s possible to buy over the counter hemp products that smell the same. But, the court allowed the search anyway. They said that the cops wouldn’t have been aware of this new change in the law, so they were acting in “good faith” when they searched. It’s allowable. Things like this happen routinely, and the breaks usually favor law enforcement, not the citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/86 "2025-12-11T17:03:51Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The judge doesn’t control the timing. If the defence wants to call a lot of evidence on a suppression issue, the judge generally has to sit and listen. The judge has to respect the accused’s right to defend themself. (Unless the evidence gets duplicative or something.) Yes and no. The judge certainly needs to give the defendant a chance to make their case, but I’ve often seen them put limits on the time. But, I’m not surprised that’s it’s taking “several days.” Murder cases get the court’s time and attention. Half a day wouldn’t be unusual for a drug bust, for example. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/87 "2025-12-11T19:31:07Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > People often think that slick lawyers are able to get criminals freed based on technicalities Due to TV. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > People have heard me say this before: I hate the word “technicalities” in this context. Absolutely right! ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/88 "2025-12-12T02:23:54Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Maybe my use of “technicality” was misplaced, but what I was referring to is the fact that the courts will often say, “yes the amendment was violated, but it doesn’t _really_ matter, so we’ll excuse it.” My comment wasn’t directed at you in particular, just a general gripe. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/89 "2025-12-12T02:24:44Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Yes and no. The judge certainly needs to give the defendant a chance to make their case, but I’ve often seen them put limits on the time. Fair enough. I defer to your experience. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/90 "2025-12-12T23:40:26Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > They said that the cops wouldn’t have been aware of this new change in the law, so they were acting in “good faith” when they searched. So ignorance of the law _is_, in fact, a good excuse. Good to know. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2025, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/91 "2025-12-13T14:46:31Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > So ignorance of the law _is_, in fact, a good excuse. Good to know. One of the more recent SCOTUS cases on qualified immunity, for example, says unless there is a very good circumstance match precedent case that a LEO lost their immunity, then they don’t because there’s no precedent so “no way they could have known” they were acting outside their legal boundaries. Thus, making it almost impossible to establish further limits. ---
**Author:** ![Curiousgrace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Curiousgrace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Curiousgrace)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2025, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/92 "2025-12-15T06:57:18Z")
I’ve heard of 15,000 pages of discovery in civil cases before. For a “big” criminal case, it doesn’t seem over the top. But I am merely a district court reporter. (Although since this is a New York criminal court thing, I guess it’s equivalent to my workplace.) ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2025, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/93 "2025-12-15T16:15:07Z")
Mary Trump mentions that in her civil case against her grandfather’s heirs over the will, the relevant documents were essentially a wall of boxes. Obviously, the “drown them in paper” strategy. Fortunately, there were actually two sets of boxes of everything, so the NYTimes reporters were happy to take one copy and analyze Trump Sr’s business practices. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2025, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/94 "2025-12-15T20:48:55Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > So ignorance of the law _is_, in fact, a good excuse. Good to know. It always has, but only to technicalities. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/95 "2025-12-17T04:42:37Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > the relevant documents were essentially a wall of boxes. Obviously, the “drown them in paper” strategy Rather, compliance with the “law governing civil disclosure”strategy. A party to a civil suit is generally required to disclose all potentially relevant documents. In a major case, that can be a huge number of docs. Failure to fi so can lead to sanctions. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2026, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/96 "2026-02-05T01:55:15Z")
**Death penalty off the table for Mangione – for now.** **Backpack contents go in – for now** The federal court trial judge has held that Magione’s actions do not qualify as murder under the federal statute, which requires a killing coupled with a combined violent offence. The prosecution argued that the two stalking charges against Mangione amounted to crimes of violence; the judge disagreed. He still faces the stalking chagres, but not the murder charge, so he no longer faces the death penalty. However, she rejected the defence attempt to exclude the contents of his backpack seized at the McDonalds, which contained his “maifesto” and his pistol. It sounds like both those rulings could be appealed prior to trial, hence my “for now” qualifiers. IANAUSL, so I’m just relying on CNN. > **[Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty, federal judge rules | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/30/us/luigi-mangione-case-rulings-trial)** > > Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, a federal district judge ruled Friday, dealing a blow to US prosecutors who were adamant about pursuing the ultimate sentence. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2026, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/97 "2026-02-05T02:10:56Z")
What is a “combined violent offense”, and how does shooting someone not qualify? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2026, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/98 "2026-02-05T02:44:54Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > a killing coupled with a combined violent offence Sorry, that’s my mistake. When I wrote “a killing coupled with a combined violent offence” I meant to say “a killing combined with a violent offence”. My apologies. Like I said, not a US lawyer, but it sounds like to make it murder under the federal statute, the killing has to be combined with some other violent offence . Prosecutors argued that stalking across a state line was a crime of violence; judge disagreed. Therefore, the murder charge was struck. He still faces the two stalking offences. Part of what’s going on here is that Congress does not have a general criminal law jurisdiction, so they have to tie it to something within federal jurisdiction. Congress can’t just criminalise murder; it has to be tied in some way to an area of federal jurisdiction, typically crossing state lines or involved in interstate commerce. Gunning someone down on the streets of New York apparently isn’t enough to attract federal jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2026, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/99 "2026-02-05T02:51:04Z")
I assume that still leaves him liable for murder under the state laws? It seems to me the feds were just trying to hog the spotlight and make a statement. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2026, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091/100 "2026-02-05T02:56:04Z")
New York doesn’t have the death penalty. The federal government does. The federal government wanted him executed for crimes against the wealthy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/luigi-murder-case-15-000-documents/1016091.md?page=6)